Can Christians lose there salvation?

Can a Christian lose there salvation?

  • yes, if they lose their faith

  • no, never

  • depends on the situation

  • only if they commit the unforgiveable sin

  • unsure


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

eldermike

Pray
Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,088
624
74
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ben,

James wrote a letter, telling folks how to know if a person is saved or just playing saved (playing church) and somehow it has become mans test for salvation.

James didn't give us anything new about salvation, or grace, or faith. All He did was tell us that saved people have a true faith and unsaved, church playing people have a false faith.

That;s it, not one thing more.
Sure, unsaved people will die. That is not new or different.

To make James more than this will give you unreasonable conflicts with much of the rest of the NT.

Blessings
Eldermike
 
Upvote 0

bluewolf

Christian Counseling
Apr 16, 2003
38
0
Md (dc suburb)
✟149.00
Faith
Christian
There are numerous scriptures about this. See 1john1:19 and Heb 6:4 for starters. There are others too that say the same thing.

If a person has a true conversion experience and is a Christian, following Christ, if they leave, turn their back on Christ, there is no turning back for them.

imo- If a person gets out of their 'walk', slips for a time, but still has Christ in their heart and still has the unction of the Holy Spirit, they can, of course return to active oneness with the body of Christ.

Laura
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
There are numerous scriptures about this. See 1john1:19 and Heb 6:4 for starters. There are others too that say the same thing.

If a person has a true conversion experience and is a Christian, following Christ, if they leave, turn their back on Christ, there is no turning back for them.
Laura, I mean no disrespect --- you post things on page 18 (page 36 if you've selected 10-posts-per-page), that have already been refuted. But patience being a virtue...

1Jn1:19 is about one group, THEN; it does not say that EVERYONE that goes out, was NEVER OF us. There is still 2Jn1:7-9. Please see post 337 and tell me how 2Jn accommodates OSAS?

Heb6:4 uses "METOCHOS", which really really means PARTNERS; does the Holy Spirit partner with the UNSAVED? NO!

&#149PARTNERS in a heavenly calling (Heb3:1)
&#149PARTNERS in CHRIST (Heb3:14)
&#149PARTNERS in the Holy Spirit (Heb6:4)

You cannot paint them as NEVER-SAVED. Notice FALL AWAY (parapipto) is aorist form, which very much supports continuing action. Translators of the NASV completely assert that --- they footnote WHILE --- "It is ADUNATOS-UNABLE/POWERLESS to restore them to repentance WHILE they fall away and crucify Christ to themselves anew and hold Him to public shame (hold Him in contempt)".

can we finally declare Heb6:4-6 as not in support of OSAS?

imo- If a person gets out of their 'walk', slips for a time, but still has Christ in their heart and still has the unction of the Holy Spirit, they can, of course return to active oneness with the body of Christ.
Think about what you just said; Jesus said "no good tree can produce bad fruit" (Mt7:16-20); you say "A good tree CAN produce bad fruit!" Who shall we believe? You or JESUS? John says that fruits will reveal which persons are of God, and which is of the devil. 1Jn3:7-10

Salvation is fellowship with Christ (1Jn1:3,6) BORN AGAIN (Rm6). Please read Gal2:20 and tell me how that kind of fellowship/surrender/submission allows conscious sin?
Sure, unsaved people will die. That is not new or different.
James wrote a letter, telling folks how to know if a person is saved or just playing saved (playing church) and somehow it has become man's test for salvation.
James harmonizes perfectly with all of Scripture. Jesus says, "a good tree can only produce good fruit, a bad tree can only produce bad fruit; you will know them by their fruits." With the ME-DUNAMAI construct, James declares: Faith that PRODUCES no works, that dead-faith can NOT save you, CAN IT!!! 2:14

James harnonizes Jesus perfectly.
To make James more than this will give you unreasonable conflicts with much of the rest of the NT.
I agree; you cannot make James say more than he does. Remember we talked here yesterday about 2Pet2:20-22? How that passage cannot acommodate OSAS? James says: "My brethren, if any among you wander from the truth, and another leads him back, let him know that he who turns a SINNER from the error of his way has saved a soul from death and covered a multitude of sins." 5:19-20

to support OSAS Jms5:19-20 must mean:
&#149James REALLY meant "my UNSAVED BRETHREN stalking amidst the SAVED"
(he didn't mean "wander from the truth" for they were never IN the truth!)
&#149"SOUL" is his MIND not eternal spirit! (PSUCHE is also used in Rev20:4)
&#149It's not really ETERNAL DEATH (THANATOS according to Strong's is death-and-HELL )
&#149There's some reason we can IGNORE the entire letter of James!

Am I illustrating the HOOPS through which one must jump to believe OSAS? Don't you get tired of believing"OH they didn't really MEAN what they SAID!" ???
 
Upvote 0

eldermike

Pray
Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,088
624
74
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Am I illustrating the HOOPS through which one must jump to believe OSAS? Don't you get tired of believing"OH they didn't really MEAN what they SAID!" ???

There are no "hoops". I have never had any trouble defending my position on this issue.

James was speaking to unsaved and saved, just the same as any preacher in any church on any given Sunday. With one twist; the unsaved were devout Jews, who believed in their hearts that they were God's children because of birth-right and the Levitical law.

Let me try your literal use of this text out on you. James said :he who turns a sinner has saved a soul: Who is He? Answer: The He is the one that leads Him back. The reason: James was speaking to Jewish converts, many unsaved ones and some saved. He was speaking about a tension between the old law and the New Covenant. If you lead a person to the cross then you UNDERSTAND!, you are saved! Praise God.

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
Let me try your literal use of this text out on you. James said :he who turns a sinner has saved a soul: Who is He? Answer: The He is the one that leads Him back. The reason: James was speaking to Jewish converts, many unsaved ones and some saved. He was speaking about a tension between the old law and the New Covenant. If you lead a person to the cross then you UNDERSTAND!, you are saved! Praise God.
Well, with respect, Mike, technically you are correct; there is no savior besides Jesus. Thus that verse cannot actually mean "one-of-us-who-turns-another SAVES that other".

...and yet, the written structure is very clear. Word-for-word translation from the Greek: "Brethren, if anyone among you err (goes astray) from the truth, and bring-back anyone him, let-him-know that he-who brings-back a-sinner from {the} error of-his-way, shall-save a-soul from death (death&Hell), and shall-cover a-multitude of-sins." The Greek is clear; he-who-brings-back does the saving. (The translators, far FAR more Greek scholars than us, concur; no translation presents "he" {he-who-brings-back} as capitalized, as they would if they throught "he" was GOD.)

Did James believe in TWO SAVIORS? Certainly not. Consider:
"By your endurance you will save (gain) your souls." Lk21:19

"Receiving as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls." 1Pet1:9

"Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; for as you do this you will save yourself and those who hear you."1Tim4:16


Are any of these verses denying that Jesus is the ONLY SAVIOR? No; they only recognize man's own volition in his own salvation. The entire work of salvation, ALL OF IT, was done by Jesus on the Cross; but only those who choose to RECIEVE it will be saved.

In precisely the same understanding, one who leads another back to Christ, has led him back to salvation; clearly the OTHER is said to have saved him, meaning that the other has led him back to THE Savior. This is correct exegesis, not eisegesis.

