Hebrews 3-4

[frumanchu]

This is prima facia of the "supposition of the conclusion".

No, I wasn't presenting a presupposition, just pointing out that you reduced it down to only two possibilities when in fact there was a third.

What you deny, is the CONTEXT --- first he addresses "BRETHREN" --- believers, not "all you believers and some unbelievers lurking among you."

Arguing from silence, Ben. Please tell me how the author knew with certainty the state of faith of every individual in the original audience. As I said, he addresses them by their confession.

Second, he writes "mepote esomai" (lest-there-be in any of you unbelieving heart --- future voiceless indicative) --- potential, not "sudden-discovered-EXTANT". The he says, "skleruno" (encourage one another lest anyone BE HARDENED by deceitfulness of sin --- aorist passive subjunctive). The meaning, is BECOME hardened. Not "be exposed as hardened previously".

I see. So it's impossible for a non-believer to become hardened?

Even without the clear verbage, the "encourage one another lest anyone be hardened" denies the understanding of UNBELIEVING LURKERS AMONG THEM who never DID believe".

Human agency, Ben. It doesn't deny it at all.

True believers will not fall, according to you; thus, "it's not a real warning to true believers."

False conclusion, Ben, because you again ignore what I've been saying over and over about God accomplishing His will efficaciously through human agency. True believers will not fall BECAUSE they will be presented with such warnings and will respond to them.

We differ on how we understand "what God's purpose is". You see "preserving by God" as sovereignly asserted, I see "preserving by God through our own belief." It's not a question of "the strength of God", but rather the application of His sovereignty.

*SIGH*

 

[frumanchu]

As I ahve said before it is not that God cannot. He could have made us all clones who have to obey Him, if He wanted to. But He gave us the ability to choose between good and evil. He refuses to force Himself on us, and at the same time He will judge those who refused Him, against great light.

Question for you. What affect did Adam's original transgression have on the human race?

I have yet to see them be refuted. And my reasons for being here are the same.

Stick around and pay attention

 

[frumanchu]

If to “believe,” or “not believe,” is an act of divine sovereignty, and is, therefore, beyond human control, then any divine command requiring “belief” would be wholly irrelevant, not to speak of involving the biblical record in theological absurdity.

[snip]

In each of the passages just cited, the Greek verb pisteuo (“believe”) is in the imperative mood – the mood of command. It thus is quite inaccurate to allege that “believing” is an act of which one is personally incapable. Clearly, belief is an action that has been commanded by God as a means leading to one’s justification. The submission of a person to this sacred obligation takes nothing away from the sovereignty of God.

Unfortunately, what you fail to take into account is the effect of sin on the will of man. Man possesses free will in the sense that he is nto in any way obstructed or prevented from exercising his volitional capacity to choose whatever he wants. But the will is also in slavery, as the heart of the man...his desire, which dictates the course of his will...is inclined to evil to such an extent that he is morally incapable of righteousness.

You are right that faith is not merely an invitation or request, but a command. The Sovereign Creator has every right to demand the acknowledgement and obedience of His creation. However, such command is not invalidated by the unwillingness of unregenerate man to respond positively to it. It should be noted as well that as a divine command which thus requires obedience and submission as you said, that it is in fact a work which in turn merits the justification it brings should the origination be solely with the individual and not with God.

The passage cited above (Eph. 2:8), as a proof-text for the idea that “faith” is strictly a “gift,” does not, in fact, teach that idea at all. The text reads as follows:

“...for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God....”​

There is no specifically-stated antecedent for “gift” in this context. However, it is to be inferred. The gift is the salvation that is implied by the verb “saved.”

“For by grace are you saved through faith; and this not of yourselves, it [the salvation] is the gift of God.”​

Grammatically speaking, there is no agreement between “faith” and “gift.” Faith (pisteos) in the Greek Testament is a feminine form, while “gift” (doron) is neuter gender. The “gift” is not “faith.”




