Continuing Examination of 'Responsible Grace' Theology

[frumanchu]

The purpose of this thread is to continue discussion of the theology known as "Responsible Grace." Numerous verses have been proffered in support of the position that one can have true saving faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation and then proceed to lose said salvation. Proponents of this theology have set it against the Reformed doctrines of total inability, unconditional election, particular atonement, efficacious grace and perseverance of the saints. The primary focus recently has been on the last doctrine, that of the perseverance of the saints or "once saved always saved" (OSAS). Proponents of Responsible Grace have also put forth explanations of verses offen cited as supporting the Reformed soteriological position. This thread is intended to continue discussion and debate on these points.

To begin this thread, I would like to reiterate some points that have been made regarding particular passages in Hebrews. The assertion was made that there were several passages in Hebrews which indicated the real possibility of lost salvation. Specifically mentioned were Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-31 and Hebrews 12.

Let's start by looking at Hebrews 10:

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The word translated in v29 as 'sanctified' does not always mean "purified" but also can mean "set apart."

2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
a) consecrate things to God
b) dedicate people to God

The context of the verse is the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Anyone who rejects the old covenant (law of Moses) is easily condemned on the testimony of witnesses. How much worse will it be for someone who has rejected the the blood of Christ and trampled it underfoot, insulting the Spirit of grace?

This verse specifically does not of necessity mean, either by the word used or by the context, that one could actually be purified by the blood of Christ and then turn around and reject it.

Consider Gill, who examines several possibilities, all in line with the Calvinist position:

"putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it (vnlkd Kya) , "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. "

Looking at the chapter as a whole, the author speaks of the insufficiency of animal sacrifices (vv1-4), the fulfilling of God's will in Christ's sacrifice (vv5-10), and how Christ's death perfects the sanctified (vv11-18). The author then pastorally sets forth to encourage them in their confession (vv19-25) and show them the greater value of the new covenant over the old by juxtaposing (in a hypothetical manner - "do you suppose") failure to keep the old covenant of works with failing to keep the new covenant of grace and faith (vv26-31). He then from v32 to the end of the chapter by reminding them of their past perseverance, that confidence in the confession is important and carries with it reward, and that they are "not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul."

Hebrews 6:

4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. - Hebrews 6:4-6

These verses in Heb 6 are conveyed in like manner to Heb 10 as an exhortation for believers to prove their faith by their perseverance. The author again (just as in Heb 10), expresses confidence of "better things" concerning them (v9).

Hebrews 12:

14Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: 15looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; 16lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. 17For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears. - Hebrews 12:14-17


In Chapter 12 the author speaks of our lives in faith as a long race in which we may at times become weary or discouraged, weighed down by the sin which so easily ensnares us. Moreover, we must be aware that we WILL be chastened, and that it is for a purpose. Those who are not chastened show themselves to be illegitimate and "not sons." The author then encourages them to renew their spiritual vitality and pursue peace and holiness (v14), the understanding of which is expounded upon in vv15-17. They are to be on their guard against those who receive the Gospel in vain (2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 4:1), roots of bitterness who spreads doubt and disloyalty toward the Lord among the covenant people (see Deut 29:18), fornicators, and those who exchange the truth for lies and like Esau give up the blessings presented to them for earthly things.

 

[CCWoody]

Maybe I'll just watch this time. My presence seems to cause some interesting behaviour in people.

 

[Ben johnson]

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth

Question: can one "RECEIVE KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH", but not be saved? Contextually, it says, "If WE continue to willfully sin after having RECEIVED knowledge of the truth..." (removing the claim that he's referring to UNSAVED --- he says "WE".

"EPIGNOSIS" asserts SAVED knowledge, in verses like Eph 1:7, Col1:9 & 10, 2Pet1:2 & 2:20. It does here too; the only way to "de-fuse" this for OSAS. is to say "this is an IF HYPOTHETICAL but it can't REALLY HAPPEN." And yet the context FLOWS; it says, "ANYONE who has SET ASIDE the law of moses... how much severer will HE deserve who has trampled underfoot Jesus, scorned the blood and insulted the Spirit?" The "anyone set aside" refers to those under the OLD covenant, who reject the covenant; the "HE" following, who "tramples Jesus" and "scorns the blood" and "insults the Spirit", cannot be separated from "IF WE SIN WILLFULLY AFTER HAVING RECEIVED KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH." In BOTH verses, 26 and 29, it refers to one who REJECTS THE NEW COVENANT.

It is not written as "hypothetical/impossible", it is not "never-saved-who-ALWAYS-trampled-Jesus" it is, "if WE sin willfully and WE trample Jesus"!

Thus --- merely "defusing" the word, "SANCTIFIED" (to mean "not really saved"), denies the context; "If WE trample Jesus and WE scorn the blood and WE insult the Spirit, we shall be in TROUBLE..."

Looking at the chapter as a whole, the author speaks of the insufficiency of animal sacrifices (vv1-4), the fulfilling of God's will in Christ's sacrifice (vv5-10), and how Christ's death perfects the sanctified (vv11-18). The author then pastorally sets forth to encourage them in their confession (vv19-25) and show them the greater value of the new covenant over the old by juxtaposing (in a hypothetical manner - "do you suppose") failure to keep the old covenant of works with failing to keep the new covenant of grace and faith (vv26-31). He then from v32 to the end of the chapter by reminding them of their past perseverance, that confidence in the confession is important and carries with it reward, and that they are "not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul."

And yet, the context says: "If one rejected God under the OLD and died without mercy, how much severer will another be punished who rejects Him under the NEW."

The phrase, "we are not of those who shrink back", is a POSITIVE AFFIRMATION; it is an encouragement. I've given citations of other passages of "positive affirmation" written right next to warnings of apostasy...

These verses in Heb 6 are conveyed in like manner to Heb 10 as an exhortation for believers to prove their faith by their perseverance. The author again (just as in Heb 10), expresses confidence of "better things" concerning them (v9).

This IS one of those "positive affirmations". Look at Hebrews completely --- he uses a word, "METOCHOS" --- which conveys, PARTNER; not merely "squatter-unsaved-lurker", but one who truly PARTNERS in salvation.

3:1: "Partners in a heavenly calling."
3:14: "Partners in Christ."
6:4: "Partners in the Holy Spirit."

It is unsuccessful to try to present such a one, as UNSAVED. The SPIRIT does not PARTNER with the UNSAVED.

6:4-6 says, in essence: "If a SAVED one falls away, it is ADUNATOS-UNABLE-POWERLESS to restore them to repentance, SEEING AS (King James), BECAUSE (New International), SINCE (New American Standard), WHILE (NAS footnote) they scorn Jesus." Identical to chapter 10. It does NOT say "they cannot ever be saved again", it says "they won't REPENT, not WHILE they contempt Him". (Impetus is 100% on them, iow 100% on their unbelief.)

Then comes the POSITIVE AFFIRMATION of vs 6:9: "We are convinced of better things for you"... But look at verse 11: "We desire that each of you show the same DILIGENCE, SO AS to realize the full assurance of hope UNTIL THE END, that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who THROUGH FAITH and PATIENCE inherit the promises."

This clearly says:
• Our DILIGENCE affects our eternity (identically as Peter says, 2:1:9-11)
• Our FAITH affects our eternity
• Our PATIENCE affects our eternity
• It is POSSIBLE to be SLUGGISH, which contextually OPPOSES our chance of "inheriting the promises"

In Chapter 12 the author speaks of our lives in faith as a long race in which we may at times become weary or discouraged, weighed down by the sin which so easily ensnares us. Moreover, we must be aware that we WILL be chastened, and that it is for a purpose. Those who are not chastened show themselves to be illegitimate and "not sons."

The question here, is between: "who are NOT chastened", and "who REFUSE His chastening"? You cannot separate verse 8 from 25 (nor "divorce" verse 8 from the rest of the letter); if in verse 25 he says "see that YOU do not REFUSE GOD", then there is no way to deny the possibility of refusing His discipline in verse 8, either. The entire letter is warning the BELIEVER. In 10, "If WE continue sinning willfully, if WE trample Jesus, if WE scorn the blood and insult the Spirit" --- here in 12 it is ALSO saying, "if YOU-LISTENERS are without discipline" --- he doesn't suddenly START TALKING TO UNBELIEVERS.

