To those who don't believe in eternal security...

"How does the regenerated person deal with Christ and the gospel thereof? They believe unto salvation, correct? (this is where face to face would be better, because we could wait for your answer not assume)"

To be clear: a person “believes unto salvation” and this is why they are regenerated. What you have written above sounds like regeneration happens before salvation.

"What does scripture tell us about belief? Well, let's look...Acts 17:30 “Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent,"

This verse says nothing about belief. It is a call for people to repent. The time of ignorance of a World without a Saviour is over and now God commands all people to repent. The emphasis of this verse is on a change in God's attitude, not belief.

"Ephesians 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them and because of the hardness of their hearts."

This verse is describing why unregenerate Gentiles behave as they do. As you can see, ignorance is not the only factor in their unbelieving and sinful condition. They are also hard-hearted (See Romans 1:18-30; Jn 3:19, 20; Eph. 2: 2, 3)

"I Timothy 1:13 one who was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I received mercy because I acted out of ignorance in unbelief."

Yes, ignorance is sometimes a factor in unbelief. But not always and only. I have a good friend with whom I've shared the Gospel exhaustively and who understands it very well but who still refuses to give his life to Christ. He is not unique. His problem appears to be that hardness of heart that Ephesians 4:18 speaks of.

"I Peter 1:14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance."

See above.

"Notice that ignorance is equated with unbelief...thus the regenerated person would no longer be ignorance of Christ/the gospel, right? They would instead of living in ignorance be living in belief, right?"

The “equation of reason” you're trying to form here concerning ignorance and belief is more complicated than you are making it out to be. As I have explained to you, ignorance is not always and only the reason for unbelief. As one of the verses you offered indicated, hardness of heart is also a factor – and more so than ignorance, in my experience. This is what Christ points to in his teaching on why the wicked refuse salvation:

John 3:19-20
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

"Now, go to Heb. 6:4 what does it say...the are enlightened...as previously shown the word enlightened means without ignorance."

But enlightened to what degree? As I pointed out to you, there are levels of enlightenment indicated in Scripture (He. 5:12, 13). Hebrews 6:4, is, I believe, speaking of superficially enlightened people, the tares of whom Christ spoke in his parable in Matthew 13:24-30.

Also, enlightenment does not mean “without ignorance.” It cannot. Saved people who are enlightened to God's truth are ignorant about a great many things, so they cannot be said to be “without ignorance.” I am saved, but I am totally ignorant about astrophysics, or brain surgery, or piloting an airplane. As your Webster's definitions indicated, being “enlightened” means both to gain knowledge and to comprehend it. But one can be enlightened in one area and ignorant in another. I'm sure you understand this; you just don't communicate it clearly in what you write. In any event, I repeat also what I have written in earlier posts: one can be more enlightened and less enlightened. There is a spectrum of enlightenment along which people stand concerning all knowledge and truth.

"Now, I am going to be as fair as I can possibly be so that you have no right to accuse me of all kinds of non sense..."

I have never accused you “of all sorts of nonsense.” This sort of statement simply communicates the myopia of your bias.

"since it does NOT say they are enlightened about anything specific we can make an excuse for it being something other than Christ/the gospel that they are enlightened in...it would be hard to make the case, but we could do so without totally destroying the text."

I have never argued for this, so why make this comment? My view is that Hebrews 6:4 is speaking of degree of enlightenment, not area of enlightenment. The tares in the Church described in the Hebrews 6 passage have some enlightenment as to the Gospel and Christ but not to the degree the born-again do.

"The context as we move along will clarify for us but at the moment what we have is a consistency that the regenerated person is enlightened in Christ/the gospel."

Sure, I can grant you that. But so are many unregenerate people. As I have explained to you, I know of unbelievers who have a very good grasp of both the Gospel and the nature of the Person of Christ. It is faulty reasoning to assume that because the saved person is enlightened the unsaved person must not be. As Scripture points out, they may be unsaved, not because they are ignorant, but because their hearts have been hardened to the truth. As I said, the tares in the Church are inoculated against the truth. They hear it all the time; they know it very well; they have some enlightenment. But they have got in the habit of a shallow response to God's truth and thus have become hardened to it. It's like a person who has grown up, say, in Paris. They know the city inside and out; all its sights, and entertainments, and unique “character” are old hat. They look at the tourist thrilled to be in their city and shake their head. It's just Paris. It's not really that remarkable a place. This is what happens to tares in the Church. They are exposed to the amazing truths of God but refuse to embrace them in a saving way. They accept intellectually the truths of God, they agree His truth is right and good, and they even conform some of their behaviour to it, but they never let the Truth transform their heart. And this persistent refusal to respond to God on a heart level immunizes them to His truth. It is not surprising, then, when, as the Hebrews 6 passage says, they fall away from the faith entirely.

"Again, notice that at this point I am allowing that the person in HEB. could be enlightened in something other than Christ/the gospel so pursuing that argument will show an unwillingness on your part to listen."

???

"Number two....what are the heavenly gifts? According to the Lexicon the heavenly gift is that which is in heaven."

Not necessarily. A heavenly gift can be given from heaven, it can originate from there, and be sent to us on Earth. A heavenly gift, then, does not have to be in heaven. This was true of Christ. He was the greatest gift sent to us from heaven but he lived on Earth for thirty-three years.

The Holy Spirit is also a “heavenly gift.” He came from God the Father in heaven to you and I here on Earth. What's more, the things He imparts to us - love, joy, peace, etc. - are also “heavenly gifts” in that they originate from a heavenly Source (the Holy Spirit) and are part of the character of our Heavenly Father. Thus, the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts/fruit he imparts to us also show that not every heavenly gift is in heaven.

"Now, at one point you argued that Christ was in heaven, fair enough but what else is in heaven that the regenerated believer will experience? What about peace, joy, comfort? We are told that heaven will be for the believer a place of peace, joy, comfort, worship, right? Right? The regenerated believer has peace, joy, comfort, and worship in this life, from the moment of new birth to the eternal heavenly home."

Uh huh.

"Now, we will talk about where these things come from in a moment because the context once again ties all this together for us but for the moment all we want to focus on is the heavenly gifts. Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

"equates the good gifts of a Father's Love with none other than the HS."

Way ahead of you here. See above.

"So, what then would the gift of the regenerated believer be? The HS and the gifts thereof, right? Right. Where do we find the gifts of the HS...it's called the fruit and is found in Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith,gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law."


Uh huh.

"IOW's a touch of heaven here on earth. As previously talked about, this can only be a taste because we are not yet in heaven."

“Previously talked about”? Where? Until now you've said nothing in your post about the Spirit being merely a taste of heaven. As far as I'm aware, Scripture doesn't refer to the believer's experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit as a “taste of heaven." Heaven is only heaven, really, because God is there; He makes heaven, heavenly. So when we have the Spirit of God within us, we have the very best that heaven can offer to us to the fullest degree.

"Let me tell you a story to illustrate the point...when I was in college a friend and I were both struggling with some different matters so we decided to walk to the church and pray. As we walked to the church to pray we talked about the SS lesson, the lesson was about Moses taking off his shoes because he was standing on holy ground. So when we got to the church we decided to take off our shoes and stand on holy ground. Before either of us could make it half way down the isle to the alter we fell to our knees in worship because of the glimpse of God we received. Not with fleshly eyes but with our spirits. You see, that is a "taste of the heavenly gift" it is to experience a portion of the richness of heaven and the glory thereof of God."

This is interesting but your peculiar experience is not appropriate ground for establishing doctrine. It seems much more plausible that the “heavenly gift” is Jesus Christ, revealed in the Gospel and given to us as the Gift of Salvation (1Jn. 5:11-13). A person tastes of the heavenly gift when they hear of the gift of salvation offered to them in Christ and respond to it with joy and intellectual assent and understanding, but not repentance, and surrender, and heart acceptance.

"Now, as I said I will be as fair as possible and thus we can allow you for the moment to make the argument that they are experiencing the heavenly gifts by "rubbing elbows" so to speak with the believers in our services..."

Razzelflabben, you are in no position to “allow” anything. You can disagree, if you like, but it is Scripture and sound reasoning that allows or disallows our ideas, not you.

"but don't forget that we have to look at context and the first thing listed says they are no longer ignorant. So how would a non believer who is no longer ignorant of the things of God only be able to participate in the heavenly gifts without being part of them? This is a question I can NOT answer but I encourage you to do so."

Quite obviously, a tare who has heard the Gospel and sat under the teaching of Scripture in the Church is no longer totally spiritually ignorant. As I have explained, they “taste of the heavenly gift” first and foremost when they hear the Gospel and learn of Christ, and then as they involve themselves in the various ministries of the Church and experience the Holy Spirit working in and through those ministries and through the genuine believers leading those ministries.

"They have also shared in the HS. Now you and I have had some disagreements about what that means but let's look at it fairly, shall we?"

I have done all along.

"The word can be translated partake, share, partner. Here it is cut and pasted from the STrong's concordance site....

1. sharing in, partaking
   
2. a partner (in a work, office, dignity)
   

so here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures you know the totality of scripture. These are the only times it is used so it is significant to review them...

Luk 5:7

And they beckoned unto their partners, G3353 which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

here it is being used as a way of inviting someone to join and they do...."

No, this isn't how the term is being used. “Partner” is used here to describe or refer to those who were in the other ship.

"Heb 1:9

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. G3353

Here it is talking about the anointing of God....which pushes us toward the understanding of regenerated but that isn't enough either..."