And to say that "he was speaking of leading never-SAVED, this denies what James said; "BRETHREN, if any of YOU"--- could he possibly be talking to usaved brothers? Show me where the UNSAVED are called BRETHREN?

..."wander from the truth" PLANEO APO ALETHEIA wander-astray to-separate the-truth; is there any way such a one has never been IN the truth? How can one wander astray from, and separate from, that in which he has never dwelt? Besides it plainly says "save-a-soul-from-death" --- so much for contending the soul was never in jeopardy!

No, this is another verse that simply does not bend to "OSAS"...
 
Upvote 0

eldermike

Pray
Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,088
624
74
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Way to much explanation, back up.

The He is the one that understands. It's the idea that James is working on that matters here. The Idea from the first of James to the last of James is the evidence of Salvation.

First evidence = works
works = leading other to the cross.

faith without works is dead = teach the cross and you have saved a soul. YOURS!

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
You've lost me. We agree that James labors to convey that true salvation inevitably produces good works; which does not connect salvation to works, but connects works to salvation; cause (salvation) and effect(works), not effect and cause. Perfectly mirroring Jesus in Matt7:16-23.

But I'm still wondering how these two verses do not indicate"OSNAS'?

Are you saying that "He who leads a sinner from the error of his way has saved a soul from death and covered a multitude of sins" means "He who leads-back-a-sinner, has saved his OWN (the leader's) soul"? Do you think the "one-who-wanders-from-the-truth" remains saved while he is APO-SEPARATED?
 
Upvote 0

eldermike

Pray
Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,088
624
74
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the case of James, He is speaking to Jews (you can't forget this). He is trying to change what they teach. He is telling them, the jews, that if they lead others to the cross and away from the law (so to speak) that they understand and that this is true evidence of salvation.

As to the one being led?, who knows, that is not what He is talking about.

Remember! Under the law to cover a multitude of sins would require much in terms of sacrifice from the one trying to atone for His sin under the law.

To cover a multitude of sins is speaking their language. The cross is what He is teaching them. It has nothing to do with losing salvation.

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
To cover a multitude of sins is speaking their language. The cross is what He is teaching them.
I can understand that.
Under the law to cover a multitude of sins would require much in terms of sacrifice from the one trying to atone for His sin under the law.
I can understand that, too...
As to the one being led?, who knows, that is not what He is talking about. It has nothing to do with losing salvation.
This I can't understand. It would have nothing to do with falling-from-salvation if it said:

"Brethren, if anyone is found never-having-known the truth, and another lead him TO the truth, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way"...

But it doesn't say that, does it? It says: "BRETHREN, if any of YOU wander from the truth, and another lead him (the wanderer) back, let him (the leader) know that he (the leader) who turns a sinner (the wanderer) from the error of his way"...

By stating "BRETHREN", he is addressing brothers-in-Christ; by saying "ANY of YOU", he is addressing saved-brothers-in-Christ; how can he not be? I've never heard any Scripture written to "Brethren, YOU..." --- addressed to unsaved; have you?

WANDER from the truth? "PLANAO" is aorist passive subjunctive; the translators render --- "do err". This seems to simply mirror Gal5, which says "You WERE running well, but you return to a salvation-by-works; you are severed from Christ, you are fallen from grace. How could they have been considered brethren if they had not been saved? How could they have been running well if they had not been saved? In James, by stating, "any of YOU", he indicates the potentiality for ANY of them to be found wandered-themselves-from-the-truth.

And we must remember that Jews are held to the same salvation as Gentiles; so merely labelling a passage as "JEWISH-FOCUSED", does not negate Gal3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus." What applies to JEWS, regarding salvation, also applies to Gentiles now. And vice-versa...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eldermike

Pray
Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,088
624
74
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ben,

Brother, you have a right to be wrong. "Any of you" that eventually get's the point I made about this passage will be better prepared to lead others to the truth. It's about being outward focused.

BTW, "any of you" is a negative address, it's not something a brother would say to a brother.

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Outspoken

Standing in the Gap
Nov 8, 2002
6,441
16
47
✟22,188.00
Faith
Christian
17th April 2003 at 01:50 PM eldermike said this in Post #341

Ben,

James wrote a letter, telling folks how to know if a person is saved or just playing saved (playing church) and somehow it has become mans test for salvation. 


BINGO! Tell him what he has won today Jonny.
 
Upvote 0
Ben- Sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I have been busy, and have also been a little ill. We then had the big server crash, so it has been quite a while. Here are my comments from your last message:

You know (especially acb3 and frumanchu), we can "trade verses" ad infinitum; and I can refute each verse you present. I would really like to hear YOUR understanding of verses like:

Allow me to go through all of my posts and post verses I have already posted that YOU HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN TO DEAL WITH!!!

Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, FOR THE INTENT OF MAN'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. [Post 442].

Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are FULL OF EVIL and INSANITY IS IN THEIR HEARTS THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES. Afterwards they go to the dead. [Post 442]

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and BEYOND CURE. Who can understand it? [Post 442]

Romans 8:7-8 the sinful mind is hostile to God. IT DOES NOT SUBMIT TO GOD'S LAW NOR CAN IT DO SO. Those controlled by the sinful nature CANNOT PLEASE GOD. [post 442]


1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit DOES NOT ACCEPT THE THINGS THAT COME FROM THE SPIRIT OF GOD, for they are foolishness to him, and HE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THEM, because they are spiritually discerned. [post 442]

Job 14:4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one! [post 442


Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? NEITHER CAN YOU DO GOOD WHO ARE ACCUSTOMED TO DOING EVIL. [post 442]

2 Corinthians 3:5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. [post 442]

John 12:39-40 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." [post 442]

Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to GRANT REPENTANCE to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. [post 439]


Acts 11:18 </B>When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has GRANTED to the Gentiles also THE REPENTANCE THAT LEADS TO LIFE [post 439]

Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and THE LORD OPENED HER HEART TO RESPOND TO THE THINGS SPOKEN BY PAUL. [post 439]


Philippians 1:29 </B>For to you IT HAS BEEN GRANTED for Christ's sake, not only TO BELIEVE IN HIM, but also to suffer for His sake, [post 439]


Jeremiah 32:39-40 and I will GIVE them one heart and one way, THAT THEY MAY FEAR ME ALWAYS, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I WILL NOT TURN AWAY FROM THEM, to do them good; and I WILL PUT THE FEAR OF ME IN THEIR HEARTS SO THAT THEY WILL NOT TURN AWAY FROM ME


Ezekiel 11:19-20 "And I shall GIVE them one heart, and shall PUT A NEW SPIRIT WITHIN THEM. AND I SHALL TAKE THE HEART OF STONE OUT OF THEIR FLESH AND GIVE THEM A HEART OF FLESH, THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES AND KEEP MY ORDINANCES, AND DO THEM. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.


Daniel 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'


Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Psalm 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.


Also, you still have not responded to my rebuttal of your usage of John 6:35-44. If it is Christ who does the will of his father PERFECTLY, IT IS HIS WILL THAT HE LOOSE NONE OF ALL THAT ARE GIVEN TO HIM, and no one can come to him without the father&#8217;s drawing. THERE YOU HAVE CALVINISM AND ETERNAL SECURITY.