Fru, you attempt to "pie-slice" this chapter, trying to show that he is talking to the NEVER-SAVED, and to the SAVED; I submit there is ONE AUDIENCE. The same for the whole leter. He says, "see that none FALL SHORT of God's GRACE, by root of bitterness." Esau is an example of one who WAS FALLEN ("you-saved don't BE like Esau!"); the context does not assert "the FALL-SHORT were NEVER-SAVED".

The context persists throughout the whole letter. Shall we dismiss 3:12-14? Here he warns SAVED BRETHREN, not to be deceived by sin to FALLING AWAY FROM THE LIVING GOD. He says, "we are PARTNERS in Jesus, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance FIRM UNTIL THE END. How can that possibly be viewed as NOT-CONDITIONAL? A direct comparison in verses 3:17-18, identical to Rom9:31-33, states that those who HAVE unbelieving-falling-away-hearts, are lLIKE the Israelites who were DISOBEDIENT, because of their UNBELIEF. Complete, personal, responsibility.

4:1 mirrors 12:15 perfectly: "Let us fear, lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any of YOU should seem to have come SHORT OF IT."

2:2-3 mirrors perfectly 1Tim4:16; that it is possible to drift away from salvation.

The whole context denies "OSAS"...

 

[Ben johnson]

Maybe I'll just watch this time. My presence seems to cause some interesting behaviour in people.

Woody, your opionion is always welcome. If written patiently, without anger, and without sharpness...

 

[frumanchu]

Question: can one "RECEIVE KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH", but not be saved? Contextually, it says, "If WE continue to willfully sin after having RECEIVED knowledge of the truth..." "EPIGNOSIS" asserts SAVED knowledge, in verses like Eph 1:7, Col1:9 & 10, 2Pet1:2 & 2:20. It does here too; the only way to "de-fuse" this for OSAS. is to say "this is an IF HYPOTHETICAL but it can't REALLY HAPPEN." And yet the context FLOWS; it says, "ANYONE who has SET ASIDE the law of moses... how much severer will HE deserve who has trampled underfoot Jesus, scorned the blood and insulted the Spirit?" The "anyone set aside" refers to those under the OLD covenant, who rejects the covenant; the "HE" following, who "tramples Jesus" and "scorns the blood" and "insults the Spirit", cannot be separated from "IF WE SIN WILLFULLY AFTER HAVING RECEIVED KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH." In BOTH verses, 26 and 29, it refers to one who REJECTS THE NEW COVENANT.

Ben the overarching theme of Hebrews is the supremacy of Christ and the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. This chapter shows this starkly by means of illustrative hypothetical. The language is clearly hypothetical because it does not speak of any specific individual. The question is what the purpose of the hypothetical is. What is it intended to teach or illustrate? You claim that illustrates the possibility of men losing their salvation. I say that, in line with the rest of the epistle, it is intended to further juxtapose the New Covenant against the Old.

To further explain: "Hebrews’ high literary style and special focus on Christ’s high priesthood set it apart from other New Testament books. Its unique contribution to the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ is the disclosure of Jesus’ fulfillment of the sanctuary, sacrifices, and priesthood established in the law of Moses.

The author refers to his work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22). Since the same Greek expression in Acts 13:15 refers to a synagogue speech, the term may identify this “epistle” as an expository sermon in written form. Hebrews is aptly described as a “word of exhortation,” for exhortation or encouragement is the heart of the book’s purpose (3:13; 6:18; 10:25; 12:5). The author repeatedly calls his readers to an active and courageous response (4:11, 14, 16; 6:1; 10:19–25).​

The exhortation to persevere in the pilgrimage of faith is grounded in the author’s proof that the Old Testament itself testified to the imperfection of the covenant at Sinai and its sacrificial system, thereby pointing ahead to a new High Priest—Jesus Christ. Jesus is better than the mediators, sanctuary, and sacrifices of the old order. He is worthy of “more glory” than Moses (3:3). The arguments from lesser to greater of 2:2, 3; 9:13, 14; 10:28, 29; and 12:25 (“if … how much more”) underscore the greater grace and glory, and the greater accountability, which have now arrived in the new covenant mediated by Jesus. Unlike the earthly and external aspects of the Old Testament sanctuary, Jesus sanctifies us for the true worship of God, so that we draw near to heaven itself with clean consciences. He is the guarantee of this better covenant bond, for He links us inseparably with the God of grace."​

New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

It is not written as "hypothetical/impossible", it is not "never-saved-who-ALWAYS-trampled-Jesus" it is, "if WE sin willfully and WE trample Jesus"!

Thus --- merely "defusing" the word, "SANCTIFIED" (to not REALLY mean "saved"), denies the context; "If WE trample Jesus and WE scorn the blood and WE insult the Spirit, we shall be in TROUBLE..."

On the contrary, the employment of the hypothetical affirms the overall context and is supported by the immediate context. Verse 26-27 echoes the notion of Heb 6:4-6, and in both cases the author finishes by expressing confidence that they are "not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul" and that "though [they] speak in this manner" they are "confident of better things concerning [them]." Notice furthermore the comparison in 10:39 of "those who draw back to perdition" with those who "believe to the saving of the soul." He directly juxtaposes those who draw back and those who have true belief ("to the saving of the soul").

This IS one of those "positive affirmations". Look at Hebrews completely --- he uses a word, "METOCHOS" --- which conveys, PARTNER; not merely "squatter-unsaved-lurker", but one who truly PARTNERS in salvation.

3:1: "Partners in a heavenly calling."
3:14: "Partners in Christ."
6:4: "Partners in the Holy Spirit."

It is unsuccessful to try to present such a one, as UNSAVED.

I never said it needed to be. Again, the hypothetical is dealt with. The question is what the employment of the hypothetical is intended to illustrate. Given the "positive affirmations" following each exhortation, I believe they are encouragement/admonishment and not dire warning. I again defer to the overview above.

6:4-6 says, in essence: "If a SAVED one falls away, it is ADUNATOS-UNABLE-POWERLESS to restore them to repentance, SEEING AS (King James), BECAUSE (New International), SINCE (New American Standard), WHILE (NAS footnote) they scorn Jesus." Identical to chapter 10. It does NOT say "they cannot ever be saved again", it says "they won't REPENT, not WHILE they contempt Him".

No, Ben. That is completely eisegetical. It says that it is "impossible...if they fall away to renew them again to repentance." As you said, "identical to chapter 10": "there NO LONGER REMAINS a sacrifice." It seems to me that if we carry your insistence on real application of these hypotheticals to their logical conclusion, we are left with the extreme opposite of "Once Saved Always Saved," that being "Once Fallen Always Fallen."

Then comes the POSITIVE AFFIRMATION of 6:9: "We are convinced of better things for you"... But look at verse 11: "We desire that each of you show the same DILIGENCE, SO AS to realize the full assurance of hope UNTIL THE END, that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who THROUGH FAITH and PATIENCE inherit the promises."

This clearly says:
• Our DILIGENCE affects our eternity (identically as Peter says, 2:1:9-11)
• Our FAITH affects our eternity
• Our PATIENCE affects our eternity
• It is POSSIBLE to be SLUGGISH, which contextually OPPOSES our chance of "inheriting the promises"

Question: what is being referred to by the word "promises?" Does it refer specifically to salvation? Or does it refer to the reward the saved will receive in Heaven according to their work?

The question here, is "who are NOT chastened" or "who REFUSE His chastening"? You cannot separate verse 8 from 25 (nor "divorce" verse 8 from the rest of the letter); if in verse 25 he says "see that YOU do not REFUSE GOD", then there is no way to deny the possibility of refusing His discipline in verse 8, either. The entire letter is warning the BELIEVER. In 10, "If WE continue sinning willfully, if WE trample Jesus, if WE scorn the blood and insult the Spirit" --- here in 12 it is ALSO saying, "if YOU-LISTENERS are without discipline" --- he doesn't suddenly START TALKING TO UNBELIEVERS.

I am not "divorcing" this verse from the rest of the letter, only from your position.

The beginning of Chapter 12, following on the heals of reminding the readers of the acts of faith of those who went before them (Abraham, Joshua, etc), compares the life of faith to a race. I was a distance runner in high school, Ben. The comparison is exceptionally appropriate. There are times, especially in the middle of the race, where you begin to get sluggish or fatigued. Your mind may wander. You may begin to lose form and slow down. Your feet may feel heavy and you may stumble. But you press on and you learn to overcome such things and finish the race.