No, you've got it wrong here again. The verse in its entirety is talking of Christ who is “anointed by God above his fellows.” But “fellows” (or “companions” in some versions), which is the word in question, is never clearly defined. We are not told who the fellows are. All you can say is that the word “partaker” is rendered here as “fellow” (or “companion). The rest of what the verse says has no bearing on our discussion of the meaning and use of “metochos”.

"Heb 3:1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers G3353 of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Notice here that they brethren or regenerated believer is partaking of the heavenly calling which makes any other interpretation of Heb. than that of true believer very difficult to manage. But we can keep looking."

As you have demonstrated above, “metochos” (rendered “partaker” “sharer” and “partner” in the Bible) is used in a variety of contexts in Scripture. How it is used in one instance, however, does not necessarily confine or determine how it is used in another. This is true for many words we find in Scripture. In this instance in Hebrews 3:1, the “holy brethren” are described as “partakers (metochos) of the heavenly calling” but you just cited a verse that used the same word in reference to fishermen (those guys in the other boat)! All, then, that you've managed to establish so far is that “metochos” is widely used to refer to people in a variety of capacities and relationships to one another. None of the verses you've offered so far say anything more about how to read “metochos” in Hebrews 6:4.

"Heb 3:14

For we are made partakers G3353 of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Partakers of Christ makes us true believers if we stay the course which is pretty much the exact same thing Heb. says,"

No, all the verse says is that we share in (are made partakers of) Christ (what that means exactly is not made clear in the verse) so long as we hold our confidence in him steadfastly unto the end. Nothing is said of "true believers." In context, the writer of Hebrews is speaking of the hardening effect of sin and the need for believers to encourage one another against such hardening (vs. 13). Obviously, if we let doubt and unbelief toward God develop (vs. 12), we cannot share in all that Christ has to offer to us in the Spirit. Our unbelief hampers our fellowship with God and hardens us, but it does not destroy our adoption into God's family. Such an idea is not evident in the verse nor is your assertion that being a partaker of Christ makes one a “true believer.” Tares partake of Christ in a superficial, second-hand way even though they are not saved.

"staying the course is necessary."

Necessary to what? To “partaking of Christ.” What does that mean? Salvation? The verse doesn't say. Yes, “staying the course” is very important - but not to retaining one's salvation. “Partaking of Christ” in this instance has, I believe, to do with our fellowship with God, not our relationship to Him. If we want to enjoy Christ, to partake in rich fellowship with him and in all the spiritual benefits such fellowship entails, then we must remain confident in him. Whatever our doubts may be, however, God remains faithful to the work He has done in us. We cannot lose the relationship to Him He created and maintains.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.

"But again, I want no questions so what about the HS not the Christ? Well, who receives the HS? See, just receiving Christ is enough to call us true believers but the HS is only given to the true believers."

Receiving Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ by Paul:

Romans 8:9
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

"Heb 6:4

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers G3353 of the Holy Ghost,

this is the one we are talking about....

Heb 12:8

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, G3353 then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Notice that here being partaker is equated to being a believer who is corrected and thus a true son of the Living God...iow's a regenerated believer is one who is a corrected son..."

Yes, being a partaker of divine chastisement is a mark of the child of God.

"this leave little room for understanding it as anything be the true believer when we add all the things together the case is overwhelming. But we aren't done....let's keep going"

What is the “it” you're referring to here? You have referred to a great many things; which of them do you mean, exactly? As for an “overwhelming case,” I think not. See my comments above.

"tasted God's good word and the powers of the coming age...this is two parts, part one the good word...Notice what Matthew 13 tells us about the true believer...verse 23 But the one sown on the good ground—this is one who hears and understands the word, who does bear fruit and yields: some 100, some 60, some 30 times what was sown.”

The true believer hears the word and understands it, iow's He tastes it...(I know you have a problem with the word taste, just be patient)"

No, I don't have any problem with the word “taste.” It's a perfectly fine word. What I have a problem with is how you are trying to restrict its meaning. The verse from Matthew 13 tells us what is true of a believer but it doesn't tell us what is not true of an unbeliever. The verse doesn't say, “And an unbeliever will never understand the word that is sown.” In fact, in the parable of the Sower, all but the first sort of person receives the word, that is, they have some understanding of it (one is even made joyful by what he hears which seems to indicate very clearly that he understood the word he heard). So, we can't take the parable as teaching that all unbelievers do not understand the Gospel and all believers do. This isn't what Christ says and it isn't what is evidenced in reality. As I have said, I know non-believers who know the Gospel very well.

"Look at some of the cross references about tasting...Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!

1 Peter 2:3
since you have tasted that the Lord is good.

even Heb. 2:9 tells us that to taste is to ingest it..."

I have never indicated that it doesn't mean to ingest. Of course tasting something usually entails ingestion! I have heard people say, though, that they had a “taste of danger” or a “taste of hard work.” Neither of these instances involved actual ingestion. In any case, my contention is over the degree or amount of experience of a thing implied by the word “taste” and the manner of that “tasting,” not whether or not actual, physical ingestion is implied.

"But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace He might taste death for everyone—crowned with glory and honor because of His suffering in death.

thus it is hard to make the case that to taste simply means to join a worship service"

Explain what you are seeing here. How are you connecting up these two things, the verse and your conclusion? You are talking here like your thinking is self-evident. It's not.

As I have pointed out already, how a word is used in one verse is not necessarily how it is used in another. “Taste” may mean “experience fully” in one instance and “experience partially” in another. The above verse does not in any way require the reader of Hebrews 6:4 to think that how Christ tasted of death is how the believer (or unbeliever) tastes of the heavenly gift. I could cite you verses in Scripture where the sense in which “taste” is used is clearly in the “partial/limited experience” sense (Matt. 27:34; Jn. 2:9) . Does this automatically mean this is how Hebrews 6:4 must be read? I doubt you'd agree. There is more, then, to establishing why a word is read in a particular way than simply listing its appearance in other verses.

"especially when they are tasting the word of God and the power thereof...."

How does what they taste change anything about how I read the word “taste” in Hebrews 6:4? If my contention is over degree of “taste” (partial or full) and how the tasting is done (second-hand or directly), what is tasted is of little or no relevance.

"now, let me also give you this passage...II Timothy 3:5 holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people!


this passage tells us two important things as it applies to the interpretation of Heb 6...1. if they have "tasted" the power of true belief, they are true believers"

Not so. Believers often have doubts about their faith, which is why in Scripture they are encouraged to resist their doubts and trust in God. And how are you using the term “tasted” here? It is begging the question to assume your conclusion, which is that “tasted”means “full experience of.” You have not yet shown that is how “tasted” in Hebrews 6:4 must be read.

"and 2. if they only have a form of godliness but deny the power therein they are not to be in our midst...iow's they wouldn't be part of the church that you are trying to claim they are partaking of."

No, this is an unwarranted conclusion. Non-believers can (and do) experience “the power of true belief” in a second-hand way. The tares in the Church do so often. And the whole reason they do so without being regarded as those described in 2 Timothy 3:5 and removed from the Church is because, externally, they so closely resemble genuine believers.

"Now I don't know of any passage that tells us to avoid the seekers, the goats (aka unbelievers in our midst), or the unbeliever in general in fact we are to Love them as Christ did which is in their midst. But the one who has the belief in Christ but denies the power of that Christ we are to avoid."

Only if they behave in the way that Paul describes to Timothy. Many counterfeit believers think they are in fact saved! They don't carry on as the wicked men Paul describes to Timothy but act almost identically to the genuinely born-again.

"That is a very strong case for the one talked about in Heb. as being a true believer being they have "tasted" that power."

Not so. See above.

"Finally, let us continue to look at the context...notice the word return to repentance in verse 6...this returning is important to the context because one cannot return to what was never there to begin with. IOW's they had once known the richness and forgiveness of repenting of one's sins."

I know non-believers who have made quite a habit of repentance. And it is precisely because they are not truly saved that they do so. They “lay again the foundation of repentance” over and over and think it pious and right. And many genuine believers applaud them. But it is because their repentance is not of a godly sort (though it may appear that it is) that they often eventually fall away entirely from the faith, tired of constantly having to repent of a life they've never really turned from – just like we read of in Hebrews 6.

"Now the question I asked you to keep in mind throughout this discussion...what does the regenerated believer look like? Remember...how does the true believer become regenerated? It's a reconciliation that requires the confession and repentance of our sins...."

What is the “it's” you're talking about here, exactly? Do you mean regeneration is “a reconciliation that requires the confession and repentance of our sins”? If so, it would be more accurate, I think, to say that regeneration is the consequence of reconciliation.

"2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Psalms 32:5 I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

Psalms 41:4 As for me, I said, “O LORD, be gracious to me; heal me, for I have sinned against you!”

Psalms 69:5 O God, you know my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

Isaiah 55:5 Behold, you shall call a nation that you do not know, and a nation that did not know you shall run to you, because of the LORD your God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you.

Isaiah 55:6-7 “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Acts 8:22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.

Psalms 34:14 Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

Psalms 38:18 I confess my iniquity; I am sorry for my sin.

Ezekiel 18:21-23 But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Luke 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

Luke 15:7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 3:3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.

SEE, the context clarifies every single question you threw against it and tells us without question that the one falling away in Heb. 6 was a true believer."

Again, you're assuming that what you see here as conclusive proof of your view is self-evident. As my responses to you have shown, this is not the case. You make a statement here without any explanation. I assume you think all you've written earlier shows you to be correct “without question.” Unfortunately for you, you have not shown that the “context clarifies every question I've had” in your favour. See above.