I think frumanchu made good responses to these verses [although I do not think it matters (see below)]. I have just a few things to add:

First, Ben, I have looked back through you posts.

First, the idea that thanatos ONLY refers to spiritual death IS JUST PLAIN NUTS!!

Here are several lexicons that state different:

Louw and Nida&#8217;s:

the process of dying - 'to die, death.

Thayers:

properly, the death of the body, i. e. that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul from the body by which the life on earth is ended:

Friberg&#8217;s

(1) physically, as the separation of soul from body (physical) death (JN 11.13)

United Bible Societies:

be struck a deadly blow (Re 13.3

Next, a short lexical study will refute this usage:

Matthew 10:21 "Brother will betray brother to death [thanatos], and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.

Matthew 15:4 "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH [thanatos].'

Matthew 20:18 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death [thanatos],

Matthew 26:66 what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death [thanatos]!"

Mark 10:33 saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death [thanatos] and will hand Him over to the Gentiles.

Mark 14:64 "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death [thanatos].

Luke 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death [thanatos] before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

Luke 22:33 But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death [thanatos]!"

Luke 23:15 "No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death [thanatos] has been done by Him.

Luke 23:22 And he said to them the third time, "Why, what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death [thanatos]; therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

Acts 25:11 "If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death [thanatos], I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar."

How about the LXX:

Genesis 26:11 So Abimelech charged all the people, saying, "He who touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 19:12 "You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, 'Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:15 "He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:17 "He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

And I could go on to list MANY more instances. Hence, the idea that thanatos=death and hell has no warrant.

"Test yourselves, to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yoruselves, that Jesus Christ is IN you --- unless indeed you FAIL THE TEST?" 2Cor13:5 Again, please choose one:
1. This is HYPERBOLE, of COURSE you'll "pass"; it's just empty windy warning against that which CANNOT happen.
2. He's saying "see if you were EVER saved".
3. (can't think of another)


(If you choose #1 or #2, please comment on "adokimos" --- and explain why you don't think Paul is saying, "see if you still have the IMAGE OF CHRIST"... )

BE HAPPY TO. In fact, I have been meaning to do an exegesis of this passage. However, I will choose my position NOT based on your choices, but based on my exegesis.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?

2 Corinthians 13:5:
5. eautous peirazete ei este en te pistei autous dokimazete e ouk epignoskete eautous hoti Iesous Christos en humin; ei meti adokimoi este.

With regards to adokimos, we must first note that it has a prefix on it. The alpha out in front means that it is a negation of the root word [similar to what happens when you put an &#8220;a&#8221; in front of &#8220;Gnostic,&#8221; resulting in &#8220;agnostic&#8221;] Hence, I will take a look at each occurrence of both dokimos and adokimos:

Dokimos:

Romans 14:18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved [dokimos] by men.

Romans 16:10 Greet Apelles, the approved [dokimos] in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved [dokimos] may become evident among you.

2 Corinthians 10:18 For it is not he who commends himself that is approved [dokimos], but he whom the Lord commends.

2 Corinthians 13:7 Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved [dokimos], but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved.

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved [dokimos] to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

James 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved [dokimos], he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

With regards to the meaning of dokimos, we note that it is consistently translated by the NASB as &#8220;approved.&#8221; It is used in contexts in which a person is put to a test, and by passing the test, is therefore approved. Louw and Nida, United Bible Societies, Zodhiates, and Friberg&#8217;s lexicon all agree to this point. Thayer, however adds a second definition:

accepted, equivalent to acceptable, pleasing: (L marginal reading dokimos) Rom. 14:18.*

However, this is very close to the meaning given in the first meaning, and even Zodhiates notes that the meaning &#8220;approved by test&#8221; can be applied to Romans 14:18. Further, the idea of &#8220;proven by a test&#8221; is also clearly marked out in the LXX:
 
Upvote 0
Genesis 23:16 Abraham agreed to Ephron's terms and weighed out for him the price he had named in the hearing of the Hittites: four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weight current [dokomos] among the merchants.

1 Kings 10:18 Moreover, the king made a great throne of ivory and overlaid it with refined [dokimos] gold.

1 Chronicles 28:18 and for the altar of incense refined [dokimos] gold by weight; and gold for the model of the chariot, even the cherubim that spread out their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD.

1 Chronicles 29:4 namely, 3,000 talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and 7,000 talents of refined [dokimos] silver, to overlay the walls of the buildings;

2 Chronicles 9:17 Moreover, the king made a great throne of ivory and overlaid it with pure [dokimos] gold.

Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-- the handsome [dokimos] price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

The reason this definition holds up, is because in the Old Testament times they would burn metals in fire to refine them. Hence, &#8220;refined metal&#8221; came to be known as &#8220;proven metal&#8221; [See Zodhiates&#8217; Word Study Dictionary].
Hence, as I said, since adokimos is simple the opposite of dokimos, what then would be the opposite meaning-&#8220;tested and failed; failure; not approved; not up to standard.&#8221; With this in mind, let us take into consideration the usage of adokimos. It appears 7 times in the NT [barring from the disputed passage].

Romans 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved [adokimos] mind, to do those things which are not proper,

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified [adokimos].

2 Corinthians 13:6 But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail [adokimos] the test.

2 Corinthians 13:7 Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved [adokimos].

2 Timothy 3:8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected [adokimos] in regard to the faith.

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless [adokimos] for any good deed.

Hebrews 6:8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless [adokimos] and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

The most interesting of the verses comes in next two verses from the disputed passage [which I will get to in a moment]. However, suffice it to say that all of these uses fit the definition of &#8220;not meeting a standard, tested and failed.&#8221; The most interesting uses is in LXX:

Proverbs 25:4 Take away the dross [adokimos] from the silver, And there comes out a vessel for the smith;

Isaiah 1:22 Your silver has become dross [adokimos], Your drink diluted with water.

Hence, the Pauline understanding of this word comes in the context of purifying metal by burning it to remove the dross. This fits well with the usage in the NT.