He then points to the suffering and endurance of Christ Himself. He urges them to consider their own struggles in light of the ultimate show of endurance in the life of Christ, particularly in His humiliation and death. Those who "become weary and discouraged in [their] souls" have forgotten that they were foretold that "the Lord chastens whom He loves." He deals with us as fathers with a son:

"Many Roman nobles had illegitimate sons, who were financially supported but left virtually without discipline. On the other hand, the son of a nobleman’s legal wife, who would carry the father’s name and inherit the estate, was subjected to a training regimen comparable to slavery (Gal. 4:1, 2) "
New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (Heb 12:8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

"1Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Gal 4:1-7



12:11 brings the point home that he is making:

"Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it."

The whole point is in encouraging believers who are enduring chastening by pointing out that a) it is nothing compared to what Christ endured for us, b) it is a proper showing of the love of God to His adopted children, and c) though it is painful at present, it is intended and will bring about the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" in them.

Fru, you attempt to "pie-slice" this chapter, showing that he is talking to the NEVER-SAVED, and to the SAVED; I submit there is ONE AUDIENCE. The same for the whole leter. He says, "see that none FALL SHORT of God's GRACE, by root of bitterness." Esau is an example of one who WAS FALLEN; the context does not assert "the FALL-SHORT were NEVER-SAVED".

I submit that the audience is the professing church, which is a mixture of those who are truly saved and those who are not, all of whom claim the name of Christ.

The context persists throughout the whole letter. Shall we dismiss 3:12-14? Here he warns SAVED BRETHREN, not to be deceived by sin to FALLING AWAY FROM THE LIVING GOD. He says, "we are PARTNERS in Jesus, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance FIRM UNTIL THE END. How can that possibly be viewed as NOT-CONDITIONAL? A direct comparison in verses 3:17-18, identical to Rom9:31-33, states that those who HAVE unbelieving-falling-away-hearts, are like the Israelites who were DISOBEDIENT, because of their UNBELIEF. Complete, personal, responsibility.

Once again you have misapplied a conditional statement. The conditional statement does not address why those who meet the condition do so or why those who fail to meet the condition do so. It is a simple IF/THEN statement. If we hold fast...THEN we are partners. Holding fast is evidence of the partnership, not the sole means of defining it, just as works are not the basis of our justification, but the evidence of it.

4:1 mirrors 12:15 perfectly: "Let us fear, lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any of YOU should seem to have come SHORT OF IT."

2:2-3 mirrors perfectly 1Tim4:16; that it is possible to drift away from salvation.

The whole context denies "OSAS"...

Disagree. The whole context and purpose of the epistle is explained above. Perseverance is the sign of salvation, not the keeping of it.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben the overarching theme of Hebrews is the supremacy of Christ and the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. This chapter shows this starkly by means of illustrative hypothetical. The language is clearly hypothetical because it does not speak of any specific individual. The question is what the purpose of the hypothetical is. What is it intended to teach or illustrate? You claim that illustrates the possibility of men losing their salvation. I say that, in line with the rest of the epistle, it is intended to further juxtapose the New Covenant against the Old.

I see nothing about 3:12-14 that reads as "HYPOTHETICAL-CAN'T-REALLY-HAPPEN". He says, "Take care that none of YOU be hardened by deceitful sin and fall away from God." Nor does 6:4-6 read as "mere hypothetical" --- it says, 'In the CASE of those who (describes saved), but then FALL AWAY." Nothing empty about that at all...

Notice furthermore the comparison in 10:39 of "those who draw back to perdition" with those who "believe to the saving of the soul." He directly juxtaposes those who draw back and those who have true belief ("to the saving of the soul").
quote]This implies that "those who DO NOT SHRINK BACK" have true belief; and those who DO, never REALLY believed. But the context does not support that: "In the CASE of those who have ONCE been ENLIGHTENED"... The Greek professor I spoke with said: "This uses photizo, meaning FILLED WITH LIGHT, literally ILLUMINED." Jesus is THE LIGHT --- and there's no way the writer did not mean "Jesus filled them with His light". The Greek is the root of English words like "photon". Further, they "metochos-partnered-with-the-Holy-Spirit". So there's really no way to assert that THESE, had FALSE (unsaved) belief.

I never said it needed to be. Again, the hypothetical is dealt with. The question is what the employment of the hypothetical is intended to illustrate. Given the "positive affirmations" following each exhortation, I believe they are encouragement/admonishment and not dire warning. I again defer to the overview above.

The problem is that nowhere is there indication that this is HYPOTHETICAL and NOT REAL.

"In the CASE (hapax-once) of those who WERE... and then FALL AWAY..." The "IF" does not convey in the Greek; it says, "kai-parapiptos" AND FALL.

Literally, "Those who WERE saved AND FALL, it is UNABLE to restore them to repentance." Not one bit of "empty impossible hypothetical"; but a true warning...

No, Ben. That is completely eisegetical. It says that it is "impossible...if they fall away to renew them again to repentance." As you said, "identical to chapter 10": "there NO LONGER REMAINS a sacrifice." It seems to me that if we carry your insistence on real application of these hypotheticals to their logical conclusion, we are left with the extreme opposite of "Once Saved Always Saved," that being "Once Fallen Always Fallen."

Whether you acknowledge "unable", or insist "impossible" --- the problem is 100% their unbelief. All of the translations assert the FULCRUM of the argument --- unrepentant BECAUSE they crucify Jesus to themselves again and hold Him to shame (contempt)."

The FULCRUM, or PIVOT, or CAUSE, is translated "since/because/seeing-as". If the REASON that it is "impossible to restore them to repentance" IS THEIR CONTEMPT OF HIM, then there is nothing preventing them from returning to belief and away from contempt, is there?

Question: what is being referred to by the word "promises?" Does it refer specifically to salvation? Or does it refer to the reward the saved will receive in Heaven according to their work?

Endurance is always admonisthed for salvation. Jesus said, "By your endurance save your souls" in Lk21:19. Contextually, he says "Do not throw away your confidence" --- which begs, "WHAT is OUR CONFIDENCE"? He is saying, "don't throw away JESUS".

Do you have direct comparison: "Don't throw away JESUS, you need ENDURANCE so that you inherit the PROMISE." Direct connection, Fru; Jesus gives salvation, those who "throw Him away", perish.

I stand by my statement of "do not reject His discipline". See vs12:9: "We had EARTHLY fathers to discipline us, and we respected them, shall we not much rather be subject to the FATHER, and LIVE?" It reads as a CHOICE --- be subject to His discipline, and LIVE, or be without discipline and die. Seems crystal clear...

I think I've covered the rest of your post; if you will forgive me, I have quite the headache. and need to get up early tomorrow. Today. Whaddever...

 

[frumanchu]

I see nothing about 3:12-14 that reads as "HYPOTHETICAL-CAN'T-REALLY-HAPPEN". He says, "Take care that none of YOU be hardened by deceitful sin and fall away from God." Nor does 6:4-6 read as "mere hypothetical" --- it says, 'In the CASE of those who (describes saved), but then FALL AWAY." Nothing empty about that at all...

I had not yet addressed 3:12-14, but since you brought it up...



I'm not sure what translation you're using, but again you are misquoting.



"12Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. "



It does NOT say take care that you not be "hardened by deceitful sin and fall away from God." That is a rewording of the passage to convey YOUR position.



This passage comes on the heels of the quote from Psalm 95 referring to their forefathers' unfaithfulness in the wilderness.



"The author addresses his readers in terms of their confession of faith (v. 1) as “brethren,” yet also recognizes that some within the Christian fellowship may have an “evil heart of unbelief” (cf. 12:15–17). Christ saves completely those who come to God through Him (7:25), but Christians must guard their own and each other’s endurance by encouraging one another (10:24, 25), as the author does throughout this letter (13:22)." (NGSB)



Not all who are called Israel are truly Israel. Not all who make a confession of faith are genuine believers.

This implies that "those who DO NOT SHRINK BACK" have true belief; and those who DO, never REALLY believed. But the context does not support that: "In the CASE of those who have ONCE been ENLIGHTENED"... The Greek professor I spoke with said: "This uses photizo, meaning FILLED WITH LIGHT, literally ILLUMINED." Jesus is THE LIGHT --- and there's no way the writer did not mean "Jesus filled them with His light". The Greek is the root of English words like "photon". Further, they "metochos-partnered-with-the-Holy-Spirit". So there's really no way to assert that THESE, had FALSE (unsaved) belief.