"there are other passages that say the same thing but our discussion was about Heb. 6 and using common literary rules, the Lexicon (translation definitions), ley way to make you happy, context, and context of the totality of scripture there is only one possible interpretation for the person in Heb. 6 that is falling away...they were the regenerated believer that you claim they were not. There is no other way to see it in context..."

Nope. You simply haven't shown this. It's too bad since you've made such an effort. I don't know whose been teaching you how to reason from the Scriptures, but they've been doing a very poor job.

Selah.

DingDing said:

I can weigh in, if you like, on Hebrews 6:4-6, but my perspective would not align with an OSAS position.

Click to expand...

I suspect we both come to the same conclusion but I was hoping for challenge of the conclusion by the opposite side because I firmly believe that truth can withstand challenge without any problem whereas lies fall to it every time.

aiki said:

"The word can be translated partake, share, partner. Here it is cut and pasted from the STrong's concordance site....

1. sharing in, partaking
2. a partner (in a work, office, dignity)

so here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures you know the totality of scripture. These are the only times it is used so it is significant to review them...

Luk 5:7

And they beckoned unto their partners, G3353 which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

here it is being used as a way of inviting someone to join and they do...."

No, this isn't how the term is being used. “Partner” is used here to describe or refer to those who were in the other ship.

Click to expand...

please for the sake of sanity, read what I said and specify what you don't understand so that I can improve communication.

"Heb 1:9

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. G3353

Here it is talking about the anointing of God....which pushes us toward the understanding of regenerated but that isn't enough either..."

No, you've got it wrong here again. The verse in its entirety is talking of Christ who is “anointed by God above his fellows.” But “fellows” (or “companions” in some versions), which is the word in question, is never clearly defined. We are not told who the fellows are. All you can say is that the word “partaker” is rendered here as “fellow” (or “companion). The rest of what the verse says has no bearing on our discussion of the meaning and use of “metochos”.

Click to expand...

Question for you...who do you think God's fellow's are? His enemies? What in scripture would cause you to take that interpretation?

"Heb 3:1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers G3353 of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Notice here that they brethren or regenerated believer is partaking of the heavenly calling which makes any other interpretation of Heb. than that of true believer very difficult to manage. But we can keep looking."

As you have demonstrated above, “metochos” (rendered “partaker” “sharer” and “partner” in the Bible) is used in a variety of contexts in Scripture. How it is used in one instance, however, does not necessarily confine or determine how it is used in another. This is true for many words we find in Scripture. In this instance in Hebrews 3:1, the “holy brethren” are described as “partakers (metochos) of the heavenly calling” but you just cited a verse that used the same word in reference to fishermen (those guys in the other boat)! All, then, that you've managed to establish so far is that “metochos” is widely used to refer to people in a variety of capacities and relationships to one another. None of the verses you've offered so far say anything more about how to read “metochos” in Hebrews 6:4.

Click to expand...

which shows you once again are NOT listening or responding to the point being made. Which is why we can be done.

"Heb 3:14

For we are made partakers G3353 of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Partakers of Christ makes us true believers if we stay the course which is pretty much the exact same thing Heb. says,"

No, all the verse says is that we share in (are made partakers of) Christ (what that means exactly is not made clear in the verse) so long as we hold our confidence in him steadfastly unto the end. Nothing is said of "true believers." In context, the writer of Hebrews is speaking of the hardening effect of sin and the need for believers to encourage one another against such hardening (vs. 13). Obviously, if we let doubt and unbelief toward God develop (vs. 12), we cannot share in all that Christ has to offer to us in the Spirit. Our unbelief hampers our fellowship with God and hardens us, but it does not destroy our adoption into God's family. Such an idea is not evident in the verse nor is your assertion that being a partaker of Christ makes one a “true believer.” Tares partake of Christ in a superficial, second-hand way even though they are not saved.

Click to expand...

again,, you are not dealing with what I said so let me ask you this...according to the above passage, who are the partakers of Christ? Specifically...no side stepping. Make sure to look at the context carefully before you answer the question.

"staying the course is necessary."

Necessary to what? To “partaking of Christ.” What does that mean? Salvation? The verse doesn't say. Yes, “staying the course” is very important - but not to retaining one's salvation. “Partaking of Christ” in this instance has, I believe, to do with our fellowship with God, not our relationship to Him. If we want to enjoy Christ, to partake in rich fellowship with him and in all the spiritual benefits such fellowship entails, then we must remain confident in him. Whatever our doubts may be, however, God remains faithful to the work He has done in us. We cannot lose the relationship to Him He created and maintains.

Click to expand...

Now, you are really starting to sound like a broken record again instead of addressing what I said...remember at this point we are NOT talking about whether or not OSAS is accurate or not, only what the scriptures tell us, so you start off your rebuttal with a premise that is in violation of good exegesis...second, I am curious where in scripture you get the idea that God fellowships with unbelievers...consider this passage...Ephesians 5:11
Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

1 John 1:6
If we say we have fellowship with Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

as you formulate your answer and remember I am looking for scripture and fellowshiping not about ministering to.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.

"But again, I want no questions so what about the HS not the Christ? Well, who receives the HS? See, just receiving Christ is enough to call us true believers but the HS is only given to the true believers."

Receiving Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ by Paul:

Romans 8:9
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Click to expand...

Christ went to heaven and sent the HS to believers...it's pretty basic biblical understanding do I need to show it to you?

"Heb 6:4

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers G3353 of the Holy Ghost,

this is the one we are talking about....

Heb 12:8

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, G3353 then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Notice that here being partaker is equated to being a believer who is corrected and thus a true son of the Living God...iow's a regenerated believer is one who is a corrected son..."

Yes, being a partaker of divine chastisement is a mark of the child of God.

"this leave little room for understanding it as anything be the true believer when we add all the things together the case is overwhelming. But we aren't done....let's keep going"

What is the “it” you're referring to here? You have referred to a great many things; which of them do you mean, exactly? As for an “overwhelming case,” I think not. See my comments above.

Click to expand...

ah...did you read all the posts that showed all the evidence or just picked through those you thought you could manipulate? I ask because you didn't even include in this post where I said I could negotiate the conclusion but we have to move on and look at the whole passage....

aiki said:

"tasted God's good word and the powers of the coming age...this is two parts, part one the good word...Notice what Matthew 13 tells us about the true believer...verse 23 But the one sown on the good ground—this is one who hears and understands the word, who does bear fruit and yields: some 100, some 60, some 30 times what was sown.”

The true believer hears the word and understands it, iow's He tastes it...(I know you have a problem with the word taste, just be patient)"

No, I don't have any problem with the word “taste.” It's a perfectly fine word. What I have a problem with is how you are trying to restrict its meaning. The verse from Matthew 13 tells us what is true of a believer but it doesn't tell us what is not true of an unbeliever. The verse doesn't say, “And an unbeliever will never understand the word that is sown.” In fact, in the parable of the Sower, all but the first sort of person receives the word, that is, they have some understanding of it (one is even made joyful by what he hears which seems to indicate very clearly that he understood the word he heard). So, we can't take the parable as teaching that all unbelievers do not understand the Gospel and all believers do. This isn't what Christ says and it isn't what is evidenced in reality. As I have said, I know non-believers who know the Gospel very well.

Click to expand...

so you think you can make your case by inflating what I said into something I didn't rather than offering scripture? Sorry no go, I am looking for God's intent not your manipulation. In fact, all I pointed out here is that the Heb. passage is consistent with what scripture says about the true believe...I said nothing more. See, as best I can tell one of the biggest downfall of people who claim some interpretation as correct and refuse to look into other options is that they refuse to accept and understand the very simplest of truths because if they do, they are afraid that they will no longer be able to make their case. In fact, at this point in the discussion I would have nothing to say about whether or not an unbeliever can know and understand the gospel only that according to the passage, true believers do....

"Look at some of the cross references about tasting...Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!

1 Peter 2:3
since you have tasted that the Lord is good.

even Heb. 2:9 tells us that to taste is to ingest it..."

I have never indicated that it doesn't mean to ingest. Of course tasting something usually entails ingestion! I have heard people say, though, that they had a “taste of danger” or a “taste of hard work.” Neither of these instances involved actual ingestion. In any case, my contention is over the degree or amount of experience of a thing implied by the word “taste” and the manner of that “tasting,” not whether or not actual, physical ingestion is implied.

Click to expand...

who cares what you think? Seriously you keep talking about what you think when what I am asking for is what God says and thinks...here He clearly thinks it's more than touching it to the tongue and then spitting it out...that is all...If you refuse to look at scripture and see what it says, how can you expect your opinion to match Gods'?

"But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace He might taste death for everyone—crowned with glory and honor because of His suffering in death.

thus it is hard to make the case that to taste simply means to join a worship service"

Explain what you are seeing here. How are you connecting up these two things, the verse and your conclusion? You are talking here like your thinking is self-evident. It's not.

Click to expand...

clearly if Christ stated death for everyone it is more than just touching it to His lips then spitting it out...here as above tasting is much more than just a quick lick.

As I have pointed out already, how a word is used in one verse is not necessarily how it is used in another. “Taste” may mean “experience fully” in one instance and “experience partially” in another. The above verse does not in any way require the reader of Hebrews 6:4 to think that how Christ tasted of death is how the believer (or unbeliever) tastes of the heavenly gift. I could cite you verses in Scripture where the sense in which “taste” is used is clearly in the “partial/limited experience” sense (Matt. 27:34; Jn. 2:9) . Does this automatically mean this is how Hebrews 6:4 must be read? I doubt you'd agree. There is more, then, to establishing why a word is read in a particular way than simply listing its appearance in other verses.

