Quite ironically, your quote of Wallace points out that in Rom 8:13 "it is impossible, in such passages, to claim that the first class condition means since both times."Wrong! As I have shown you from the full context of the verse. One cannot yank one verse out of its context and make a grammatical argument trying to make it say the opposite of what it does say.
You might want to read Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Dr. Dan Wallace pg. 708. Please note the examples at the bottom.
The protasis of the first class condition does not always, or even usually, state its hypothesis as a fact.I have never stated or implied "Jesus teaches spiritual death for believers who habitually sin." Perhaps you should actually read what I did write.
The common misconception that it does so, even that it usually does so, has led to serious exegetical errors. Others have said it before, though none so convincingly as Boyer in his 1981 article. He pointed out that only 37% of first class conditions could be accurately presented as meaning "since.” It needs to be emphatically stated here that the first class condition does not mean “since.” One of the best demonstrations of this is seen in Matthew 12:27-28, discussed earlier.
There are a number of such couplets of opposites in the NT in which the first class condition is used in both arguments. It is impossible, in such passages, to claim that the first class condition means since both times. Cf. John 10:37-38; 15:20 (twice); 18:23 (twice); Acts 25:11 (twice); Romans 8:13 (twice); 1 Cor 9:17 (twice); 2 Cor 7:8-9: 2 Tim 2:12 (thrice); 1 Pet 2.20 (twice).
Which is completely different than what you said in the post I quoted and responded to. And I quote "It is not a matter of "if" unbelievers sin; instead it is "since" they sin."Quite ironically, your quote of Wallace points out that in Rom 8:13 "it is impossible, in such passages, to claim that the first class condition means since both times."
That is why I pointed out earlier that every single translation I know of translates this verse using IF not SINCE.
And you, adamantly trying to support your assumptions/presuppositions, persist in ignoring the full context of the passage.That is because Paul makes it clear that he is addressing believers (v.12) and only believers have the choice IF to live according to the flesh OR IF to live according to the Spirit. Unbelievers have no such choice as being unregenerate, they can only choose to live according to the flesh. Only regenerate believers have a choice as indicated by "if." Moreover, James 5:19-20 makes it abundantly clear that a believer who wanders away from the truth faces the prospect of the death of his soul which does not reference physical death. Also it is impossible for an unbeliever to wander away from the truth since he was never in the truth to begin with.
Lastly, I never said you believe Jesus teaches spiritual death for habitual sin. Instead I challenged you to find it in Scripture where he did. The prodigal son was dead and made alive AGAIN. How is one made alive again?
Which is completely different than what you said in the post I quoted and responded to. And I quote "It is not a matter of "if" unbelievers sin; instead it is "since" they sin."
And you, adamantly trying to support your assumptions/presuppositions, persist in ignoring the full context of the passage.
Of course, Paul is addressing the church at Rome in his epistle to the church at Rome, but everybody in the church is not an obedient believer, thus the caution in the first part of vs. 13 and other verses.
Romans 8:13-14As I said before the converse of vs. 14 is "as many as are [not] led by the Spirit of God, they are [not] the sons of God.""expressio unius est exclusio alterius" "the mention or one or more things in a class excludes all others."
(13) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
(14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
.....Please explain to to me why should I try to find in scripture where Jesus teaches spiritual death for habitual sin, when I have never mentioned it?
Comprehend what I wrote. The word SINCE is not employed in this verse since Paul is not addressing unbelievers. That is why he used the word IF because only believers can choose IF to live by the flesh or IF to live by the Spirit. Therefore v.13 can in no way apply to unbelievers or false brethren. If Paul were addressing unbelievers in the first clause of this verse, he would have employed SINCE but he did not do so. Therefore, Paul's intention is clear. He warns the brethren in Rome that if they habitually sin by living according to the flesh, they will die; i.e. spiritual death.Which is completely different than what you said in the post I quoted and responded to. And I quote "It is not a matter of "if" unbelievers sin; instead it is "since" they sin."