On the contrary, Ben, the context DOES support that understanding of what you already agreed the text implies (what happened to simple reading of the text? ). You have a reasonable case regarding the meaning of photizo in that context, but that doesn't do anything for you in Chapter 6 or 10. As I explained to you already, both are illustrations of the fact that "without faith, proximity to God in the fellowship of His covenant people is no blessing; rather, it subjects apostates to more severe judgment." (NGSB) Both illustrations are followed by positive affirmations. There is nothing empty at all about such illustrations.

The problem is that nowhere is there indication that this is HYPOTHETICAL and NOT REAL.

"In the CASE (hapax-once) of those who WERE... and then FALL AWAY..." The "IF" does not convey in the Greek; it says, "kai-parapiptos" AND FALL.



Literally, "Those who WERE saved AND FALL, it is UNABLE to restore them to repentance." Not one bit of "empty impossible hypothetical"; but a true warning...

No, Ben. You are PRESUPPOSING the possibility of actual believers falling away and losing salvation in order to support that very assertion. You are assuming an overall context of indication of believers falling from salvation, using that assumption to support that view in the case of individual passages, then using THAT view of those passages to turn around and support your original presupposition of the overall context! There is a term for this...it's called circular reasoning. You have to ASSUME that a fall from salvation is possible in order to assert that this verse is a true warning to that end. If it is demonstrated that believers will NOT fall ultimately from their salvation, then you have NO CHOICE but to consider this light of its hypothetical nature.

Whether you acknowledge "unable", or insist "impossible" --- the problem is 100% their unbelief. All of the translations assert the FULCRUM of the argument --- unrepentant BECAUSE they crucify Jesus to themselves again and hold Him to shame (contempt)."

The FULCRUM, or PIVOT, or CAUSE, is translated "since/because/seeing-as". If the REASON that it is "impossible to restore them to repentance" IS THEIR CONTEMPT OF HIM, then there is nothing preventing them from returning to belief and away from contempt, is there?

Find me one translation which uses the word "unable" and not "impossible."



The problem is more than just their unbelief, Ben. When taken together, Heb 6:4-6 and Heb 10 completely eradicate any notion of one being restored to salvation if they were to fall.



The New Covenant sacrifice of Christ is superior to and supreme over the ritual sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Whereas they did not actually take away sins, and were ongoing, Jesus' sacrifice was the actual remission of those sins, the once for all atoning sacrifice. Thus, unlike those under the Old Covenant who were never made perfect in the sacrifices (for if they did, there would be no need for continued sacrifice), those who partake of the sacrifice of Christ are PURIFIED...PERFECTED FOREVER...SANCTIFIED! He has PERFECTED FOREVER those who are being sanctified (10:14). Where there is remission, there is no longer offering.



SO, if these men were to partake of the Holy Spirit and the benefits of the sacrifice, and then FALL AWAY, they would be TOTALLY LOST! There remains no more sacrifice for their sins! They have " trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace." That's why it is IMPOSSIBLE once they have done so to renew then again to repentance. They would have to crucify again the Son of God.


God does not throw perfect people into hell, Ben. The work was finished on the cross.

Endurance is always admonisthed for salvation. Jesus said, "By your endurance save your souls" in Lk21:19. Contextually, he says "Do not throw away your confidence" --- which begs, "WHAT is OUR CONFIDENCE"? He is saying, "don't throw away JESUS".

That is taking GROSS liberty with the text, Ben.



First of all, in Luke 21:19 you are arguing from a prophetic text. Not wise. The context is persecution in the last days. It says we will be hated by all men because of His name's sake. Verse 18 says "Yet not a hair of your head will perish"(NASB). This verse is immediately followed by that which you cited: "By your endurance save your souls" (although I have no idea what translation you are using because none of the ones I checked use those terms).



So, in verse 18 was this "empty hyperbole" in that there may be some who do not endure, in which case some "hairs may be lost?" If the Words of the Lord are to be taken as true, then what are we to make of this in light of your insistence that men can fall away? Could it be that, as explained in the context preceding this verse, God will provide the means and aid in KEEPING them...that He would bless them with the endurance necessary? Sounds awful similar to the doctrine of perseverance to me...

Do you have direct comparison: "Don't throw away JESUS, you need ENDURANCE so that you inherit the PROMISE." Direct connection, Fru; Jesus gives salvation, those who "throw Him away", perish.

Just because you can string two verses together from different parts of the Bible to push a point doesn’t make your conclusion correct, Ben.

I stand by my statement of "do not reject His discipline". See vs12:9: "We had EARTHLY fathers to discipline us, and we respected them, shall we not much rather be subject to the FATHER, and LIVE?" It reads as a CHOICE --- be subject to His discipline, and LIVE, or be without discipline and die. Seems crystal clear...

Crystal clear? You are destroying the context of the verse, Ben!



7If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.



Verses 7 and 8 establish that God will deal with us as sons, chastening whom He loves and not those who are not His sons. Verse 9 argues from the lesser to the greater, in that as our human fathers chastened us and we paid them respect, how much more should we honor the chastening of our Father. And in verse 10, the human fathers did so as seemed best…moreso does the Father for our profit (that we may be partakers of His holiness). Your focus for verse 10 seems to be the notion of subjection, where what appears to be intended was that of “readily [being] in subjection.”



You are trying to draw out of this text lessons that aren’t intended. It is intended to exhort and encourage them in perseverance.

 

[calgal]

Nice thread Fru and good points presented. Hopefully the tone will remain respectful!

 

[Ben johnson]

It does NOT say take care that you not be "hardened by deceitful sin and fall away from God." That is a rewording of the passage to convey YOUR position.

"Lest any one of you be hardened by deceitful sin". "Be hardened" is "skleruno", aorist passive subjunctive; it reads, "become hardened by deceitful sin" --- NOT "lest any of you ALREADY BE HARDENED by deceitful sin". The theme, is FALLING, not "NEVER-BEEN-UNFALLEN".

This passage comes on the heels of the quote from Psalm 95 referring to their forefathers' unfaithfulness in the wilderness.

And what was the SOURCE of their unfaithfulness in the wilderness --- GOD? Did GOD choose them to be unfaithful, or were they unfaithful all by themselves?

"The author addresses his readers in terms of their confession of faith (v. 1) as “brethren,” yet also recognizes that some within the Christian fellowship may have an “evil heart of unbelief” (cf. 12:15–17). Christ saves completely those who come to God through Him (7:25), but Christians must guard their own and each other’s endurance by encouraging one another (10:24, 25), as the author does throughout this letter (13:22)." (NGSB)



Not all who are called Israel are truly Israel. Not all who make a confession of faith are genuine believers.

So the attempt to reconcile this to OSAS, is "THEY WEREN'T EVER SAVED". Then why does 4:1 say, "Let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it"? Let US-CORPORATE fear, lest any ONE falls short. Is not the "ONE", a subset of the corporate? There is nothing to imply otherwise. Rather than contending that "the one who FALLS SHORT was ALWAYS SHORT (never IN)", the context conveys UNBELIEF and DISOBEDIENCE. Specifically, it compares those who FALL AWAY from God with the Israelites who accomplished UNBELIEF (3:19), who were DISOBEDIENT (4:6). Do you see ANY of God's PREDESTINATION? Or all of THEIR RESPONSIBILITY???

Besides, the context destroys "unbelievers-were-never-there-in-the-FIRST-place". He says, "aphistemi-departing-God" (how can one depart that in which he has never abided?); it offers the conditional, "IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end". There is no way to remove the connection between vs12 and vs13; the "IF WE HOLD FAST" opposes the "FALLING AWAY". You cannot twist it to: "Take care that any of you NEVER-SAVED-falling-away-from-God, but encourage one another lest any one of you REMAIN HARDENED AND NEVER SAVED; for we have become partners in Christ IF we hold fast but of course we WILL hold fast we are CONSTRAINED by our regenerated HEARTS." That is eisegesis, Fru. Simply read it at face value: "Take care that none of you be hardened by sin and fall away from God; beware of sin's deceitfulness; we are partners of Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, and NOT be decieved by sin and fall away."