Click to expand...

wow, i even told you that we were looking at how the word is used throughout scripture, iow's a pattern of usage...that does NOT mean that is the absolute conclusion but it DOES give us a pattern of usage that is part of context.

"especially when they are tasting the word of God and the power thereof...."

How does what they taste change anything about how I read the word “taste” in Hebrews 6:4? If my contention is over degree of “taste” (partial or full) and how the tasting is done (second-hand or directly), what is tasted is of little or no relevance.

Click to expand...

see, now here you go again trying to defend your stand when all you are being asked to do is look at scripture including but not limited to the totality of scripture so that we can identify what God intends not what you want to believe. Quite frankly, I don't care what you believe, I care what God says and I have repeatedly told you this yet all you offer is your belief. If all you want to offer is a repeat of your beliefs, please don't respond to my posts anymore.

"now, let me also give you this passage...II Timothy 3:5 holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people!


this passage tells us two important things as it applies to the interpretation of Heb 6...1. if they have "tasted" the power of true belief, they are true believers"

Not so. Believers often have doubts about their faith, which is why in Scripture they are encouraged to resist their doubts and trust in God. And how are you using the term “tasted” here? It is begging the question to assume your conclusion, which is that “tasted”means “full experience of.” You have not yet shown that is how “tasted” in Hebrews 6:4 must be read.

Click to expand...

wow...1. issue, I said nothing about doubting, now did I...that is your misrepresentation of what I said....2. as I just pointed out, scripture repeatedly uses "taste" to talk about full experience not a touch of the tongue kind of thing. As such we see a clear pattern that should inform our understanding. No, a pattern is not an absolute, but I admitted that several times over in my posts, it does however give us a clue what God intends when He inspires the writers to use the word.

"and 2. if they only have a form of godliness but deny the power therein they are not to be in our midst...iow's they wouldn't be part of the church that you are trying to claim they are partaking of."

No, this is an unwarranted conclusion. Non-believers can (and do) experience “the power of true belief” in a second-hand way. The tares in the Church do so often. And the whole reason they do so without being regarded as those described in 2 Timothy 3:5 and removed from the Church is because, externally, they so closely resemble genuine believers.

Click to expand...

so you disagree with II Timothy here...that says a lot, thanks...you see, II Timothy is talking about those that externally resemble genuine believers but aren't true believers and it says we should not allow them into our midst. You seem to think that is wrong, that we should welcome then in as per this paragraph...sorry I pick God over you...

"Now I don't know of any passage that tells us to avoid the seekers, the goats (aka unbelievers in our midst), or the unbeliever in general in fact we are to Love them as Christ did which is in their midst. But the one who has the belief in Christ but denies the power of that Christ we are to avoid."

Only if they behave in the way that Paul describes to Timothy. Many counterfeit believers think they are in fact saved! They don't carry on as the wicked men Paul describes to Timothy but act almost identically to the genuinely born-again.

Click to expand...

hum...having a form of godliness but denying it's power that is exactly what you describe as the tares...yet here you question your own interpretation...again, this speaks volumes for what to make of your conclusions.

"That is a very strong case for the one talked about in Heb. as being a true believer being they have "tasted" that power."

Not so. See above.

"Finally, let us continue to look at the context...notice the word return to repentance in verse 6...this returning is important to the context because one cannot return to what was never there to begin with. IOW's they had once known the richness and forgiveness of repenting of one's sins."

I know non-believers who have made quite a habit of repentance. And it is precisely because they are not truly saved that they do so. They “lay again the foundation of repentance” over and over and think it pious and right. And many genuine believers applaud them. But it is because their repentance is not of a godly sort (though it may appear that it is) that they often eventually fall away entirely from the faith, tired of constantly having to repent of a life they've never really turned from – just like we read of in Hebrews 6.

Click to expand...

so, you really want me to believe that God does NOT know if they are genuinely "repenting" which is a genuine act btw...how strange given that scripture says God knows the heart. You see, the passage says they CANNOT Lay again the foundation of repentance...that means that your whole paragraph here is a violation of what the passage says.

"Now the question I asked you to keep in mind throughout this discussion...what does the regenerated believer look like? Remember...how does the true believer become regenerated? It's a reconciliation that requires the confession and repentance of our sins...."

What is the “it's” you're talking about here, exactly? Do you mean regeneration is “a reconciliation that requires the confession and repentance of our sins”? If so, it would be more accurate, I think, to say that regeneration is the consequence of reconciliation.

Click to expand...

so, don't answer the questions...

"2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Psalms 32:5 I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

Psalms 41:4 As for me, I said, “O LORD, be gracious to me; heal me, for I have sinned against you!”

Psalms 69:5 O God, you know my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

Isaiah 55:5 Behold, you shall call a nation that you do not know, and a nation that did not know you shall run to you, because of the LORD your God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you.

Isaiah 55:6-7 “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Acts 8:22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.

Psalms 34:14 Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

Psalms 38:18 I confess my iniquity; I am sorry for my sin.

Ezekiel 18:21-23 But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Luke 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

Luke 15:7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 3:3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.

SEE, the context clarifies every single question you threw against it and tells us without question that the one falling away in Heb. 6 was a true believer."

Again, you're assuming that what you see here as conclusive proof of your view is self-evident. As my responses to you have shown, this is not the case. You make a statement here without any explanation. I assume you think all you've written earlier shows you to be correct “without question.” Unfortunately for you, you have not shown that the “context clarifies every question I've had” in your favour. See above.

"there are other passages that say the same thing but our discussion was about Heb. 6 and using common literary rules, the Lexicon (translation definitions), ley way to make you happy, context, and context of the totality of scripture there is only one possible interpretation for the person in Heb. 6 that is falling away...they were the regenerated believer that you claim they were not. There is no other way to see it in context..."

Nope. You simply haven't shown this. It's too bad since you've made such an effort. I don't know whose been teaching you how to reason from the Scriptures, but they've been doing a very poor job.

Selah.

Click to expand...

at least I used good sound exegetical method and all you have offered time and time again is your opinion...I guess that answers my question....Heb. 6 is without doubt talking about the true believer by your omission of exegetical discussion. Thank you for making that clear...time to move on...I would love to talk about more of the passages in question if someone from the OSAS side would be willing to discuss it from an exegetical standpoint.

aiki said:

"How does the regenerated person deal with Christ and the gospel thereof? They believe unto salvation, correct? (this is where face to face would be better, because we could wait for your answer not assume)"

To be clear: a person “believes unto salvation” and this is why they are regenerated. What you have written above sounds like regeneration happens before salvation.

Click to expand...

you need to read it again and this time for comprehension. I even just read it to my husband to ask him how it could be misunderstand and he had no idea how you could come to the conclusion you did based on what I said so that I could better communicate. That means all I got left is to ask you to reread it for comprehension.

"What does scripture tell us about belief? Well, let's look...Acts 17:30 “Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent,"

This verse says nothing about belief. It is a call for people to repent. The time of ignorance of a World without a Saviour is over and now God commands all people to repent. The emphasis of this verse is on a change in God's attitude, not belief.

Click to expand...

not really what I said, but I will give you the point none the less since I do know how you could misunderstand me here.

"Ephesians 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them and because of the hardness of their hearts."

This verse is describing why unregenerate Gentiles behave as they do. As you can see, ignorance is not the only factor in their unbelieving and sinful condition. They are also hard-hearted (See Romans 1:18-30; Jn 3:19, 20; Eph. 2: 2, 3)

Click to expand...

a hardness that comes from ignorance...but at this point I really think we are done having you testified that what I am showing is true of the passage in Heb.

"I Timothy 1:13 one who was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I received mercy because I acted out of ignorance in unbelief."

Yes, ignorance is sometimes a factor in unbelief. But not always and only. I have a good friend with whom I've shared the Gospel exhaustively and who understands it very well but who still refuses to give his life to Christ. He is not unique. His problem appears to be that hardness of heart that Ephesians 4:18 speaks of.

Click to expand...

see here, you offer this as a disagreement with me but it is not...so more of you not addressing what I am saying...this is why I think we have to be done.

"I Peter 1:14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance."

See above.

"Notice that ignorance is equated with unbelief...thus the regenerated person would no longer be ignorance of Christ/the gospel, right? They would instead of living in ignorance be living in belief, right?"

The “equation of reason” you're trying to form here concerning ignorance and belief is more complicated than you are making it out to be. As I have explained to you, ignorance is not always and only the reason for unbelief. As one of the verses you offered indicated, hardness of heart is also a factor – and more so than ignorance, in my experience. This is what Christ points to in his teaching on why the wicked refuse salvation:

John 3:19-20
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

"Now, go to Heb. 6:4 what does it say...the are enlightened...as previously shown the word enlightened means without ignorance."

But enlightened to what degree? As I pointed out to you, there are levels of enlightenment indicated in Scripture (He. 5:12, 13). Hebrews 6:4, is, I believe, speaking of superficially enlightened people, the tares of whom Christ spoke in his parable in Matthew 13:24-30.

Also, enlightenment does not mean “without ignorance.” It cannot. Saved people who are enlightened to God's truth are ignorant about a great many things, so they cannot be said to be “without ignorance.” I am saved, but I am totally ignorant about astrophysics, or brain surgery, or piloting an airplane. As your Webster's definitions indicated, being “enlightened” means both to gain knowledge and to comprehend it. But one can be enlightened in one area and ignorant in another. I'm sure you understand this; you just don't communicate it clearly in what you write. In any event, I repeat also what I have written in earlier posts: one can be more enlightened and less enlightened. There is a spectrum of enlightenment along which people stand concerning all knowledge and truth.