Indeed, everyone in the church is not an obedient believer hence his warning of spiritual death for those who chronically sin which evidences an unrepentant lifestyle. A believer can choose to be disobedient. An unbeliever has no such choice regarding disobedience.Of course, Paul is addressing the church at Rome in his epistle to the church at Rome, but everybody in the church is not an obedient believer, thus the caution in the first part of vs. 13 and other verses.
They are not sons of God because instead of being led by the Spirit, the are led by the flesh - the result of which is spiritual death. We are talking about one class of people, i.e. believers only as I explained above. If a believer lives according to the flesh, he faces the prospect of spiritual death. If a believer lives according to the Spirit, he will spiritually live. If you are implying that these people are really unbelievers then I reject that for my reasons stated above.s I said before the converse of vs. 14 is "as many as are [not] led by the Spirit of God, they are [not] the sons of God.""expressio unius est exclusio alterius" "the mention or one or more things in a class excludes all others."
You need not mention it. I mentioned it because correct me if I'm wrong but you believe in eternal security. Rom 8:13 counters that belief that a genuine believer can never lose their secure position in Christ. If Jesus taught that a Christian is not secure in his salvation then the principle of first mention requires that all scripture written by the Apostles be interpreted in light of what Jesus taught....Please explain to to me why should I try to find in scripture where Jesus teaches spiritual death for habitual sin, when I have never mentioned it?
Which Greek word that means "since" would Paul have used in Rom 5:18?Comprehend what I wrote. The word SINCE is not employed in this verse since Paul is not addressing unbelievers. That is why he used the word IF because only believers can choose IF to live by the flesh or IF to live by the Spirit. Therefore v.13 can in no way apply to unbelievers or false brethren. If Paul were addressing unbelievers in the first clause of this verse, he would have employed SINCE but he did not do so. Therefore, Paul's intention is clear. He warns the brethren in Rome that if they habitually sin by living according to the flesh, they will die; i.e. spiritual death.
Joshua seemed to think the unrepentant could make a choice.Indeed, everyone in the church is not an obedient believer hence his warning of spiritual death for those who chronically sin which evidences an unrepentant lifestyle. A believer can choose to be disobedient. An unbeliever has no such choice regarding disobedience.
You are free to reject anything you want to but as I stated before Paul's audience included both.They are not sons of God because instead of being led by the Spirit, the are led by the flesh - the result of which is spiritual death. We are talking about one class of people, i.e. believers only as I explained above. If a believer lives according to the flesh, he faces the prospect of spiritual death. If a believer lives according to the Spirit, he will spiritually live. If you are implying that these people are really unbelievers then I reject that for my reasons stated above.
See above.You need not mention it. I mentioned it because correct me if I'm wrong but you believe in eternal security. Rom 8:13 counters that belief that a genuine believer can never lose their secure position in Christ. If Jesus taught that a Christian is not secure in his salvation then the principle of first mention requires that all scripture written by the Apostles be interpreted in light of what Jesus taught.
And what implication is that? For clarification do you believe it is impossible for believers to live according to the flesh and not spiritually die as a result. Yes or no? Or do you believe v.13 refers to unbelievers? You already agreed that v.14 refers to the brethren. Are you referring to false brethren?Which Greek word that means "since" would Paul have used in Rom 5:18?
You are still ignoring vs. 14 and the implication which I have stated twice.
So the unrepentant can live according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh despite being unregenerated? Yes or No?Joshua seemed to think the unrepentant could make a choice.
Indeed it is possible for believers to fall away. If you paid attention to the participle tenses in that verse you would realize that it is impossible to renew them to repentance because they are crucifying and publically shaming Christ. Since they continue to do those things, it is obvious that they are unrepentant, have no interest in seeking forgiveness - therefore it impossible to restore them to repentance.The writer of Hebrews evidently thought it was possible for believers to fall away.
The only impossibility stated is being restored if they fall away. Only believers can fall away.
I suggest you reread my posts I did not agree that v. 14 refers to the brethren. I stated my position more than once.And what implication is that? For clarification do you believe it is impossible for believers to live according to the flesh and not spiritually die as a result. Yes or no? Or do you believe v.13 refers to unbelievers? You already agreed that v.14 refers to the brethren. Are you referring to false brethren?...