This harmonizes with all of Scripture. James asserts in 1:14-16, that WE can become enticed by lust, which brings sin which brings death. Not a real warning? They were NEVER UNDEAD? (Unsaved "BELOVED-BRETHREN"?) Not REALLY SPIRITUAL DEATH??? (Can one be fallen-into-sin and still be SAVED?) James1:14-16 mirrors Heb3:12-14 & 4:1 PERFECTLY.

Both illustrations are followed by positive affirmations. There is nothing empty at all about such illustrations

You really think that they wrote all these warnings over stuff that COULDN'T HAPPEN? There is nothing in Heb6:4-6 that hints "this could NOT happen to YOU-BELIEVERS". It says, "Those who WERE elightened and WERE partners in the Spirit, AND FALL AWAY. There is nothing 'hypothetical" about that --- it is statement of fact.

Go ahead and read "IMPOSSIBLE" --- it changes nothing of the meaning. The REASON that they CAN'T be restored to repentance (and indeed it IS impossible, but WHY?) --- is BECAUSE of their unbelief and contempt. Nothing that hints they cannot CEASE unbelief and RETURN. THEY choose to fall, nothing to assert they cannot choose to return.

Now --- you accuse me of "circular reasoning", of PROVING THE PATH by the preconception of the END. I submit that is the essence of PE. I have been told that "those in 2Jn1:9 are NOT those in 1:8 --- vs 8 warns of LOSING HEAVENLY CROWNS, but verse 9 CHANGES and speaks of those who have never BEEN saved. This is, with respect, silly. First he warns about DECEIVERS, then says "watch yourselves that you do not lose what has been gained", then he says "anyone who goes too far and does not abide in Jesus' teachings, HAS NOT GOD." It doesn't even make SENSE for him to sudenly speak about those who have never BEEN saved, he is warning the TRUE CHILDREN, against LEAVING JESUS' TEACHINGS. (It is "circular reasoning" to contend otherwise.)

It is equally silly to try to "pie-slice" Heb3, into "take care BRETHREN, lest there be in any of YOU-NEVER-SAVED evil unbelieving heart that FALLS AWAY from God and has ALWAYS fallen has never BEEN saved; encourage ...lest any of you REMAIN HARDENED by sin; we are PARTNERS in Jesus if we hold fast --- but we who ARE saved WILL hold fast".

That's simply not what it says. "Take care, BRETHREN, lest any of YOU ...fall away from God. Encourage ...lest YOU be hardened by deceitful sin. We are PARTNERS in Christ, IF we hold fast..." That's what it says, DIRECT; yours is "circular"...

Thus, unlike those under the Old Covenant who were never made perfect in the sacrifices (for if they did, there would be no need for continued sacrifice), those who partake of the sacrifice of Christ are PURIFIED...PERFECTED FOREVER...SANCTIFIED! He has PERFECTED FOREVER those who are being sanctified (10:14). Where there is remission, there is no longer offering.

But this founds on BELIEF. Paul explains, "Do not boast, but fear; if you do not continue in His kindness (if you come to unbelief), YOU WILL BE CUT OFF; and if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again." Belief can COME, and belief can (by deceitful sin), go.

It is CIRCULAR REASONING that contends, "Oh Rom11 is CORPORATE ISRAEL"; watch the plural and singular cases; and that idea falls. Paul states a general priniple, that applies to the PEOPLE of Israel, and it applies to us too.

"BRANCHES" --- if he had meant "Israel as A people", he would have said "branch SINGULAR"...

SO, if these men were to partake of the Holy Spirit and the benefits of the sacrifice, and then FALL AWAY, they would be TOTALLY LOST! There remains no more sacrifice for their sins! They have " trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace." That's why it is IMPOSSIBLE once they have done so to renew then again to repentance. They would have to crucify again the Son of God.

Fru, that's why NAS footnotes, "WHILE!". It is indeed impossible to restore them to repentance, WHILE they fall away. In 10:26, there IS no sacrifice for sins WHILE they CONTINUE TO SIN WILLFULLY. IOW, while they DISBELIEVE. They are indeed TOTALLY LOST --- unless they return to Jesus and belief, as the Prodigal Son did...

 

[Ben johnson]

Nice thread Fru and good points presented. Hopefully the tone will remain respectful

That would be nice...
@ Calgal...

 

[frumanchu]

"Lest any one of you be hardened by deceitful sin". "Be hardened" is "skleruno", aorist passive subjunctive; it reads, "become hardened by deceitful sin" --- NOT "lest any of you ALREADY BE HARDENED by deceitful sin". The theme, is FALLING, not "NEVER-BEEN-UNFALLEN".

Ben, Ben, Ben. Your quote of the verse in question was: “"Take care that none of YOU be hardened by deceitful sin and fall away from God."” Please show me ANY translation which renders Heb 3:12-13 in this manner.

I requested this before, but it has apparently been ignored. If you are going to use double quotation marks, please be sure you’re actually QUOTING something and not just paraphrasing or translating it. I ask this specifically because we are examining closely the exact language and grammar used. Even when I may know that you are paraphrasing, others may not. I try to include such things in single quotes for clarification.

And what was the SOURCE of their unfaithfulness in the wilderness --- GOD? Did GOD choose them to be unfaithful, or were they unfaithful all by themselves?

Have I ever maintained otherwise? Have I ever said that man’s unfaithfulness was caused by God?

So the attempt to reconcile this to OSAS, is "THEY WEREN'T EVER SAVED". Then why does 4:1 say, "Let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it"? Let US-CORPORATE fear, lest any ONE falls short. Is not the "ONE", a subset of the corporate? There is nothing to imply otherwise. Rather than contending that "the one who FALLS SHORT was ALWAYS SHORT (never IN)", the context conveys UNBELIEF and DISOBEDIENCE. Specifically, it compares those who FALL AWAY from God with the Israelites who accomplished UNBELIEF (3:19), who were DISOBEDIENT (4:6). Do you see ANY of God's PREDESTINATION? Or all of THEIR RESPONSIBILITY???

Perhaps you missed the “tiny” little detail in the quote I gave from the NGSB. I’ll post it again for you:

“The author addresses his readers in terms of their confession of faith (v. 1) as “brethren,” yet also recognizes that some within the Christian fellowship may have an “evil heart of unbelief” (cf. 12:15–17).” (emphasis added)

As far as ‘predestination vs reponsibility’ you continue to proceed from the faulty assumption that one precludes the other. Eventually we will once again address this mistake.

Besides, the context destroys "unbelievers-were-never-there-in-the-FIRST-place". He says, "aphistemi-departing-God" (how can one depart that in which he has never abided?); it offers the conditional, "IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end". There is no way to remove the connection between vs12 and vs13; the "IF WE HOLD FAST" opposes the "FALLING AWAY". You cannot twist it to:

"Take care that any of you NEVER-SAVED-falling-away-from-God, but encourage one another lest any one of you REMAIN HARDENED AND NEVER SAVED; for we have become partners in Christ IF we hold fast but of course we WILL hold fast we are CONSTRAINED by our regenerated HEARTS." That is eisegesis, Fru. Simply read it at face value: "Take care that none of you be hardened by sin and fall away from God; beware of sin's deceitfulness; we are partners of Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, and NOT be decieved by sin and fall away."

Now we come around once again to the logical fallacy with respect to conditional statements. I’ve gone over this so many times it’s beginning to get irritating. Conditional statements by themselves are NEUTRAL with respect to the who, what, where, when, why or how the condition is actually either met or not met. Do I need to give more examples?

You said: “we are partners of Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, and NOT be decieved by sin and fall away.” You fail to see that being partners of Christ is conditioned upon “[holding] fast the beginning of our assurance firm UNTIL THE END.” Thus, one who does not hold fast until the end, but rather is deceived by sin and ‘falls away,’ IS not, NOR EVER WAS, a partner of Christ…which ‘lines up perfectly’ with 1 John 2:19. (there…direct comparison )

This harmonizes with all of Scripture. James asserts in 1:14-16, that WE can become enticed by lust, which brings sin which brings death. Not a real warning? They were NEVER UNDEAD? (Unsaved "BELOVED-BRETHREN"?) Not REALLY SPIRITUAL DEATH??? (Can one be fallen-into-sin and still be SAVED?) James1:14-16 mirrors Heb3:12-14 & 4:1 PERFECTLY.