"Now, I am going to be as fair as I can possibly be so that you have no right to accuse me of all kinds of non sense..."

I have never accused you “of all sorts of nonsense.” This sort of statement simply communicates the myopia of your bias.

"since it does NOT say they are enlightened about anything specific we can make an excuse for it being something other than Christ/the gospel that they are enlightened in...it would be hard to make the case, but we could do so without totally destroying the text."

I have never argued for this, so why make this comment? My view is that Hebrews 6:4 is speaking of degree of enlightenment, not area of enlightenment. The tares in the Church described in the Hebrews 6 passage have some enlightenment as to the Gospel and Christ but not to the degree the born-again do.

Click to expand...

I am ignoring much of this because it's just the same thing over and over...even when I give your opinion the benefit of the doubt you find a way to take offense which is disturbing...but let me point out that I did NOT say this was your opinion yet here you are accusing me of saying something I clearly did NOT say. This is flaming and you have done it many times over.

"The context as we move along will clarify for us but at the moment what we have is a consistency that the regenerated person is enlightened in Christ/the gospel."

Sure, I can grant you that. But so are many unregenerate people. As I have explained to you, I know of unbelievers who have a very good grasp of both the Gospel and the nature of the Person of Christ. It is faulty reasoning to assume that because the saved person is enlightened the unsaved person must not be. As Scripture points out, they may be unsaved, not because they are ignorant, but because their hearts have been hardened to the truth. As I said, the tares in the Church are inoculated against the truth. They hear it all the time; they know it very well; they have some enlightenment. But they have got in the habit of a shallow response to God's truth and thus have become hardened to it. It's like a person who has grown up, say, in Paris. They know the city inside and out; all its sights, and entertainments, and unique “character” are old hat. They look at the tourist thrilled to be in their city and shake their head. It's just Paris. It's not really that remarkable a place. This is what happens to tares in the Church. They are exposed to the amazing truths of God but refuse to embrace them in a saving way. They accept intellectually the truths of God, they agree His truth is right and good, and they even conform some of their behaviour to it, but they never let the Truth transform their heart. And this persistent refusal to respond to God on a heart level immunizes them to His truth. It is not surprising, then, when, as the Hebrews 6 passage says, they fall away from the faith entirely.

"Again, notice that at this point I am allowing that the person in HEB. could be enlightened in something other than Christ/the gospel so pursuing that argument will show an unwillingness on your part to listen."

???

"Number two....what are the heavenly gifts? According to the Lexicon the heavenly gift is that which is in heaven."

Not necessarily. A heavenly gift can be given from heaven, it can originate from there, and be sent to us on Earth. A heavenly gift, then, does not have to be in heaven. This was true of Christ. He was the greatest gift sent to us from heaven but he lived on Earth for thirty-three years.

The Holy Spirit is also a “heavenly gift.” He came from God the Father in heaven to you and I here on Earth. What's more, the things He imparts to us - love, joy, peace, etc. - are also “heavenly gifts” in that they originate from a heavenly Source (the Holy Spirit) and are part of the character of our Heavenly Father. Thus, the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts/fruit he imparts to us also show that not every heavenly gift is in heaven.

Click to expand...

seriously, face palm is all I got here....at least as it addresses what I have written. You are free to reread my post to see why I say that.

"Now, at one point you argued that Christ was in heaven, fair enough but what else is in heaven that the regenerated believer will experience? What about peace, joy, comfort? We are told that heaven will be for the believer a place of peace, joy, comfort, worship, right? Right? The regenerated believer has peace, joy, comfort, and worship in this life, from the moment of new birth to the eternal heavenly home."

Uh huh.

"Now, we will talk about where these things come from in a moment because the context once again ties all this together for us but for the moment all we want to focus on is the heavenly gifts. Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

"equates the good gifts of a Father's Love with none other than the HS."

Way ahead of you here. See above.

"So, what then would the gift of the regenerated believer be? The HS and the gifts thereof, right? Right. Where do we find the gifts of the HS...it's called the fruit and is found in Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith,gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law."


Uh huh.

"IOW's a touch of heaven here on earth. As previously talked about, this can only be a taste because we are not yet in heaven."

“Previously talked about”? Where? Until now you've said nothing in your post about the Spirit being merely a taste of heaven. As far as I'm aware, Scripture doesn't refer to the believer's experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit as a “taste of heaven." Heaven is only heaven, really, because God is there; He makes heaven, heavenly. So when we have the Spirit of God within us, we have the very best that heaven can offer to us to the fullest degree.

Click to expand...

again, not what I said, which would be funny if you didn't do this sort of thing so often.

"Let me tell you a story to illustrate the point...when I was in college a friend and I were both struggling with some different matters so we decided to walk to the church and pray. As we walked to the church to pray we talked about the SS lesson, the lesson was about Moses taking off his shoes because he was standing on holy ground. So when we got to the church we decided to take off our shoes and stand on holy ground. Before either of us could make it half way down the isle to the alter we fell to our knees in worship because of the glimpse of God we received. Not with fleshly eyes but with our spirits. You see, that is a "taste of the heavenly gift" it is to experience a portion of the richness of heaven and the glory thereof of God."

This is interesting but your peculiar experience is not appropriate ground for establishing doctrine. It seems much more plausible that the “heavenly gift” is Jesus Christ, revealed in the Gospel and given to us as the Gift of Salvation (1Jn. 5:11-13). A person tastes of the heavenly gift when they hear of the gift of salvation offered to them in Christ and respond to it with joy and intellectual assent and understanding, but not repentance, and surrender, and heart acceptance.

Click to expand...

lol never said it was...just illustrated the point with personal experience and I know I am good enough at communciation for that to be understood thus I am assuming at this point that all this misrepresentation is purposeful and thus flaming so I am ignoring you till you can conform to forum rules.

"Now, as I said I will be as fair as possible and thus we can allow you for the moment to make the argument that they are experiencing the heavenly gifts by "rubbing elbows" so to speak with the believers in our services..."

Razzelflabben, you are in no position to “allow” anything. You can disagree, if you like, but it is Scripture and sound reasoning that allows or disallows our ideas, not you.

"but don't forget that we have to look at context and the first thing listed says they are no longer ignorant. So how would a non believer who is no longer ignorant of the things of God only be able to participate in the heavenly gifts without being part of them? This is a question I can NOT answer but I encourage you to do so."

Quite obviously, a tare who has heard the Gospel and sat under the teaching of Scripture in the Church is no longer totally spiritually ignorant. As I have explained, they “taste of the heavenly gift” first and foremost when they hear the Gospel and learn of Christ, and then as they involve themselves in the various ministries of the Church and experience the Holy Spirit working in and through those ministries and through the genuine believers leading those ministries.

"They have also shared in the HS. Now you and I have had some disagreements about what that means but let's look at it fairly, shall we?"

I have done all along.

Click to expand...

reasoning isn't important without scripture to back it up and I know I have said this....

“please for the sake of sanity, read what I said and specify what you don't understand so that I can improve communication.”

This is what you wrote: “here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures...it is significant to review them...

You then posted a number of Bible verses that used the word “partaker” (or “partner”). It seemed to me that you were going to establish what you said you were going to establish: How the word is used. Instead, however, you immediately do something else:

"Luk 5:7

And they beckoned unto their partners, G3353 which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

here it is being used as a way of inviting someone to join and they do...."

I responded by pointing out:

“No, this isn't how the term is being used. “Partner” is used here to describe or refer to those who were in the other ship.”

How am I in error here? You said your aim was to determine how the word “partaker/partner/sharer” (“metochos” in Greek) was being used. You got that wrong in the instance above. “Partners” in the above verse is not being used to express “a way of inviting someone to join or do.” “Partners” is a noun. That is how it is being used in the sentence. A noun identifies a person, place or thing which in this instance are the partners in the other ship. How you got “as a way of inviting someone to join” as the way the “metochos” is being used is beyond me. You don't seem to know how to fulfill the goal you set for yourself in posting the verse in the first place!

You wrote: "Heb 1:9

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. G3353

Here it is talking about the anointing of God....which pushes us toward the understanding of regenerated but that isn't enough either..."

Again, you fail in accomplishing your own goal: how the word “metochos” is used in Scripture. You don't talk about the use of the word here but offer a more generalized sense of the verse. I pointed this out:

No, you've got it wrong here again. The verse in its entirety is talking of Christ who is “anointed by God above his fellows.” But “fellows” (or “companions” in some versions), which is the word in question, is never clearly defined. We are not told who the fellows are. All you can say is that the word “partaker” is rendered here as “fellow” (or “companion). The rest of what the verse says has no bearing on our discussion of the meaning and use of “metochos”.

Let me clarify further: “Fellows” in Hebrews 1:9 is a used as a noun which identifies a person, place or thing. This is the purpose or function of the word “metochos” in this verse which is what you wanted to determine, is it not?
Remember, you wrote:

“here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures...it is significant to review them...”

And you respond, not by acknowledging that what I've pointed out is correct and completely in line with your stated aim, but by asking me this totally off-point question:

“Question for you...who do you think God's fellow's are? His enemies? What in scripture would cause you to take that interpretation?”

What does this have to do with determining how the word “metochos” is used in the verses you posted? Nothing. Nothing at all. You see, then, I hope, that from my point of view if there is any challenge to sanity going on, it is on your part. You don't stick to your own stated aims and complain when I do!

As for your question just above, I have never thought the term “fellows” in Hebrews 1:9 was referring to God's enemies and have never suggested otherwise. But, again, this doesn't have anything to do with how “metochos” is used in the verse – which is, as I said, as a noun.