Verse 5 begins with [first a pronoun but then] the imperative peirazete. The direct object is eautous: yourselves. Peirazete has the idea, &#8220;to put on trial.&#8221; Hence, we are to put ourselves on trial [ie. Test] ourselves &#8220;to see&#8221; if we are in the faith. Now, the phrase &#8220;to see&#8221; is not in the text. It is implied from the text, and is connected with the conditional particle &#8220;ei&#8221; and the phrase en te pistei. This is one of only three occurrences in the NT [cf 1 Corinthians 16:13 and Titus 1:13]. Hence, it is hard to get a complete usage of this phrase, but the other two uses seem to suggest that we are talking about the Christian life. Hence, the testing is to see if we indeed are in the Christian life. The next phrase is with &#8220;dokimazete eautous&#8221; Friberg notes that this has the idea of self-examination. This is the only occurrence of this phrase in the NT and the LXX. Hence, this we must conclude from the lexical meaning of dokimazete, that this has the idea of putting ourselves to the test. However, why would Paul repeat the same thing? The answer is that he is trying to be emphatic, and press this upon the believer. Next, he introduces a phrase e ouk epignoskete eautous &#8220;do you not know concerning yourselves&#8221; is a specific construction expecting a positive answer. Hence, he is expecting them to say YES, WE KNOW! This brings us to the next phrase hoti Iesous Christos en humin ei meti adokimoi este which is a hoti clause. I take this hoti clause to be a declarative hoti clause. My reasons for this are as follows [See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p453- 461]:

1. A declarative hoti comes after verbs of perception [which epignoskete is].
2. It recast an original thought into a reported form.
3. It is not a subject clause, [the implied &#8220;you&#8221; from the verb epignoskete is]
4. It is not a direct object clause [DOCs do not come after verbs of perception]
5. It does not have an antecedent [ruling out apposition and epexegetical]
6. The clause does not give reason. [it is not casual]

Hence this phrase tells what they know. Now we come to the portion that you asked me about: Ei meti adokimoi este. Ei meti is a particular phrase used 3 times in the NT and one time in the LXX:

Daniel 2:11 "Moreover, the thing which the king demands is difficult, and there is no one else who could declare it to the king except [Ei meti] gods, whose dwelling place is not with mortal flesh."

Luke 9:13 But He said to them, "You give them something to eat!" And they said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps [Ei meti] we go and buy food for all these people."

1 Corinthians 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except [Ei meti] by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Hence, we see that in every instance the ONLY way the preceding clause is negated is if the proceeding clause is true. This is the definition Dr. Spiros Zodhiates gives. Hence &#8220;if the gods can tell the king his dream, then it is not true that no one can,&#8221; &#8220;if the disciples go and by food, they will have more than five loaves and two fish,&#8221; and &#8220;if married couples have an agreement they can deprive one another.&#8221; Now, let us apply this meaning to our passage. If we are an &#8220;adokimos,&#8221; then Christ is not in us. Also, if we are not an &#8220;adokimos,&#8221; then Christ is in us. Now, as to the meaning of &#8220;adokimos,&#8221; we must refer back to the study we did earlier of the meaning of adokimos: -&#8220;tested and failed; failure; not approved; not up to standard.&#8221; Now is there testing in the context? YES! Two very explicit words: peirazete and dokimazete show that this is indeed the definition Paul is going for here. Furthermore, dokimazete and adokimos come from the same root [with the &#8220;a&#8221; in front for negation]. Hence, the last phrase could be interpreted as &#8220;unless you are one tested and failed.&#8221; This is usually just simplified into &#8220;unless you fail the test&#8221; or &#8220;disqualified&#8221; in most translations:

NASB unless indeed you fail the test?

NIV unless, of course, you fail the test?

NKJV unless indeed you are disqualified.

NLT it means you have failed the test.

NRSV unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test!

Now that I am done with my exegesis, I choose no#2. Now to answer your questions:

please comment on "adokimos"

[I believe I already have]

&#8220;explain why you don't think Paul is saying, "see if you still have the IMAGE OF CHRIST"... )&#8221;

First, I think this interpretation reads two things into the text that are not there. First, had Paul wanted to convey the idea of &#8220;Christ is still in you,&#8221; he could have done so by using three perfectly good words [akmen, eti, and heos]. Second, for the phrase &#8220;unless you are a failure,&#8221; he should have used either the aorist or perfect of ginomai rather than present form of eimi. Then, it would convey the idea that one has BECOME an adokimos. Furthermore, the phrase &#8220;have the IMAGE OF CHRIST&#8221; reads WAY more into the text than what is warranted. The phrase eti echeis ton eikona christou would suffice at this point. Furthermore, he should not have used the word adokimos with it&#8217;s verbal root dokimazete if he had intended something else. However, because he uses the verb eimi in the present tense, we can safely assume that what is being tested is your PRESENT STATE, and this says NOTHING about your past state.

"Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you DO, you will SAVE YOURSELF and those who hear you." 1Tim4:16
1. This is HYPERBOLE, empty warning against that which CANNOT happen.
2. Our perseverance is ASSURED; he doesn't really MEAN what it seems to SAY.
3. Our "close attention" is ASSURED; he doesn't really MEAN it.

First, I note that AGAIN you misrepresent us in thinking that we believe God saves apart from our will! Although Christ has control over our will, HE DOES NOT SAVE APART FROM IT. His choice is our will. Second, if one were to take this interpretation, one would come to some very bizarre conclusions. First, we would have the notion that one can save oneself. This is known as Pelagianism [4th century heresy]. Next, we would also have to assume that we can save other people. So, I note that you are making an equivocation on the word &#8220;save.&#8221; However, if you look at the context, we see that this is talking about &#8220;salvation from false doctrine.&#8221; Now, knowing that you are immediately going to challenge me on the word sozo, I will immediately post verses in which this word it not talking about salvation from sin:

Matthew 8:25 And they came to Him and woke Him, saying, "Save [sozo] us, Lord; we are perishing!"

Matthew 9:21 for she was saying to herself, "If I only touch His garment, I will get well [sozo]."

Matthew 14:30 But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save [sozo] me!"

Matthew 27:40 and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save [sozo] Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."

I could EASILY go on to list more if you would like them, but I think these will suffice.
 
Upvote 0
"We must pay closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it; for how shall we escape if we forsake so great a salvation."
"Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. Encourage one another ...lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become METOCHOS-PARTNERS in Christ, _IF_ we hold fast the beginning of our assurance FIRM UNTIL THE END."
"See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking; for if those did not escape who refused him who warned them on Earth, much less shall we escape who turn away from HIM WHO WARNS FROM HEAVEN." Heb2:1-3, 3:12-14, 12:5
1. Empty HYPERBOLE against that which CANNOT happen.
2. He's not talking to the SAVED.
3. There's a reason that we can IGNORE the whole book of Hebrews --- it doesn't apply to us today in 2003.


Here is the misrepresentation again. The idea that we believe God saves apart from our will. Furthermore, you are forgetting the context of the book of Hebrews. Hebrews was written to a Jewish congregation who was being persuaded by family members to go back to the Levitical sacrifices. In fact, it is highly interesting to me that people who believe in conditional security go to this book for support since it is so damaging to their position [see below]. All throughout the book of Hebrews, we find that perfection of the work of Christ and his ability to save for all time. Hence, I would say he is talking to the elect AND the non-elect [seeing as how we cannot tell them apart]. With regards to the first citation, you are confusing the noun soteria with the verb form sozo. Furthermore, it does not say &#8220;if we forsake OUR salvation.&#8221; However, the question is, &#8220;are these people going to choose salvation through Christ or salvation through the law?&#8221; That is what the author of the Hebrews is talking about in these verses. Not loosing salvation, but leaving the church, and embracing Levitical sacrifices again. Again, do not assume that every time you see &#8220;falling away&#8221; and &#8220;turn away&#8221; that we are talking about salvation.