Thank you for vindicating my assertion that your doctrine is in fact works-based. We have to work to remain in a state of salvation lest we sin and bring about death again.

Tell me, Ben…have you sinned within the last week? Within the last day? Perhaps within the last hour? If so, according to what you’ve put forth you have nothing but death to look forward to. So much for grace. So much for atonement.

Another question for you…how much do you have to sin before you are considered “fallen into sin” or “completely backslidden?” At what point does the grace of redemption fall short? At what point do we suddenly move from sheep to goat?

You really think that they wrote all these warnings over stuff that COULDN'T HAPPEN? There is nothing in Heb6:4-6 that hints "this could NOT happen to YOU-BELIEVERS". It says, "Those who WERE elightened and WERE partners in the Spirit, AND FALL AWAY. There is nothing 'hypothetical" about that --- it is statement of fact.

No. Again, you have to PRESUME the ACTUAL POSSIBILITY of losing salvation in order to assert that he is putting forth an ACTUAL situation.

Go ahead and read "IMPOSSIBLE" --- it changes nothing of the meaning. The REASON that they CAN'T be restored to repentance (and indeed it IS impossible, but WHY?) --- is BECAUSE of their unbelief and contempt. Nothing that hints they cannot CEASE unbelief and RETURN. THEY choose to fall, nothing to assert they cannot choose to return.

“Go ahead and read ‘impossible?’” You say that as though I’m subscribing to some obscure translation and not EVERY MAJOR translation. “Impossible” is not a footnote somewhere (like “WHILE”). If they can be restored to repentance, then “impossible” is not the correct word…and yet that’s what Scripture uses.

Just for fun, Ben, let’s look at your pal Robertson and see what he has to say:

Hebrews 6:6

It is impossible to renew them again (adunaton palin anakainizein).

The adunaton (impossible) comes first in verse 4 without estin (is) and there is no "them" in the Greek. There are three other instances of adunaton in Hebrews (6:18; 10:4; 11:6). The present active infinitive of anakainizw (late verb, ana, kainov, here only in the N.T., but anakainow, 2 Corinthians 4:16; Colossians 3:10) with adunaton bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for apostates from Christ (cf. 3:12-4:2). It is a terrible picture and cannot be toned down. The one ray of light comes in verses 8-12, not here.

Seeing they crucify to themselves afresh (anastraurountav eautoiv).

Present active participle (accusative plural agreeing with touv ... parapesontav) of anastaurow, the usual verb for crucify in the old Greek so that ana- here does not mean "again" or "afresh," but "up," sursum, not rursum (Vulgate). This is the reason why renewal for such apostates is impossible. They crucify Christ.

And put him to an open shame (kai paradeigmatizontav).

Present active participle of paradeigmatizw, late verb from paradeigma (example), to make an example of, and in bad sense to expose to disgrace. Simplex verb deigmatisai in this sense in Matthew 1:19.


Did I read that correctly? Did Robertson just say that the language used “bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for the apostates of Christ?” I wonder if any amount of legerdemain could overcome it?

Now --- you accuse me of "circular reasoning", of PROVING THE PATH by the preconception of the END. I submit that is the essence of PE. I have been told that "those in 2Jn1:9 are NOT those in 1:8 --- vs 8 warns of LOSING HEAVENLY CROWNS, but verse 9 CHANGES and speaks of those who have never BEEN saved. This is, with respect, silly. First he warns about DECEIVERS, then says "watch yourselves that you do not lose what has been gained", then he says "anyone who goes too far and does not abide in Jesus' teachings, HAS NOT GOD."

It doesn't even make SENSE for him to sudenly speak about those who have never BEEN saved, he is warning the TRUE CHILDREN, against LEAVING JESUS' TEACHINGS. (It is "circular reasoning" to contend otherwise.)

And you disproved my assertion of circular reasoning with…..more of the same. You have to assume it to be actually possible for people to lose their salvation in order to maintain that that’s what is being warned against.

“False teachers had been troubling some of the Christian communities by attacking the central truth of the gospel—that Jesus is the Anointed One, the eternal Son of God who took on human nature to accomplish salvation (1 John 2:22; 4:2, 3). To reject this truth is to reject all hope of reconciliation with God, while to receive it is to receive God Himself. John warns the lady and her household that the work of false teachers threatens their spiritual progress and even their hope of eternal reward. In the face of such dangers, the only safe course is to avoid all involvement with the false teachers.” (NGSB)

If these deceivers could actually draw them away to completely falling away, then Christ’s words in John 10:28 ring hollow, and the implication of Matt 24:24 is meaningless.

It is equally silly to try to "pie-slice" Heb3, into "take care BRETHREN, lest there be in any of YOU-NEVER-SAVED evil unbelieving heart that FALLS AWAY from God and has ALWAYS fallen has never BEEN saved; encourage ...lest any of you REMAIN HARDENED by sin; we are PARTNERS in Jesus if we hold fast --- but we who ARE saved WILL hold fast".

Again, with the audience being those confessing Christ (of whom there may be those who do not truly believe) such a notion needs no “pie-slicing” at all. There are numerous verses speaking to those who truly believe persevering in their faith.

That's simply not what it says. "Take care, BRETHREN, lest any of YOU ...fall away from God. Encourage ...lest YOU be hardened by deceitful sin. We are PARTNERS in Christ, IF we hold fast..." That's what it says, DIRECT; yours is "circular"...

Sorry, you’re building circular arguments on top of circular arguments now.

But this founds on BELIEF. Paul explains, "Do not boast, but fear; if you do not continue in His kindness (if you come to unbelief), YOU WILL BE CUT OFF; and if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again." Belief can COME, and belief can (by deceitful sin), go.

Which notion again leaves Christ’s words in John 6 and John 10 completely without meaning since those He has been given can be lured away and plucked from His hand.

It is CIRCULAR REASONING that contends, "Oh Rom11 is CORPORATE ISRAEL"; watch the plural and singular cases; and that idea falls. Paul states a general priniple, that applies to the PEOPLE of Israel, and it applies to us too. "BRANCHES" --- if he had meant "Israel as A people", he would have said "branch SINGULAR"...

That is a rather bold assertion (and not very well backed up) to drag into this conversation. I think it best if we deal with Romans after we have finished with Hebrews.

Fru, that's why NAS footnotes, "WHILE!". It is indeed impossible to restore them to repentance, WHILE they fall away. In 10:26, there IS no sacrifice for sins WHILE they CONTINUE TO SIN WILLFULLY. IOW, while they DISBELIEVE. They are indeed TOTALLY LOST --- unless they return to Jesus and belief, as the Prodigal Son did...

Your entire position regarding Heb 6:4-6 now rests on a footnote in the NASB. Does your NASB have the same footnote for 10:26, or did you just add that yourself? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

I cannot find a single scholarly source that uses the word “WHILE” in either of those verses. Nearly every translation and commentator uses “seeing as/since/seeing/because” here, giving the reason for the impossibility, not the duration of it.

BTW, Ben…if I were to operate according to your rules of engagement, I have already sufficiently case suspicion upon your theology as a whole:


From “[post=1392769]Election = ticket to Heaven?[/post]”

All I have to do is to show that there is ONE unsurmountable wall; once that realization happens, then the REST of the belief system MUST become suspect.

Given that Acts 13:48 firmly establishes that appointment unto eternal life precedes belief unto eternal life, and that, were it possible that such belief failed and the person perished in unbelief, such a fall from salvation would in turn negate the statement that said appointment was “unto eternal life,” I think it safe to say that Acts 13:48 has been firmly established as an “unsurmountable wall” in the face of your position. (you didn’t really think I would drop the issue with Acts 13:48 did you?)

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, some questions for you:

Thank you for vindicating my assertion that your doctrine is in fact works-based. We have to work to remain in a state of salvation lest we sin and bring about death again.

Tell me, Ben…have you sinned within the last week? Within the last day? Perhaps within the last hour? If so, according to what you’ve put forth you have nothing but death to look forward to. So much for grace. So much for atonement.

Another question for you…how much do you have to sin before you are considered “fallen into sin” or “completely backslidden?” At what point does the grace of redemption fall short? At what point do we suddenly move from sheep to goat?