You wrote: "Heb 3:1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers G3353 of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Notice here that they brethren or regenerated believer is partaking of the heavenly calling which makes any other interpretation of Heb. than that of true believer very difficult to manage. But we can keep looking."

I responded:

As you have demonstrated above, “metochos” (rendered “partaker” “sharer” and “partner” in the Bible) is used in a variety of contexts in Scripture. How it is used in one instance, however, does not necessarily confine or determine how it is used in another. This is true for many words we find in Scripture. In this instance in Hebrews 3:1, the “holy brethren” are described as “partakers (metochos) of the heavenly calling” but you just cited a verse that used the same word in reference to fishermen (those guys in the other boat)! All, then, that you've managed to establish so far is that “metochos” is widely used to refer to people in a variety of capacities and relationships to one another. None of the verses you've offered so far say anything more about how to read “metochos” in Hebrews 6:4.

To which you replied:

“which shows you once again are NOT listening or responding to the point being made. Which is why we can be done.”

This is just silly. I have remained focused very carefully on the use of “metochos” in the passages you offered. What I have pointed out above is completely pertinent to the goal you set out:

“here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures...it is significant to review them...”

You, though, don't look at all at the use of the word “metochos” in Hebrews 3:1 but at the general meaning of the verse:

“Notice here that they brethren or regenerated believer is partaking of the heavenly calling which makes any other interpretation of Heb. than that of true believer very difficult to manage.”

In spite of the fact that your comments here are a complete departure from your stated aim, I address them by pointing out that who “partakers” refers to in Hebrews 3:1 is not necessarily who it refers to elsewhere in Scripture. And then I showed you from your own selected verses how this was so. In Hebrews 3:1 it refers to “holy brethren” but in Luke 5:7 “metochos” (rendered “partners” in the verse) refers to fishermen in a neighboring boat. Should we assume, then, that “metochos” in Hebrews 6:4 refers to fishermen? Of course not. We aren't obliged, because this is who “metochos” refers to in one instance, to think this is who it refers to in every instance. But this is exactly what you're trying to do with Hebrews 3:1 and Hebrews 6:4! “Partakers” refers to “holy brethren” in Hebrews 3:1 so it must refer to the very same thing in Hebrews 6:4. Well, if this is the sum total of your reasoning, then “fisherman” will do just as well!

So, I am listening – and listening very carefully – but what I'm hearing is confused, off point, poorly thought out, and inordinately defensive.

You wrote:
"Heb 3:14

For we are made partakers G3353 of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Partakers of Christ makes us true believers if we stay the course which is pretty much the exact same thing Heb. says,"

I responded:

No, all the verse says is that we share in (are made partakers of) Christ (what that means exactly is not made clear in the verse) so long as we hold our confidence in him steadfastly unto the end. Nothing is said of "true believers." In context, the writer of Hebrews is speaking of the hardening effect of sin and the need for believers to encourage one another against such hardening (vs. 13). Obviously, if we let doubt and unbelief toward God develop (vs. 12), we cannot share in all that Christ has to offer to us in the Spirit. Our unbelief hampers our fellowship with God and hardens us, but it does not destroy our adoption into God's family. Such an idea is not evident in the verse nor is your assertion that being a partaker of Christ makes one a “true believer.” Tares partake of Christ in a superficial, second-hand way even though they are not saved.

To which you replied:

“again,, you are not dealing with what I said so let me ask you this...according to the above passage, who are the partakers of Christ? Specifically...no side stepping. Make sure to look at the context carefully before you answer the question.”

Do you see how far you've moved from what you set as your goal in posting these verses? You aren't talking at all here about how “metochos” is used but are making unfounded assertions about the meaning of the verse itself. You wrote

“Partakers of Christ makes us true believers if we stay the course which is pretty much the exact same thing Heb. says,"

Do you really not see how you're begging the question here? You believe that how you read Hebrews 6:4 is correct and so, when you find a verse that appears to reinforce your reading of Hebrews 6:4, you declare that it is doing just that. But it only reinforces your reading if, in fact, your reading of Hebrews 6:4 is correct! From my point of view, your reading of Hebrews 6:4 is wrong, so I don't see Hebrews 3:14 reinforcing your reading at all! I would have to grant that you're reading Hebrews 6:4 correctly to agree that Hebrews 3:14 reinforces your reading! But if I thought you were reading Hebrews 6:4 correctly, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

So, back to your question:

“again,, you are not dealing with what I said so let me ask you this...according to the above passage, who are the partakers of Christ? Specifically...no side stepping. Make sure to look at the context carefully before you answer the question.”

I side-stepped nothing. I clarified the contents of the verse. You're the one side-stepping by not addressing the points I made in my comments. You do this a lot. I directly addressed your question above in my initial comments about Hebrews 3:14:

“...all the verse says is that we share in (are made partakers of) Christ (what that means exactly is not made clear in the verse) so long as we hold our confidence in him steadfastly unto the end. Nothing is said of "true believers."

So, show me where what I've said is wrong. Where does the verse mention “true believers”? Where does the verse itself tell us exactly what “partaking of Christ” means? Let's see who is doing the side-stepping here.

You wrote:

“Now, you are really starting to sound like a broken record again instead of addressing what I said...

As I have shown above, I have addressed very directly what you've written. Very directly. But in every instance you avoid or deflect my points by saying they are off-point. This is a profoundly disingenuous and specious way of arguing.

"remember at this point we are NOT talking about whether or not OSAS is accurate or not, only what the scriptures tell us,"

But this is to imply what what OSAS asserts and what Scripture tells us are two different things. I don't believe that, which is why you and I are arguing. I think Scripture tells us that OSAS is correct.

so you start off your rebuttal with a premise that is in violation of good exegesis...

As I have just pointed out, this is precisely what you're doing. Your presupposition is that SAL is true. So what you mean when you say, “Scripture tells us” is “SAL is true and OSAS is not.” Well, I don't agree, which is why we are debating the matter. And you have revealed your bias very clearly in how you have interpreted the Scripture you've cited.

“second, I am curious where in scripture you get the idea that God fellowships with unbelievers...consider this passage...Ephesians 5:11
Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”

Where do I make this claim? Where do I say, “God fellowships with unbelievers”? Show me.

You wrote:

"But again, I want no questions so what about the HS not the Christ? Well, who receives the HS? See, just receiving Christ is enough to call us true believers but the HS is only given to the true believers."

I responded:

Receiving Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ by Paul:

Romans 8:9
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

To which you replied:

“Christ went to heaven and sent the HS to believers...it's pretty basic biblical understanding do I need to show it to you?”

No, you need to account for how the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ – especially when you're trying to make a sharp separation between them. What does the Bible say? “He who has the Son has life...” (1Jn. 5:12) Not “has the Spirit” but “has the Son.” Eternal spiritual life is in the Son. And it is his Spirit – the Holy Spirit - that imparts to us that life. So, the sharp distinction you're trying to make between the two is not nearly as sharp as you want it to be.

I'm going to skip over a bunch of what you wrote because it is just more of the same stuff as above: confused, deflective, poorly reasoned and highly defensive. However, I do want to comment on the following:

You wrote:

"Look at some of the cross references about tasting...Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!

1 Peter 2:3
since you have tasted that the Lord is good.

even Heb. 2:9 tells us that to taste is to ingest it..."

I responded:

I have never indicated that it doesn't mean to ingest. Of course tasting something usually entails ingestion! I have heard people say, though, that they had a “taste of danger” or a “taste of hard work.” Neither of these instances involved actual ingestion. In any case, my contention is over the degree or amount of experience of a thing implied by the word “taste” and the manner of that “tasting,” not whether or not actual, physical ingestion is implied.

This was your reply:

"who cares what you think?"

Seriously? How are we supposed to have a discussion if I don't share what I think and you share what you think? I could respond to all of the thoughts you've shared with me the very same way you just did here but that would be both very rude and nonsensical. If you don't tell me what you think, we can't have a discussion.

"Seriously you keep talking about what you think when what I am asking for is what God says and thinks..."

Hold on, here. You've been doing exactly what I've been doing! You've been telling me what you think Scripture says. Shall I simply dismiss it all with your remark above? Shall I wave off all your interpretations and explanations of verses with a “Who cares what you think? I want God's view!” reply? “What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” Razzelflabben. If this is the sort of tactic you want to employ, you might want to remember that it cuts both ways.

"here He clearly thinks it's more than touching it to the tongue and then spitting it out..."

No, this is what you think He clearly thinks.

that is all...If you refuse to look at scripture and see what it says, how can you expect your opinion to match Gods'?

LOL! Right back at you! You have given me your interpretation of what Scripture says – just as I have given you mine. What we are trying to figure out is whose is correct. You can't assume your interpretation of Scripture, what you think it says, is correct. I have shown you now a great number of times that there is another way to understand and interpret Scripture which you seem to think may be dismissed with, “I'm obviously right, so who cares what you think?” If you believe this is how you're going to come to the truth of things, I'm sorry to tell you that you never will.

So, anyway, I'm quite done with talking to you. I could go through the rest of your posts and show how confused, and deflective, and silly your reasoning is, but I think there are sharply diminishing returns in doing so. I will leave it to the readers of this thread to decide who has been more thoughtful and careful with Scripture. At the very least, I believe I have demonstrated that the OSAS position is not the Strawman position you set up earlier in the thread.

Readers, if you want to know what the OSAS position really is, don't ask their opponents for it. As you can see, from this thread, some of those opponents don't have a clue.