With regards to Galatians 5:4, you have forgotten that in that text Paul specifically defines his audience. It is not believers. I think James White&#8217;s refutation of this usage would be helpful at this point:

You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alien-
ated from Christ,. you have fallen away from grace: Paul makes his
meaning crystal clear in verse 4. It is amazing to note that this
passage has been used by those who would deny the perseverance
of the saints and who would assert that grace is a state from which
one can fall. Paul is not talking about such a subject at all! He
defines his audience: he is not talking to those who trust in Christ
and Him completely for salvation. He is referring to those who
would seek to be justified by law, to those who would be deceived
into thinking that they can add to the work of Christ-those who
would desire to mix grace and works. If a person thinks he knows
Christ and yet knows so little of His Saviorhood as to attempt to
add to His work, Paul has news for him: he is not in Christ at all!
He is severed from Him, separated from Him, out of the sphere
of God's grace in salvation.
We would be wrong to misinterpret Paul's words. He is not
saying that these people once were united with Christ but now
have been separated; he is not saying that they once were in grace
but now are not. The language does not indicate this. It speaks of
the fact that they, by their attitude, are separated from Christ, and
they have fallen far away from the grace of God. Their misunder-
standing of the gospel is a serious thing indeed.
I have often used the following illustration. If one were to en-
counter a famous athlete in a hotel and, not recognizing him for
who he is, treat him rudely, one would be separating or alienating
oneself from the realm of ever receiving season tickets from this
person to the sport in which they excel. The offender would never
have actually been in the realm of receiving a favor from the star
in the first place, but by his actions he is ensuring he will never
enter that realm either.
In the same way, the person who seeks justification through
the law is severed from Christ, not in the sense of once having
clung solely to Him for salvation (the very nature of saving faith
as we have seen repeatedly already), but in engaging in an atti-
tude and action that is utterly contrary to the kind of faith that
brings union with Christ. Such a person is "fallen away from
grace," not because he once dwelt in grace, but because he has
chosen the exact opposite realm of grace, that of law-keeping.
Another vitally important truth comes from these words. The
judaizers in Galatia, as far as we can tell from Paul's words, were
not saying that faith in Christ was not the first requirement of the
gospel. In fact, as we saw in 3:1-2, they were! They said faith was
vital. They preached faith in Jesus. But they then added to this mes-
sage. How many "gospels" today fall into this very trap, and hence
under the condemnation of Scripture! These words should be on our
lips often when speaking to those who insist upon adding religious
ceremonies, human works, or man's merit to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Paul warned his readers with strong words, for this is an issue with
eternal consequences. If we love as strongly as Paul loved, we will
not hesitate to speak this truth, either. It may be out of step with our
modern culture, but it is nonetheless in perfect line with the apostles and
prophets of the Bible.


With regards to 2 Peter 2:20-22 you write:

Really! So it was the FALSE TEACHERS who ESCAPED THE DEFILEMENTS OF THE WORLD??? They were SLAVES TO CORRUPTION, they NEVER CEASED FROM SIN, yet you claim "they ESCAPED THE DEFILEMENTS OF THE WORLD? How, pray tell, did they do that? Why, (I really am serious here, not sarcastic) the Scripture TELLS us --- through the EPIGNOSIS TRUE-KNOWLEDGE of the LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST! Just like those in chapter 1 --- APOPHEUGO (same word as ch2) escaped the CORRUPTION (ch2 says "DEFILEMENTS") ...through the EPIGNOSIS-TRUE-KNOWLEDGE of the LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST! But "apopheugo" in ch2 doesn't really MEAN escaped for they only APPEARED escaped, and "epignosis-true-knowledge of the kurios-and-soter-Jesus-Christ" doesn't really MEAN they were SAVED! --- don't you really think this position is, ...weak???]

I will refute you one statement at a time:

Really! So it was the FALSE TEACHERS who ESCAPED THE DEFILEMENTS OF THE WORLD??? They were SLAVES TO CORRUPTION, they NEVER CEASED FROM SIN, yet you claim "they ESCAPED THE DEFILEMENTS OF THE WORLD? How, pray tell, did they do that?

Let me ask you something. If the gospel makes someone feel guilty of their sin, but instead of turning to Christ for cleansing, they try to turn from their evil ways on their own strength: Would you call such a person NOT SINNING?! I hope not. Having knowledge of what Christ did, and yet relying on ones on righteousness [or lack thereof] is a PAR EXCELLANCE example of total depravity.

But "apopheugo" in ch2 doesn't really MEAN escaped for they only APPEARED escaped, and "epignosis-true-knowledge of the kurios-and-soter-Jesus-Christ" doesn't really MEAN they were SAVED!

I think I will now call upon one of the greatest Biblical scholars EVER, in Dr. John Owen to prove my point:

Those who attain not hereunto are in no sense to be esteemed such as
profess the gospel. But now whenever unbelief beginneth to influence the
heart towards the flame described, it sets in the first place these corrupt
lusts and affections at liberty to act themselves according to their own
nature. And this it doth two ways: &#8212;
First, With respect unto the gospel and its efficacy for the mortification of
them; for it takes off, weakens, and disarms those considerations which the
gospel tenders unto the souls of men for that end. The way and means
whereby the gospel of itself worketh towards the mortification of the lusts
of the heart is by the proposition of its promises and threatenings unto the
minds of men. These work MORALLY upon them; for the consideration of
them causeth men to set themselves against all those things which may
cause them to come short of the one, or make them obnoxious unto the
other, 2 Corinthians 7:1 Now all influence upon the soul unto this end
from hence is intercepted by unbelief. Its proper nature and work lies in
begetting a disregard of gospel promises and threatenings through a
diffidence of them. And hereof we have examples everyday. Men are in a
constant way wrought upon by the preaching of the word; that is, their minds are influenced by a taste of the good things proposed and promised
in it, and are brought under a sense of the terror of the Lord in its
threatenings. The first proper effect hereof in themselves, is the resistance
of their lusts and the reformation of their lives thereon. But we see that
many of these, losing, through unbelief, a sense of that impression that
was on them from the word, have all their lusts let loose unto rage and
violence; and so return again like &#8220;the dog to his vomit, and the sow that
was washed to her wallowing in the mire,&#8221; as 2 Peter 2:22.

Now, note the difference in the two passages:

2 Peter 1:1-4 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these HE HAS GRANTED to us HIS PRECIOUS AND MAGNIFICENT PROMISES, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

2 Peter 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment HANDED ON to them.

Where in the text of 2 Peter 2:20-21 does it say that &#8220;by these HE HAS GRANTED&#8221; to them &#8220;HIS PRECIOUS AND MAGNIFICENT PROMISES?&#8221; You won&#8217;t find it. However, one would expect to if they were really paralleling each other. Here, the Gospel brings condemnation to false teachers.

don't you really think this position is, ...weak???]

Absloutely not!! And this is exactly the reason you cannot take the same word used A CHAPTER APART, and make it fit the context. Second, if you really believe that words do not change in meaning a chapter apart, let me see how you would interpret Acts 12:1-17 in relation to the word &#8220;hand.&#8221;
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king laid HANDS on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them.

Acts 12:7 And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter's side and woke him up, saying, "Get up quickly." And his chains fell off his HANDS.

Acts 12:11 When Peter came to himself, he said, "Now I know for sure that the Lord has sent forth His angel and rescued me from the HAND of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting."

Acts 12:17 But motioning to them with his HAND to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, "Report these things to James and the brethren." Then he left and went to another place.