Excellent questions, to which I would add this: How many of your sins did Christ die for? All of them? Would that include sins as yet not committed? What is the state of someone who is saved, walking with God, and slips and commits a sin, between the time he commits the sin, and the time he repents and asks forgiveness? Is his sin covered, or is he exposed to perdition?

These are legitimate questions, Ben, and I believe they dovetail perfectly with the questions Fru has asked you. Interested in your response.

 

[AndOne]

Tell me, Ben…have you sinned within the last week? Within the last day? Perhaps within the last hour? If so, according to what you’ve put forth you have nothing but death to look forward to. So much for grace. So much for atonement.

Another question for you…how much do you have to sin before you are considered “fallen into sin” or “completely backslidden?” At what point does the grace of redemption fall short? At what point do we suddenly move from sheep to goat?

Ben - I too would like to see these questions addressed by you - it would help me to understand your position a little better I think. Thanks.

 

[Ben johnson]

Given that Acts 13:48 firmly establishes that appointment unto eternal life precedes belief unto eternal life, and that, were it possible that such belief failed and the person perished in unbelief, such a fall from salvation would in turn negate the statement that said appointment was “unto eternal life,” I think it safe to say that Acts 13:48 has been firmly established as an “unsurmountable wall” in the face of your position.

Let's review what we have learned about Acts 13:48. Robertson says, "Does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency --- there is no evidence that Luke had in mind an ABSO)LUTUM DECRETUM of personal salvation." Roberson does NOT recognize a SEQUENCE --- if he DID, then he wouldn't have said "IT DOESN'T SAY". This corresponds with what the college professor said to me --- it shows COINCIDENCE, but not SEQUENCE. It is just as valid to say, "those who were appointed, believed", as it is to say "those who believed, were appointed". Coincident, not sequential. Robertson says, "Why these Gentiles RANGED THEMSELVES on God's side ...Luke does not tell us." (Did you read that? "Luke DOES NOT TELL US" --- not, "they were PREDESTINED.) He further stands against Predestination by saying: "By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean 'THOSE WHO BELIEVE (present tense) WERE APPOINTED (past tense)'." Robertson stands AGAINST the sequence of "appointed => believed".

If you really want sequence, then please see if you can deny 2Tim3:15: "Sacred writings => give you wisdom => leads to faith => through which is salvation". What's the sequence, FRU?

“The author addresses his readers in terms of their confession of faith (v. 1) as “brethren,” yet also recognizes that some within the Christian fellowship may have an “evil heart of unbelief” (cf. 12:15–17).”

Take care BRETHREN, encourage one another, LEST ANY ONE OF YOU be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. But you say "they were NEVER-SAVED-BRETHREN they were ALWAYS-HARDENED who were LURKING AMONG THE TRUE BELIEVERS!!!

Which of us is "circularizing, bending the UNDERSTANDING to fit the PRECONCEIVED END", Fru?

You said: “we are partners of Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, and NOT be decieved by sin and fall away.” You fail to see that being partners of Christ is conditioned upon “[holding] fast the beginning of our assurance firm UNTIL THE END.” Thus, one who does not hold fast until the end, but rather is deceived by sin and ‘falls away,’ IS not, NOR EVER WAS, a partner of Christ…which ‘lines up perfectly’ with 1 John 2:19. (there…direct comparison )

And somehow verse 4:1 ("Let us fear, lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any of you should seem to have come short of it") --- is also NOT REAL, "any of you who FALL SHORT were never SAVED to BEGIN with. Because FALLING is not REALLY possible for the TRULY saved!" Wait --- does it SAY that, or are you inferring the CONCLUSION based on your PRECONCEPTION? (circular)

BTW, 1Jn2:19 speaks of CERTAIN ANTICHRISTS (specific people at a specific incident), who WERE never "with them". 2Jn1:7-9 refutes the idea that "those who really ARE with us cannot LEAVE us"...

Thank you for vindicating my assertion that your doctrine is in fact works-based. We have to work to remain in a state of salvation lest we sin and bring about death again.

Huh??? Nayyyy, this merely aligns with what John said in 1:3:7-10. If we abide in SIN, then we are NOT SAVED. James simply states, "if we are deceived by lust and fall into sin" (meaning CONTINUAL, UNREPENTANT), "it brings death". This does NOT contradict what James said in 1:9, "If we CONFESS our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity"...

Tell me, Ben…have you sinned within the last week? Within the last day? Perhaps within the last hour? If so, according to what you’ve put forth you have nothing but death to look forward to. So much for grace. So much for atonement.

Ben der, dun dat. Previous paragraph...

Another question for you…how much do you have to sin before you are considered “fallen into sin” or “completely backslidden?” At what point does the grace of redemption fall short? At what point do we suddenly move from sheep to goat?

We-Christians DO sin; but we do not PRACTICE sinning. We repent, we abide in Him, we strive (through Him) for righteousness and sinlessness (because in Him we ARE the "righteousness of God" 2Cor5:21

Yet ONE SIN, and ONE SIN ALONE, is enough to condemn us --- if it is not accompanied by REPENTANCE, if it causes us to fall out of fellowship with Him.

bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for apostates from Christ It is a terrible picture and cannot be toned down.
Seeing they crucify to themselves afresh (anastraurountav eautoiv).
This is the reason why renewal for such apostates is impossible. They crucify Christ.
And put him to an open shame (kai paradeigmatizontav).

Hmmm, golly, that's exactly whadd-I-said. And it reflects perfectly 10:26: "If we continue sinning willfully (unrepentant) after HAVING RECEIVED the true knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of fire that consumes the adversaries."

You see, without repentance, it is as if we CRUCIFY Jesus OVER AND OVER again. But He died ONCE for ALL SIN (Heb10:12). That is, IF we abide in repentance and receive His discipline and do not "continue sinning wilfully".

If these deceivers could actually draw them away to completely falling away, then Christ’s words in John 10:28 ring hollow, and the implication of Matt 24:24 is meaningless.

John 10:28 says "No one can FORCE you away farom Jesus" ("harpazo"). Matt24:24 says "to deceive, if possible, even the elect". Ring hollow? Those verses do not espouse predestination, Fru.

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons..." 1Tim4:1 Tell me, Fru --- does that RING HOLLOW to you?

Which notion again leaves Christ’s words in John 6 and John 10 completely without meaning since those He has been given can be lured away and plucked from His hand.

Which verse of John6? There's John 5:40 (you WILL not) and John 6:40 (EVERYONE who believes may have eternal life) --- but those stand against predestination. There's 6:67-70, which has Jesus saying "leaving is POSSIBLE". John10? There's John8:42-44 ("You only PRETEND to follow God, if you realy DID you would love ME; but you WANT to do evil things") and John10:9 (if TIS-ANYONE enters through Me he will be saved) --- but those also stand against predestination. 10:28? "No ONE can HARPAZO-SEIZE-REMOVE-YOU-FORCIBLY"? Nope, it doesn't say "you CANNOT leave WILLFULLY."

Your entire position regarding Heb 6:4-6 now rests on a footnote in the NASB. Does your NASB have the same footnote for 10:26, or did you just add that yourself? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

Noooooo, not on a "footnote", but on all the translations, and on the Greek. The "entire foundation" rests on the CAUSE of their "impossibility-to-repentance". It is BECAUSE they reside in sin and NOT in repentance --- as if Jesus had to die over and over again..

One of us does operate with "circular reasoning". I say it is when passages like 1Tim1:19-20 & 2Tim2:17-18, where it says Hymenaeus and Alexander and Phi8letus "suffered shipwreck of faith and wandered away from the trugh" --- but YOU say "they were never THERE in the FIRST place, Paul is being OBTUSE." How can one SHIPWRECK and WANDER from faith that was never THERE?

So --- "insurmountable walls" --- I just asiked again, on the Adam & Eve thread about Eph3:1-3 & 5:1-7; they "WERE running well, WERE begun in the SPirit" --- can you say, "NEVER WERE SAVED"? THey are now "fallen from grace and severed from Christ". Can you say "they are STILL SAVED"? They were "the CHURCHES in Galatia" (1:2); can you say, "they weren't REAL PEOPLE it's only HYPOTHETICAL to teach a lesson"? Where is the "OSAS" understanding?

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben - I too would like to see these questions addressed by you - it would help me to understand your position a little better I think. Thanks.