Selah.

aiki said:

“please for the sake of sanity, read what I said and specify what you don't understand so that I can improve communication.”

This is what you wrote: “here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures...it is significant to review them...

You then posted a number of Bible verses that used the word “partaker” (or “partner”). It seemed to me that you were going to establish what you said you were going to establish: How the word is used. Instead, however, you immediately do something else:

"Luk 5:7

And they beckoned unto their partners, G3353 which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

here it is being used as a way of inviting someone to join and they do...."

I responded by pointing out:

“No, this isn't how the term is being used. “Partner” is used here to describe or refer to those who were in the other ship.”

How am I in error here? You said your aim was to determine how the word “partaker/partner/sharer” (“metochos” in Greek) was being used. You got that wrong in the instance above. “Partners” in the above verse is not being used to express “a way of inviting someone to join or do.” “Partners” is a noun. That is how it is being used in the sentence. A noun identifies a person, place or thing which in this instance are the partners in the other ship. How you got “as a way of inviting someone to join” as the way the “metochos” is being used is beyond me. You don't seem to know how to fulfill the goal you set for yourself in posting the verse in the first place!

Click to expand...

Because that is exactly what I said it said only I didn't waste a lot of space and time to do so.

You wrote: "Heb 1:9

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. G3353

Here it is talking about the anointing of God....which pushes us toward the understanding of regenerated but that isn't enough either..."

Again, you fail in accomplishing your own goal: how the word “metochos” is used in Scripture. You don't talk about the use of the word here but offer a more generalized sense of the verse. I pointed this out:

No, you've got it wrong here again. The verse in its entirety is talking of Christ who is “anointed by God above his fellows.” But “fellows” (or “companions” in some versions), which is the word in question, is never clearly defined. We are not told who the fellows are. All you can say is that the word “partaker” is rendered here as “fellow” (or “companion). The rest of what the verse says has no bearing on our discussion of the meaning and use of “metochos”.

Let me clarify further: “Fellows” in Hebrews 1:9 is a used as a noun which identifies a person, place or thing. This is the purpose or function of the word “metochos” in this verse which is what you wanted to determine, is it not?
Remember, you wrote:

“here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures...it is significant to review them...”

And you respond, not by acknowledging that what I've pointed out is correct and completely in line with your stated aim, but by asking me this totally off-point question:

“Question for you...who do you think God's fellow's are? His enemies? What in scripture would cause you to take that interpretation?”

What does this have to do with determining how the word “metochos” is used in the verses you posted? Nothing. Nothing at all. You see, then, I hope, that from my point of view if there is any challenge to sanity going on, it is on your part. You don't stick to your own stated aims and complain when I do!

As for your question just above, I have never thought the term “fellows” in Hebrews 1:9 was referring to God's enemies and have never suggested otherwise. But, again, this doesn't have anything to do with how “metochos” is used in the verse – which is, as I said, as a noun.

Click to expand...

again, in context, what I said about the passage...see, you have in your mind (according to your post) that I am trying to convince you of something or twist the meaning and therefore you read into what I say what is not there and try to use that to mock me...I don't have to subject myself or my posts to that kind of flaming...

You wrote: "Heb 3:1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers G3353 of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Notice here that they brethren or regenerated believer is partaking of the heavenly calling which makes any other interpretation of Heb. than that of true believer very difficult to manage. But we can keep looking."

I responded:

As you have demonstrated above, “metochos” (rendered “partaker” “sharer” and “partner” in the Bible) is used in a variety of contexts in Scripture. How it is used in one instance, however, does not necessarily confine or determine how it is used in another. This is true for many words we find in Scripture. In this instance in Hebrews 3:1, the “holy brethren” are described as “partakers (metochos) of the heavenly calling” but you just cited a verse that used the same word in reference to fishermen (those guys in the other boat)! All, then, that you've managed to establish so far is that “metochos” is widely used to refer to people in a variety of capacities and relationships to one another. None of the verses you've offered so far say anything more about how to read “metochos” in Hebrews 6:4.

To which you replied:

“which shows you once again are NOT listening or responding to the point being made. Which is why we can be done.”

This is just silly. I have remained focused very carefully on the use of “metochos” in the passages you offered. What I have pointed out above is completely pertinent to the goal you set out:

“here is the list from the same source of how the word is used throughout the scriptures...it is significant to review them...”

You, though, don't look at all at the use of the word “metochos” in Hebrews 3:1 but at the general meaning of the verse:

“Notice here that they brethren or regenerated believer is partaking of the heavenly calling which makes any other interpretation of Heb. than that of true believer very difficult to manage.”

In spite of the fact that your comments here are a complete departure from your stated aim, I address them by pointing out that who “partakers” refers to in Hebrews 3:1 is not necessarily who it refers to elsewhere in Scripture. And then I showed you from your own selected verses how this was so. In Hebrews 3:1 it refers to “holy brethren” but in Luke 5:7 “metochos” (rendered “partners” in the verse) refers to fishermen in a neighboring boat. Should we assume, then, that “metochos” in Hebrews 6:4 refers to fishermen? Of course not. We aren't obliged, because this is who “metochos” refers to in one instance, to think this is who it refers to in every instance. But this is exactly what you're trying to do with Hebrews 3:1 and Hebrews 6:4! “Partakers” refers to “holy brethren” in Hebrews 3:1 so it must refer to the very same thing in Hebrews 6:4. Well, if this is the sum total of your reasoning, then “fisherman” will do just as well!

So, I am listening – and listening very carefully – but what I'm hearing is confused, off point, poorly thought out, and inordinately defensive.

Click to expand...

you didn't respond to anything I said only what you made up in your mind you thought or wanted me to say which is why we are done, because you continue to do this no matter what I say or do to try to get you to listen to what I said and respond to that.

aiki said:

You wrote:
"Heb 3:14

For we are made partakers G3353 of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Partakers of Christ makes us true believers if we stay the course which is pretty much the exact same thing Heb. says,"

I responded:

No, all the verse says is that we share in (are made partakers of) Christ (what that means exactly is not made clear in the verse) so long as we hold our confidence in him steadfastly unto the end. Nothing is said of "true believers." In context, the writer of Hebrews is speaking of the hardening effect of sin and the need for believers to encourage one another against such hardening (vs. 13). Obviously, if we let doubt and unbelief toward God develop (vs. 12), we cannot share in all that Christ has to offer to us in the Spirit. Our unbelief hampers our fellowship with God and hardens us, but it does not destroy our adoption into God's family. Such an idea is not evident in the verse nor is your assertion that being a partaker of Christ makes one a “true believer.” Tares partake of Christ in a superficial, second-hand way even though they are not saved.

To which you replied:

“again,, you are not dealing with what I said so let me ask you this...according to the above passage, who are the partakers of Christ? Specifically...no side stepping. Make sure to look at the context carefully before you answer the question.”

Do you see how far you've moved from what you set as your goal in posting these verses? You aren't talking at all here about how “metochos” is used but are making unfounded assertions about the meaning of the verse itself. You wrote

“Partakers of Christ makes us true believers if we stay the course which is pretty much the exact same thing Heb. says,"

Do you really not see how you're begging the question here? You believe that how you read Hebrews 6:4 is correct and so, when you find a verse that appears to reinforce your reading of Hebrews 6:4, you declare that it is doing just that. But it only reinforces your reading if, in fact, your reading of Hebrews 6:4 is correct! From my point of view, your reading of Hebrews 6:4 is wrong, so I don't see Hebrews 3:14 reinforcing your reading at all! I would have to grant that you're reading Hebrews 6:4 correctly to agree that Hebrews 3:14 reinforces your reading! But if I thought you were reading Hebrews 6:4 correctly, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

So, back to your question:

“again,, you are not dealing with what I said so let me ask you this...according to the above passage, who are the partakers of Christ? Specifically...no side stepping. Make sure to look at the context carefully before you answer the question.”

I side-stepped nothing. I clarified the contents of the verse. You're the one side-stepping by not addressing the points I made in my comments. You do this a lot. I directly addressed your question above in my initial comments about Hebrews 3:14:

“...all the verse says is that we share in (are made partakers of) Christ (what that means exactly is not made clear in the verse) so long as we hold our confidence in him steadfastly unto the end. Nothing is said of "true believers."

So, show me where what I've said is wrong. Where does the verse mention “true believers”? Where does the verse itself tell us exactly what “partaking of Christ” means? Let's see who is doing the side-stepping here.

You wrote:

“Now, you are really starting to sound like a broken record again instead of addressing what I said...

As I have shown above, I have addressed very directly what you've written. Very directly. But in every instance you avoid or deflect my points by saying they are off-point. This is a profoundly disingenuous and specious way of arguing.

"remember at this point we are NOT talking about whether or not OSAS is accurate or not, only what the scriptures tell us,"

But this is to imply what what OSAS asserts and what Scripture tells us are two different things. I don't believe that, which is why you and I are arguing. I think Scripture tells us that OSAS is correct.

so you start off your rebuttal with a premise that is in violation of good exegesis...

As I have just pointed out, this is precisely what you're doing. Your presupposition is that SAL is true. So what you mean when you say, “Scripture tells us” is “SAL is true and OSAS is not.” Well, I don't agree, which is why we are debating the matter. And you have revealed your bias very clearly in how you have interpreted the Scripture you've cited.

“second, I am curious where in scripture you get the idea that God fellowships with unbelievers...consider this passage...Ephesians 5:11
Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”

Where do I make this claim? Where do I say, “God fellowships with unbelievers”? Show me.