There is no way to fit one definition to each usage of the words. The context just will not allow it. Acts 12:1 contains an idiom which means &#8220;to arrest.&#8221; Acts 12:7 and Acts 12:17 have the meaning &#8220;a hand&#8221; [part of the anatomy], and Acts 12:11 it is again found in an idiom which means &#8220;authority of, bondage of.&#8221;

Jesus was ORDAINED and PREDESTINED before time; "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the kind attention of His will ...which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

"And this is the will of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

"For this is the will of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son AND BELIEVES in Him may have eternal life..."

Was JESUS-ON-THE-CROSS what was predestined, and our adoption according to BELIEF --- or, was OUR ADIPTION PREDESTINED? Which?

I reply: While I would agree that the Cross of Christ was predestined, [Acts 2:23], THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN EPHESIANS 1. Let us take a look at the grammar and syntax:

Ephesians 1:5-6 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:5-6:

Proorisas hemas eis huithesian dia Iesou Christou eis auton kata ten eudokian tou thelematos autou, 6. Eis epainon edoxes tes charitos autou es exaritosen hemas en to egapemeno.

First we have the word Proorisas in the 2 person active Aorist. Hence we have &#8220;he predestined&#8221; [past tense]. Who did he predestine? The answer is what is in the accusative:
Hemas. BUT THIS IS NOT &#8220;JESUS.&#8221; This is the plural form of you [us]. So it is US [the believers] who are predestined! Then he uses the phrase eis huithesian literally [unto our adoption as sons].

Louw and Nida write that huithesian means:

to formally and legally declare that someone who is not one's own child is henceforth to be treated and cared for as one's own child, INCLUDING THE COMPLETE RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE - 'to adopt, adoption.'

They say this passage means that:

'(God) had already decided from the beginning that through Jesus Christ he would adopt us to be his children' Eph 1.5.

Likewise, Friberg gives huithesian this meaning:

adoption; used in the NT as a legal technical term but in a metaphorical sense; (1) of God's acceptance of the nation of Israel as his chosen people (RO 9.4); (2) of the sonship status bestowed on those who believe in Christ (GA 4.5); (3) of the status given in the resurrected state (RO .23)

Also, since we have &#8220;according to the kind intention of his will&#8221; [kata ten eudokian tou thelematos autou,] we can pretty much assume that the function of the eis used here is an eis of result [&#8220;Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics&#8221; p. 369]. This is due to the fact that this would create a purpose-result clause (which is common in the NT) [cf. Romans 1:20]. Hence, the semantic force of this verse is:

He predestined us to [resulting in the] adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to [in accordance with (kata)] the kind intention of His will,

Now let us continue by taking a look at the next verse. It begins with &#8220;Eis epainon.&#8221; Again, the context has not changed &#8220;and we are in the same sentence.&#8221; Hence, it is safe to assume that this is the same eis used in the previous verse [eis of result]. Again the semantic force of this is &#8220;to [resulting in] the praise of the glory of His grace.&#8221; Next, is the key verse:

which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Now, freely bestowed is ONE WORD. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates notes that this word means [in the context of Ephesians 1]:

The only other use of Ephesians 1:6 where believers are said to be &#8220;accepted in the beloved,&#8221; i.e. objects of grace. (see huiothesia [5206], adoption, occurring in Ephesians 1:5) In charitoo there is not only the impartation of God&#8217;s grace, but also the adoption into God&#8217;s family in imparting the soul SPECIAL FAVOR in distinction to charizomai (5483), to give grace, to remit, forgive.

Next, if you take that translation, then I must note that &#8220;freely&#8221; is an adverb. Hence, it modifies &#8220;bestowed,&#8221; and means that the way it was given to us is FREELY [by God&#8217;s free will].

Now, for the two verses you quoted:

"And this is the will of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

I think this is a misquotation. I believe what you wanted is John 6:29:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

If this is not the verse you wanted, please tell me the citation, and which version it is from because I have looked it up in several and cannot find it.

Hence, it is the WORK of God that we believe in the one he has sent. Hence, God does not want everyone there to believe in him. In fact, this verse is contradicted by [well many passages, including this one] this passage:

John 12:39-40 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."

As to the next passage:

"For this is the will of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son AND BELIEVES in Him may have eternal life..."

First, I must note that you are reading universality into EVERYONE. Why do you not consult the Greek? The Greek to this passage runs as such:

Hina ho pas theoron ton huion kai pisteuon eis auton

Literally, &#8220;so that every beholding one of the son and believing one in him.&#8221; Nothing in this passage states that believing is an action that originates in us, and that we do by exercising our &#8220;free will.&#8221;
Also, why don&#8217;t we follow this to it&#8217;s logical conclusion. If God predestines by his will people to eternal life, according to Ephesians 1, and every believing one will have eternal life, it then follows that every and only predestined people BELIEVE.

As for Romans 9, I am sure you have written much about it, since it is so clear in asserting the absolute freedom of God. With regard to the hardening of Pharaoh&#8217;s heart, you have neglected on small little detail. First, we need to take a good look at Exodus 8:32.

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart THIS TIME ALSO, and he did not let the people go.

To find the nature of the hardening of Pharaoh&#8217;s heart in this verse, we must go to the last time Moses writes of him hardening his heart:

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, AS THE LORD HAD SAID.

Let me ask you something. When did the Lord EVER say that Pharaoh would harden his own heart? The only time we see mention of the LORD saying anything about Pharaoh&#8217;s heart is in Exodus 4:21:

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART so that he will not let the people go.

Furthermore, this is not the only place this occurs:

Exodus 9:34-35 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35 Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses.

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Also, why do you assume that both could not have done it. This is not alien to scripture:

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

Who meant it? God or Joseph&#8217;s brothers?

2 Samuel 24:1 Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

1 Chronicles 21:1-2 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan, and bring me word that I may know their number."

Exodus 5:22 Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, "O Lord, why have YOU [according to the text, it was Pharaoh] brought harm to this people? Why did You ever send me?

Jeremiah 51:20-26 He says, "You are My war-club, My weapon of war; And with you I shatter nations, And with you I destroy kingdoms. 21 "And with you I shatter the horse and his rider, 22 And with you I shatter the chariot and its rider, And with you I shatter man and woman, And with you I shatter old man and youth, And with you I shatter young man and virgin, 23 And with you I shatter the shepherd and his flock, And with you I shatter the farmer and his team, And with you I shatter governors and prefects. 24 "But I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea for all their evil that they have done in Zion before your eyes," declares the LORD. 25 "Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain, Who destroys the whole earth," declares the LORD, "And I will stretch out My hand against you, And roll you down from the crags And I will make you a burnt out mountain. 26 "And they will not take from you even a stone for a corner Nor a stone for foundations, But you will be desolate forever," declares the LORD.

Hence, if you take your interpretation, you are stuck trying to explain why the LORD never said Pharaoh would harden his heart.