The answer to your questions is in the previous post to Fru, and the one to you in the "Eve" thread...

Click here to go there, it explains further...

 

[Received]

Yet ONE SIN, and ONE SIN ALONE, is enough to condemn us --- if it is not accompanied by REPENTANCE, if it causes us to fall out of fellowship with Him.

See, this is interesting, for I find this to be exactly what scripture presents. I believe it to be a serious hasty generalization for those with interpretations of salvation and Hell to say that the very use of the word condemnation implies condemnation to Hell, rather than what the scripture seems more clearly to present: that it is condemnation before the law. Moreover, this faulty idea undoubtedly comes about through the misconception of what salvation is, the scriptual idea being salvation from sins (Matthew 1:21) and hence the law, with direct communion with God in this life, for Jesus clearly reveals that eternal life is knowing God (John 17:3), and is thus not a concern of duration, but quality.

What is the loss of salvation, then, if such an idea is even possible? I would not say it is being condemned before the law once by simply messing up, but acting in such an obstinate matter that you lose the sense of peace and happiness of your soul and consequently live a dead life, and become condemned before the law, for it does seem quite scriptural that salvation is a concern for the soul (cf. Matthew 10:28, 11:29, 16:26, Mark 8:37), and thus all other members of the self, for this is precisely the power that the soul has.

People commonly claim that we cannot lose our eternal salvation, and this seems obvious to them as fact because they interpret "eternal" to mean...that which the scripture does not present, in my opinion, that being a sense of qualitative life, rather than durative.

Now, this interepretation seems to make Christianity quite difficult, and God knows I did not stray into this seeming form of Lordship theology (which is quite popular in reformed branches) willingly; but the truth is, Christianity is difficult. The misfortune of ecclesiastical teaching has been to make it quite easy that everyone may grasp it, and consequently preach a gospel that does not allow a full immersion of salvation for its members, for I do very much believe (getting away from the dreaded Lordship salvation) as George MacDonald did, that those who do not have eternal life are on the road to eternal life. Moreover, how do we reconcile the idea of not being condemned before the law with the claim of human fallibility? By realizing that the end of the law is simply love, and that loving our neighbors, and our God, is what makes salvation sure -- capable of our perception as being in existence; that the entire point of the law is to help us realize that we do not love as God does, and hence need help in this point (through the infilling of the Holy Spirit -- which really is nothing more than God's active spirit of love as it relates to us).

 

[AndOne]

The answer to your questions is in the previous post to Fru, and the one to you in the "Eve" thread...

Click here to go there, it explains further...

I never posted in the "Eve" thread. I did read your response here though. Your answers make no sense to me. I can honestly say that after seriously looking into your position with an open heart (you may or may not remember - it was a year or so ago that I mentioned it) that my final conclusion is that the only logical explanation to this riddle has to be the reformed theology view. I am sorry - I seriously considered and studied your way - but it is most assuredly the wrong way.

Please do not respond with a long drawn out response to this - I have seen it time and time again - and you would only be wasting your time.

 

[Ben johnson]

I can honestly say that after seriously looking into your position with an open heart (you may or may not remember - it was a year or so ago that I mentioned it) that my final conclusion is that the only logical explanation to this riddle has to be the reformed theology view. I am sorry - I seriously considered and studied your way - but it is most assuredly the wrong way.

It is not a question of “MY WAY”, BB; it’s a question of what Scripture says.

Please do not respond with a long drawn out response to this - I have seen it time and time again - and you would only be wasting your time.

What does this mean? That you are closed? I hope not --- it would not be BEN that you’re closed to, but Scripture.

If you don’t want a long post, then I hope you will read a short one.

In 2Pet2, Peter writes of THREE GROUPS of people. There are false prophets, there are false teachers. But there is a THIRD group, described in vs 18 as “ontos-apopheugo-TRULY-ESCAPED” (King James), or “oligos-apopheugo-barely-escaped” (New American Standard). The problem, is that they ESCAPED the defilements of the world through the EPIGNOSIS knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (This is word-for-word the same as ch1, vs 1-4 --- except ch1 says “corruption” and ch2 says “defilements").

ESCAPED DEFILEMENTS means RIGHTEOUS, BB. Paul says “slaves to SIN, or slaves to RIGHTEOUSNESS”. Rm6:16 Jesus says, “you cannot serve two masters” (Matt24:6). John writes, “do not be deceived, he who PRACTICES righteousness IS righteous. 1:3:7-10. [color-crimson]In short, the TRULY ESCAPED cannot be considered, UNSAVED.[/color]

Yet they are again entangled in defilements and overcome. They “epistrepho-ek-turned-AWAY-FROM-the-truth”. True to Jesus and Paul and John, the FALSE are described in 2:2:14 as “never cease from sin”, and vs19 as “slaves of corruption”. How do you explain the “ESCAPED but became entangled again and OVERCOME”?

SECOND:
In Galatians, Paul rebukes the people for “returning to works”. 3:3 says, “you were begun in the Spirit”; 5:7 says, “you WERE running WELL”. Is it possible to contend, ”they were NEVER SAVED?[“ How can the UNSAVED, have begun in the Spirit, how could they have been RUNNING WELL? But they subject themselves again to a yoke of slavery (5:1), they “return to trying to be justified by law” (5:4), they are “severed from Christ, fallen from grace”. (5:4)

Here is the problem --- “Reformed Theology” says “a regenerated heart cannot become unregenerated”, and “an unregenerated heart cannot become saved”. I just gave you two Scriptures speaking of “FALLING-FROM-SALVATION”. Your choices are limited:

1. They weren’t REALLY saved (then you contradict Jesus, Paul, John; you say “begun-Spirit” and “running-well” aren’t SAVED" )
2. They didn’t REALLY FALL (how can “fallen-from-grace/severed-from-Christ”, not mean unsaved? How can “again entangled in defilements and OVERCOME, turned AWAY from the holy commandment”, not mean unsaved?)
3. These are NOT REAL, hypothetical TEACHINGS, hyperbole to instruct. (The Galatians are REAL, not hypothetical; nothing in 2Pet2 implies that cannot happen, either.)
4. There is some way to disregard these passages (thinking, “they don’t apply to US here TODAY)
5. There is ANOTHER UNDERSTANDING?

That’s my question to you, Behe; either you have SOME UNDERSTANDING for these, or you must reject “Reformed Theology". Simply ignoring this, won't make it go away.

How does "Reformed Theology" work in Scripture?

 

[CCWoody]

I can honestly say that after seriously looking into your position with an open heart (you may or may not remember - it was a year or so ago that I mentioned it) that my final conclusion is that the only logical explanation to this riddle has to be the reformed theology view. I am sorry - I seriously considered and studied your way - but it is most assuredly the wrong way.

Please do not respond with a long drawn out response to this - I have seen it time and time again - and you would only be wasting your time.

I had pointed out to Ben several months ago that people like him actually make better witnesses to the Reformed Biblical truths than we ourselves do. In a way, this actually hurts my feelings. After all, I'm a great teacher who bears the testominy of even my Arminian church friends. I have just been appointed to lead the morning prayer time among the church leadership. And, I do have people who name me as something of a spiritual father in the Reformed faith.

Ahhh, but, then I realize that this is merely my own carnal thinking in the matter.

1. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for learning spiritual truth.
2. Great teaching is not a prerequisite for learning spiritual truth.

These are my own pride issues with which to deal.

Meantime, I rejoice that the Lord has made even the voice of those who oppose the truth to serve Him by bringing people into the great historic truths of the Biblical Reformed faith. This is why Frumanchu, nobdysfool, myself, and others wade out into the battle day after day. We know that we will not change Ben's mind. But, we are struck by the wonder of our God that even the voice of error serves to reveal His truth.

Thank you for your testimony.

Psalms 76:10 Surely the Wrath of man shall turn to Your praise!

 

[Ben johnson]

Meantime, I rejoice that the Lord has made even the voice of those who oppose the truth to serve Him by bringing people into the great historic truths of the Biblical Reformed faith. This is why Frumanchu, nobdysfool, myself, and others wade out into the battle day after day. We know that we will not change Ben's mind. But, we are struck by the wonder of our God that even the voice of error serves to reveal His truth.

Let's see how post #18 is answered, before the "jury renders the verdict". If "Reformed Faith" accomodates Scripture (rather than contradicting it), then there will be some kind of answer...