You wrote:

"But again, I want no questions so what about the HS not the Christ? Well, who receives the HS? See, just receiving Christ is enough to call us true believers but the HS is only given to the true believers."

I responded:

Receiving Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ by Paul:

Romans 8:9
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

To which you replied:

“Christ went to heaven and sent the HS to believers...it's pretty basic biblical understanding do I need to show it to you?”

No, you need to account for how the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ – especially when you're trying to make a sharp separation between them. What does the Bible say? “He who has the Son has life...” (1Jn. 5:12) Not “has the Spirit” but “has the Son.” Eternal spiritual life is in the Son. And it is his Spirit – the Holy Spirit - that imparts to us that life. So, the sharp distinction you're trying to make between the two is not nearly as sharp as you want it to be.

I'm going to skip over a bunch of what you wrote because it is just more of the same stuff as above: confused, deflective, poorly reasoned and highly defensive. However, I do want to comment on the following:

You wrote:

"Look at some of the cross references about tasting...Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!

1 Peter 2:3
since you have tasted that the Lord is good.

even Heb. 2:9 tells us that to taste is to ingest it..."

I responded:

I have never indicated that it doesn't mean to ingest. Of course tasting something usually entails ingestion! I have heard people say, though, that they had a “taste of danger” or a “taste of hard work.” Neither of these instances involved actual ingestion. In any case, my contention is over the degree or amount of experience of a thing implied by the word “taste” and the manner of that “tasting,” not whether or not actual, physical ingestion is implied.

This was your reply:

"who cares what you think?"

Seriously? How are we supposed to have a discussion if I don't share what I think and you share what you think? I could respond to all of the thoughts you've shared with me the very same way you just did here but that would be both very rude and nonsensical. If you don't tell me what you think, we can't have a discussion.

"Seriously you keep talking about what you think when what I am asking for is what God says and thinks..."

Hold on, here. You've been doing exactly what I've been doing! You've been telling me what you think Scripture says. Shall I simply dismiss it all with your remark above? Shall I wave off all your interpretations and explanations of verses with a “Who cares what you think? I want God's view!” reply? “What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” Razzelflabben. If this is the sort of tactic you want to employ, you might want to remember that it cuts both ways.

"here He clearly thinks it's more than touching it to the tongue and then spitting it out..."

No, this is what you think He clearly thinks.

that is all...If you refuse to look at scripture and see what it says, how can you expect your opinion to match Gods'?

LOL! Right back at you! You have given me your interpretation of what Scripture says – just as I have given you mine. What we are trying to figure out is whose is correct. You can't assume your interpretation of Scripture, what you think it says, is correct. I have shown you now a great number of times that there is another way to understand and interpret Scripture which you seem to think may be dismissed with, “I'm obviously right, so who cares what you think?” If you believe this is how you're going to come to the truth of things, I'm sorry to tell you never will.

So, anyway, I'm quite done with talking to you. I could go through the rest of your posts and show how confused, and deflective, and silly your reasoning is, but I think there are sharply diminishing returns in doing so. I will leave it to the readers of this thread to decide who has been more thoughtful and careful with Scripture. At the very least, I believe I have demonstrated that the OSAS position is not the Strawman position you set up earlier in the thread.

Readers, if you want to know what the OSAS position really is, don't ask their opponents for it. As you can see, from this thread, some of those opponents don't have a clue.

Selah.

Click to expand...

I didn't even read this since it is just more of the same but I will make something clear here....I did NOT just pick scriptures that defended my conclusion after careful study, that claim you are making is a lie. In fact, I was very careful to include all passages that I found that could clue us in on the meaning and I am very offended and tempted to report you for accusing me otherwise and if you have 1. read for comprehension and/or 2. studied the topic as thoroughly you would know that that accusation is nothing more than a lie against me and my character. Good day sir...and may God grant you peace and wisdom that does not include a prideful heart and hotty spirit. (NO not an accusation, just a general blessing as I would give to anyone.)

My offer of studying passages is still open to anyone willing to offer more than simply "I think" or "I believe" or "In my opinion"...

razzelflabben said:

My offer of studying passages is still open to anyone willing to offer more than simply "I think" or "I believe" or "In my opinion"...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, because of the way you tend to format your posts, it's too difficult to work out what is being said by whom. From your recent reply I couldn't even work out what view you hold. (I'm reading on my phone, so it's difficult to read all your posts in this thread; maybe you were clearer in earlier posts.)

From memory I think you and I agree that OSAS is bogus. After studying scripture on the subject I reckon that these two scriptures stand out:
Romans 8 and Hebrews 6.

One states that those who are called ARE predestined, the other explains why those who are called ARE NOT necessarily predestined.

From God's point of view everything is predestined, and sometimes it is helpful to remember this (Rom 8).
Other times it's better to come back to Earth and realise that we live in time and space (Heb 6).

One has to be very selective in reading scripture to come away with the simple conclusion of OSAS. A comprehensive reading of scripture reveals that it is much more complex.

We have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2). If we get stuck in Romans 8 we would be inclined to do nothing - or worse, become Calvinists!

greenguzzi said:

Unfortunately, because of the way you tend to format your posts, it's too difficult to work out what is being said by whom. From your recent reply I couldn't even work out what view you hold. (I'm reading on my phone, so it's difficult to read all your posts in this thread; maybe you were clearer in earlier posts.)

Click to expand...

first question since I am always looking for ways to improve myself, what do you find hard about my post format? I quote the person I am responding to and separate my text from theirs with the I think they call them meta tags...you know, the quote commands. Might you be confusing what I am posting with another poster? you are the very first person who has claimed my format is a problem, in fact, it's pretty standard formatting.

From memory I think you and I agree that OSAS is bogus. After studying scripture on the subject I reckon that these two scriptures stand out:
Romans 8 and Hebrews 6.

Click to expand...

I would say these are the two strongest passages for non OSAS theology. I find no way to reconcile all of scripture with the OSAS teaching, but I never assume to know truth which is why I invite study and correction. I refuse however to take someone's opinion over a true and careful study of the word of God.

One states that those who are called ARE predestined, the other explains why those who are called ARE NOT necessarily predestined.

Click to expand...

I previously pointed out and can do so again in necessary that when I look at passages on predestination I find two main concepts 1. there are those that are predestined for a specific job...one of many examples of this is Paul or John the Baptist being created for a specific job. 2. we are predestined to be in the image of God. IOW's we need that transformation in order for us to be "complete" or who God intended us to be.

That being said, there is this idea that God knows beforehand, that is He knows everything but personally I do not think this informs our understanding of predestination as much as it informs us of the nature of God. I base this on a study of "predestination" as to scripture that talks specifically about predestination. IOW's I would not disagree with someone who wanted to add God's all knowing nature to the idea of predestination but I also think that to do so waters down our understanding of biblical predestination as it is presenting in scripture.

From God's point of view everything is predestined, and sometimes it is helpful to remember this (Rom 8).

Click to expand...

I don't see it as much that everything is predestined, though I wouldn't argue about such a thing given that He creates us for a purpose of good works. However, I would also say that seems to miss the point of predestination as the word appears in scripture. IOW's too fine a line to argue over, kind of like trying to separate soul and spirit.

Other times it's better to come back to Earth and realise that we live in time and space (Heb 6).

Click to expand...

do you mean that it's a different understanding of what is known, as in God's knowing verses ours?

One has to be very selective in reading scripture to come away with the simple conclusion of OSAS. A comprehensive reading of scripture reveals that it is much more complex.

Click to expand...

agreed

We have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2). If we get stuck in Romans 8 we would be inclined to do nothing - or worse, become Calvinists!

Click to expand...

lol...your words not mine.

aiki, I have one other thing I want to say to you. the very first reputation I got on these boards was for being unbiased in my approach of the subject matter. IOW's seeing both sides and handling them fairly. The truth of the matter is that your opinion isn't important enough to me to change my character to argue with you or anyone else. I presented as fair of a picture of both sides as I could possibly present. I gave liberty where I should not have because of how passionate you seem to be on the matter, but in the end of the matter, your opinion simply is NOT important enough to change my character to accommodate your false representations of me and my look into scripture. I approach every topic as unbiased as is possible, never assuming to know truth and always assuming I can learn, you might be benefited by such an approach to life.

Maybe the formatting problem is my phone. I'll check again when I am at my computer.

razzelflabben said:

do you mean that it's a different understanding of what is known, as in God's knowing verses ours?

Click to expand...

Yes.

greenguzzi said:

Maybe the formatting problem is my phone. I'll check again when I am at my computer.

Yes.

Click to expand...

In response to this comment....Other times it's better to come back to Earth and realise that we live in time and space (Heb 6).

Agreed, but sometimes I find it helpful to see both at the same time, but that is hard for most people to do.

razzelflabben said:

In response to this comment....Other times it's better to come back to Earth and realise that we live in time and space (Heb 6).

Agreed, but sometimes I find it helpful to see both at the same time, but that is hard for most people to do.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much where I was heading; best to see both at the same time. If this was easy to do there would be no OSASers.

I've been sitting here thinking about how one posters comments about not knowing if I am OSAS or not and another poster tries to claim that my bias is so evident that I can't see anything else...how is that possible? Seriously, how does that happen if both posters are being fair and reading for comprehension?

razzelflabben said:

I've been sitting here thinking about how one posters comments about not knowing if I am OSAS or not and another poster tries to claim that my bias is so evident that I can't see anything else...how is that possible? Seriously, how does that happen if both posters are being fair and reading for comprehension?

Click to expand...

FWIW I reckon you are very fair and balanced. It's just that a couple of your posts were unclear. But maybe that was me. I'll check when I get back home.