Furthermore, I am also NOT surprised that you decided to take the two vessels for &#8220;common use&#8221; and for &#8220;honorable&#8221; use to both be saved. You may not be aware of this, but &#8220;The Justification of God&#8221; is John Piper&#8217;s doctoral dissertation. Hence, I am sure that EVERY argument you could conceivably come up with against that passage is probably more than likely in there. Here is his response to this argument:
 
Upvote 0
4.3 The metaphor of potter and vessels
The third argument for the national/temporal view of Rom 9:20f is that the metaphor will not allow the view of individual reprobation, since no potter makes a vessel just to destroy it. To make a vessel "eis atiman implies menial use, not reprobation or destruction" (Cranfield, Romans, II, 492 note 2). In order to make this argument stand, Lagrange, 16 Munck17 and Cranfield must maintain that the pair "vessel unto honor" and "vessel unto dishonor" in 9:21 does not have its substantial parallel in the pair "vessel of mercy which God prepared before for glory" and "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in 9:22f. Cranfield (Romans, II, 495 note 4) argues "that skeue orges and skeue eleous are not to be taken as interpreting the vessels made eis timen and eis atimian, respectively, of verse 21. Had Paul intended this allegorical interpretation of verse 21 he should have put the definite articles with skeue orges and skeue eleous.. Skeuos is used in verses 22,23 metaphorically. . . probably-in our view-without any special thought of the literal use of the word in verse 21." But, against Cranfield, can we really imagine that Paul did not intend his reader to see a substantial parallel between the
pair of vessels in 9:21 and the pair in 9:22f? In view of the proximity of 9:21 to 9:22f, the similar vocabulary, and (apparently) similar thought, Cranfield's contention is very improbable.
Meyer (Romans, II, 147) is surely much closer to the mark than Cranfield when he says that the two kinds of vessels in 9:22f "are necessarily the same as those meant in verse 21, . . . This is shown by the retention of skeue as well as by the attributes katertismena and &. Ha proetoimasen corresponding to the poiesai of verse 21, just as eis apoleian aptly corresponds to the eis atimian and eis doxan to the eis timen, verse 21." As far as I can see there is no reason (except theological aversion) to deny that the image of two sorts of vessels in 9:21 is continued in 9:22f.18 Cranfield does assert that if Paul wanted the skeue pair of 9:22f to refer back to the pair of 9:21 he should have used definite articles with the pair in 9:22f. This argument has no force for two reasons: 1) there are no such rigorous grammatical laws governing the way one must employ a metaphor and its application; and 2) even where a noun in New Testament Greek is definite the article is often omitted if the noun has a genitive modifier (Blass-Debrunner, 259; cf Rom 2:5, en hemera orges; Phil 4:3, en biblo zoes, etc).
Therefore, it is highly probable that the vessel made for dishonor in 9:21 is the same as the vessels prepared for destruction in 9:22. If so, then "dishonor" is further illuminated by "destruction" (apoleia). Most commentators agree that "eis apoleian indicates clearly the eternal perdition" (Lagrange, Romains, 240). Beyschlag (Theodicee, 61) tries to restrict the reference of apoleian in 9:22 to historical, rather than eternal, destruction on the basis of the parallel to Pharaoh's fate in 9:17. But Meyer (Romans, II, 150 note 1) is right that "the employment of eis doxan in contrast is decisive against
this view." That is, in Paul's thinking the experience of the wealth of God's glory (9:23) comes at the end of the age when Christ is revealed (see Chapter Two, pp 33-34), and therefore the negative counterpart to this glory, namely
"destruction," must be final eschatological judgment. This is recognized as
the normal sense of apoleia in the New Testament. 19
Therefore, contrary to Cranfield, Lagrange and Munck, it is very probable
that when Paul says in 9:21 that God has the right to make a vessel "unto dishonor," it means he has the right to fit vessels for. destruction (9:22). Cran-
field's objection that potters simply don't make vessels to destroy them is
based on an unnecessary conception of destruction as shattering. Oepke
(TDNT, I, 396) says concerning the concept of destruction in Paul, "In contrast to sozesthai or to zoe aionios, apollusthai is definitive destruction,
not merely in the sense of the extinction of physical existence, but rather of
an eternal plunge into Hades and a hopeless destiny of death in the depiction
of which such terms as orge, thumos, thli psyis and stenochoria are used (Rom
2:8£)." In other words, there is no reason to force "destruction" in Rom 9:22
to mean that the vessels are shattered. It is just as likely that we should picture a vessel placed outside the house and used, say, as an incinerator
("where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched," Mk 9:48).
Destruction is not the opposite of existence; it is the opposite of glorious existence (9:22£). And that is all that the metaphor of 9:21 requires. If apoleia
means an eternal, inglorious existence in hell, then the objection that God
could not make persons for such apoleia, since potters do not do that sort
of thing, is not true. For potters do make vessels which are fit for inglorious
uses outside the house. I conclude, therefore, that the arguments against
interpreting Rom 9:21 as a reference to the predestining of individuals to
their respective eternal destinies are not compelling. The evidence points the
other way.




Now, I agree with frumanchu. We have both heard EVERY response the other side could possibly bring up, and hence, we both reject every response offered by the other side. THAT IS WHY I HAVE TRIED TO FOCUS THE DISCUSSION ON THE CENTRAL ISSUE. That is, the deadness of man in sin, and the Perfect work of Christ. Does God save PERFECTLY in Christ, without human merit, or does he save IMPERFECTLY resulting in us needing human merit. In other words, did Christ save people at the cross, or did he just make salvation a mere possibility. I think several verses make the view that he did not save perfectly IMPOSSIBLE.

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of Man has come TO SAVE that which was lost.

Luke 9:56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but TO SAVE them." And they went on to another village.

Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and TO SAVE that which was lost."

1 Timothy 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world TO SAVE sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able TO SAVE and TO DESTROY; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

Matthew 1:21 "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who WILL SAVE His people from their sins."

The first objection normally brought up is &#8220;how did Jesus save.&#8221; This is refuted, however, on the grounds that Christ CAME to save. Hence, the act of saving happened on the earth. The next objection is that God used his foreknowledge to determine who he would die for. The problem is that Ephesians 1:4-5 says that the choosing and predestining happened before the foundation of the world and according to his will and pleasure. Hence, that rules this idea out. However, I think a much more powerful passage that I could go to is Hebrews 10:

Hebrews 10:1-2 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming-- not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.

Now, this is very much like conditional security. Conditional security says that by the commission of a sin or other act, one can renounce the perfection of Christ in our lives. Hence, we have to again accept the gospel and believe. Hence, we have a situation where this &#8220;action,&#8221; [whatever it might be] is just like the Levitical sacrifices. It must be done again and again and NEVER perfects ANYONE. The reason is because you must go back if you sin [or whatever one believes one does to lose salvation]. Hence, they are not cleansed &#8220;once for all.&#8221; However:

Hebrews 10:3-4 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hence, we now find that because these sacrifices could not take away sins, they were an annual reminder of sins. However, verse 2 says that if the sacrifices had perfected people, they would have ceased to be offered? Hence, I would say these verses demonstrate, that if salvation must be repeated, IT DID NOT PERFECT ANYONE THE FIRST TIME. This will become clearer as the passage goes on.