So you think v. 13 refers to false brethren/unbeliever? How can Paul write IF you live according to the flesh? Instead he would have written SINCE you live according to the flesh.... An unbeliever being unregenerated by the Spirit can forsake living according to the flesh? Never met one in my life. Never met one described in Scripture. How about you?I suggest you reread my posts I did not agree that v. 14 refers to the brethren. I stated my position more than once.
You keep making this argument, I asked this question before. Which Greek word would Paul have used if he intended to write, "SINCE you live according to the flesh?"So you think v. 13 refers to false brethren/unbeliever? How can Paul write IF you live according to the flesh? Instead he would have written SINCE you live according to the flesh.... An unbeliever being unregenerated by the Spirit can forsake living according to the flesh? Never met one in my life. Never met one described in Scripture. How about you?
Paul could have used ἐπεί, ἐπειδή for since.You keep making this argument, I asked this question before. Which Greek word would Paul have used if he intended to write, "SINCE you live according to the flesh?"
My previous post. Please tell which part you do not understand?
"Of course, Paul is addressing the church at Rome in his epistle to the church at Rome, but everybody in the church is not an obedient believer, thus the caution in the first part of vs. 13 and other verses.
Romans 8:13-14As I said before the converse of vs. 14 is "as many as are [not] led by the Spirit of God, they are [not] the sons of God.""expressio unius est exclusio alterius" "the mention of one or more things in a class excludes all others."
(13) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
(14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." - Daniel 12:2
Jesus, in the gospel of Mark, quotes from Isaiah 66:24 when he said, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (ch. 9:44), in speaking of Hell.
He is spoke more about Hell than all the prophets and apostles combined. I suggest reading the four gospels...
Eternal punishment is God's display of divine justice toward evil, and it glorifies his mercy towards those whom he saves. It shows the severe weight that sin carries.
On your second question, we don't deserve to go to heaven, we deserve to be punished. God is not obligated to anyone, he has the right to save no one. Even if someone never heard of Christ, they are still sinners who have rebelled against an absolutely holy God.
What do you think of this verse ?
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
• Revelation 20:10
.
Love and freewill. You can't have true love without freewill. You can't force someone to love someone. God knows this .. we know this.
Without freewill, we would be nothing more than robots, and not a true loving relationship.
ECT (eternal conscious torment) in LOF (lake of fire) is not so ...
No, I never heard of that...
Here's a few quotes:
Jonathan Edwards
“The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.”
The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.
Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.And yet most evangelicals believe babies, young children and the mentally challenged get a free pass into heaven. Do those exercise their "free will?" How important is "free will" if there are whole classes of people who are exempted?
Does it?Day and night. Doesn't Revelations also say that there will be no more night?
It occurs in the NT 26 times and is only translated "since" in one verse in the KJV. But I will go with the approximately 300 years of Greek scholarship in the BDAG that ει can mean "since."Paul could have used ἐπεί, ἐπειδή for since.
I said what I said, deciding who is or is not an obedient believer is God's purview not mine.Let's get to the bottom of this. You claim that everyone in the church is not an obedient believer - which may indeed be true. So assuming that, does that make a disobedient believer unsaved, or was he never saved in the first place? If you choose the latter option, then that conflicts with Js 5:19-20 where James wrote the the wandering brother unless turned away from his wandering, faces the death of his soul. The latter option also conflicts with Jesus' own teaching where the prodigal son became dead (spiritual death as it is obvious that he didn't physically die) but was made alive AGAIN. The prodigal was spiritually alive when he lived in his father's house but he spent his inheritance on sinful living and became spiritually dead. He was made alive AGAIN when in repentance he returned to the Father seeking forgiveness. When one becomes a believer, he is made alive in Christ (first time) but can through habitual sin (like the prodigal) become spiritually dead. However if he repents and seeks forgiveness (like the prodigal) he is made alive AGAIN. If he does not repent, the believer remains spiritually dead.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?