Hebrews 10:5-10 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.'" 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

What is interesting to note about this passage is that the Greek word for body &#8220;soma&#8221; is the same in both verses 5 and 10. There has been no change in context &#8220;ie. The conjunction &#8220;and&#8221; at the beginning of verse 10, and the theme of sacrifice], and hence, we can assume that we are talking about the same thing. However, the most interesting thing about this verse, is that the death of Christ is seen as a &#8220;once for all&#8221; action [aorist+ephapax]. However, if they indeed lost their salvation, then Christ&#8217;s work of redemption was imperfect. However, we will see that in stark contrast to the Levitical sacrifices [and conditional security], Christ&#8217;s work cannot be undone.

Hebrews 10:11-14 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Now, the idea of a priest sitting down in the old covenant was just plain nonsense. That is the reason there was no chair in the temple for the priest. It was a symbol that his work was never done. However, just as in the previous verses, we note that Christ DID sit down, because he COMPLETED his work. However, what were the results of this work? &#8220;For by one offering He has perfected FOR ALL TIME those who are sanctified.&#8221; For all time is a temporal usage of eis which is translated &#8220;for, throughout [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p 369].&#8221; Hence, the semantic force of this passage is &#8220;For by one offering He has perfected for [throughout] all time those who are sanctified.&#8221; Louw and Nida give this definition for this idiom:

unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - 'always, forever, forever and ever, eternally.

Now, if you believe that when you were saved the blood of Christ perfected you throughout all time, why then is it true that at a particular point in time you could loose that perfection by an act you do? Anyway, we will see that shortly, the writer of Hebrews has some very nasty things to say to people who believe this.
 
Upvote 0
Hebrews 10:15-25 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, 16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, 17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." 18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. 19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

This passage has just said basically the same thing as the last passage. Again, if there is forgiveness of sins there is no more offering because it has been done &#8220;once for all. [v18]&#8221; In fact, Paul gets very nasty with people who would deny this next.

Hebrews 10:26-27 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

Some people have ripped these proceeding verses from their context, and have thought that these verses means one can loose ones salvation NOT REALIZING THAT THESE VERSES ARE DIRECTED AT THEM!!! The question must be asked, &#8220;why is there no longer sacrifice for sins?&#8221; Because Christ already made the one true sacrifice. Hence, this is a warning to those who would have &#8220;knowledge&#8221; of the truth. Yet, despite this knowledge go back to the Levitical sacrifices. He no longer has any redemption for sins. Hence, if a person goes back to the old sacrifices, he only has &#8220;THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.&#8221; John Owen comments:

Sixthly, There is nothing in the text of force to persuade that the persons
here spoken of must needs be truly justified and regenerated believers,
much less that Christ died for them; which comes in only by strained
consequences.

If we continue to look, we will note that the writer to the Hebrews gets very nasty with such people:

Hebrews 10:28-31 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Now, some will think that the sanctified one refers to the reprobate. However, is that the only solution? Look at this. Is it:

and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he [the reprobate] was sanctified

Or:

and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he [Christ] was sanctified?

John Owen comments on this:

But the design of the
apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words.
It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated
unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which
he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were
dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices
which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were
Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering
any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto
this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the
sacrificer himself, &#8212; to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his
own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his
suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That
precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and
dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed &#8220;an unholy thing;&#8221; that is, such as would have no such effect as
to consecrate him unto God and his office.

Hence, I think the author to the Hebrews has made it extremely clear that if you go to a system that cannot perfect [such as conditional security] there are serious consequences. As this passage says, Christ has perfected us FOREVER. To go against that is a VERY serious thing indeed. Hence, this is the central issue. If Christ perfected us perfectly for all time, then eternal security is true. If he did not, then conditional security is true. This is the CENTRAL issue. Hence, I think our discussion should focus on this.

God Bless
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
Hello, akb3! Goodness, you went to a lot of effort! I have been called "tireless" in these discussions; but I think you've invested more energy than I have! :)

I'm curious as to how you came to "PREDESTINED-ELECTION" belief.

It will take me a bit to reply; I copied your pages to a word processor, it filled 39 pages! By reducing the font to size "6", and laboriously removing spaces and the word "QUOTE", I have gotten it down to 8 pages; but I may need my visor-magnifier to read...

Hopefully you're not in a hurry.

Hope also that you're feeling better; do you need prayer for anything?

God bless you too!

(Anyone else is welcome to comment --- this is not "exclusive conversation"...)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
Hello, akb3! Now it is my turn to apologize. Of the three beliefs of "OSAS", predestination (Calvinism) is the most difficult for apologetics. Not because of Scripture, but because of the depth of entinement of its proponents. It is not enough to simply cite verses that say "Jesus died for ALL", because "ALL" is interpreted to mean &#8220;Only SOME of ALL TYPES&#8221;. Thus the debate cannot occur in a few simple sentences; one must labor to reconstruct the very foundations, the substance of the doctrine of the Gospel.

Always I walk a thin line of balance. Keenly aware of verses that speak of &#8220;fruits of the flesh&#8221; such as Gal 5, disputes, factions and dissentions; but I am urged on by verses such as Titus 1:9, &#8220;The overseer must ...hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able to both exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.&#8221; Verse 2:7 also applies: &#8220;In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.&#8221;

Why do I participate in debates? My spirit is desirous of strengthening my brothers and sisters; to build and never to destroy, to lift up and never to tear down. There is of course only ONE Savior; in the end, whatever my brother or sister chooses to believe, is between themselves and God. What if I was to pursue pride, and to &#8220;WIN&#8221; at any cost? If I should hurt my brother or sister at ALL, then I shall have LOST, severely. Does &#8220;PREDESTINATION/RESPONSIBILITY&#8221; matter? Yes, I think it does. It cuts to the heart of the NATURE of salvation. Does GOD persevere US? Or do WE persevere IN GOD? Two fundamentally different perspectives --- they cannot both be true. If WE are responsible to &#8220;keep OURSELVES in the love of Christ, waiting anxiously to eternal life&#8221; (as Jude pens), then that is a far different cry from counting on GOD to maintain US. Am I suggesting that Calvinists are LAZY or UNMOTIVATED? Certainly not! Nor do I even HINT that ANY of them are not SAVED!

We stand on the precipice of a great conflict; we bear undivertibly towards the &#8220;END OF THE AGE&#8221;. Since I also do not believe in a &#8220;PRE-TRIB-RAPTURE&#8221;, I see terrible danger ahead for those who, first, count on a RESCUE from TRIBULATION, but also (for whatever reason --- Carnal, Predestinationist or Security) rest secure in the BELIEF that one CANNOT become UNSAVED. For if both views are WRONG, then some of them WILL PERISH! They enforce seat-belt laws, not that they think you are a BAD DRIVER, but against the unforseen crash; I seek to strengthen my brothers and sisters against the unforseen trial. If, at the end of a discussion, we can NOT come to agreement, fine with me. As I said, there is ONE Savior; and it&#8217;s not ME. What has been lost? Nothing, really. What has been gained? My colleagues must delve into the Scriptures, seeing verses through MY eyes; and simultaneously, I see Scriptures through YOURS. Can we not BUT come to better understanding of each other? Shall we part in more anger, or in more friendship? I cannot imagine the former.

Seeing through YOUR eyes gives me a greater respect for you; I hope each of you can say the same for me.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.