Some have objected to this argument, contending that the Greek noun for “salvation” is also feminine, thus it cannot be the antecedent of “gift.” While it is true that the Greek noun, “salvation,” is a feminine form, the verbal construction found here, used in connection with the neuter pronoun (touto – “this”) requires that the antecedent must also be neuter, thus, “salvation” [understood], not “faith” (see: Clinton Lockhart, Principles of Interpretation, Delight, AR: Gospel Light, n.d., p. 86; Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once For All, Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002, p. 200).

Professor Arthur Patzia of Fuller Theological Seminary, who believes, “theologically” speaking, that faith is a gift, acknowledges that “the Greek sentence [Eph. 2:8] does not permit such an identification, because the two words differ grammatically” (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990, p. 185).

Even John Calvin interpreted the “gift” of this passage as “salvation,” and not faith (The Epistle to the Ephesians, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965, p. 144). This, of course, is in perfect harmony with Paul’s declaration elsewhere that the “gift of God is eternal life” (Rom. 6:23).

I personally do not take to citing this verse in my discussions here, both because of the wide variety of explanations and because my position does not rest upon that verse only, but consider the following from a [post=1167066]previous discussion of this verse[/post]:

Forgive me, but you are in error on what is called concord (the agreement between pronoun and anticeedent, or verb and noun in the case of number, always being in agreement in gender and number) in the New Testament. There are many exceptions involving Gender, and number. For example, although not germaine to the present scripture, neuter plural subject often takes a single verb. Indeed, a noted scholar of Greek, D.B. Wallace states:

"A small group of demonstrative pronouns involve a natural agreement with their antecedents that overrides strict grammatical concord. As such, they are illustrations of constructions according to sense (constructio ad sensum). This natural agreement may involve gender, or much more rarely, number. Frequently, the agreement is conceptual only, since the pronoun refers to a phrase or a clause rather than a nown or other substantive. As might be expected, not a few of these instances are debatable and exegetically significant.

​

Wallace, D.B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: p.330​

​

1. SALVATION by grace​

2. SALVATION through faith​

3. SALVATION is not of yourselves (no, it was JESUS on the CROSS!)​

4. SALVATION is the gift of God (to be received or not)​

5. SALVATION is not as a result of works​

One subject, five modifiers; it doesn't say SALVIC-FAITH IS NOT OF YOURSELVES...​

The only CREDIT I take, is RECEIVING Him; the entirity of my salvation was done by HIM; when he was received into my heart...​

I would more strongly caution those who believe "salvation is IMPOSED on one before he made a CHOICE"...​

​

​

Regretabbly, again, this is not the case, and i seriously doubt that any competitent bible/Greek scholar would agree with that interpretation. Wallace again lists the four possible interpretations of this passage. The quote is extensive, and i will summarise, but you can find the entire citation on pages 334-335 of the work quoted above.

1. Grace is antecedent of the demonstateive pronoun 'touto' (that)
2. Faith is antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun
3. The concept of grace-by-faith-salvation is anticedent of the demonstrative pronoun, in keeping with the first citation of Wallace above
4. 'kai touto' has an adverbial force and has no anticedent, rather meaning "and especially"

The issue, according to Wallace, cannot be solved by grammar alone. This stays consistent with hermenutical principles, since grammar, syntaxt and context are determining factors. We have looked at syntaxt, now let us look at grammar and context.

Grammar:

Literally, the passage reads (in poor English) "for by grace ye are the having been saved through faith; and this not of you, the gift of God."

There are actually two verbs where the English reads one. The main verb is 'este' meaning ye are, the second verb is 'sesoosmenoi'(having Greek font capabilities on this forum would make life sooooo much easier) which is a perfect passive participle, a verbal adjective. It doesn't interpret easily into English, but basically, the meanings is as stated above. It is passive, so the action is being performed on the antecedent (ye). It is clear that "having been saved" cannot be the antecedent of 'touto'. In this particular case there is no concord in either gender or number.

Grace is by definition "not of yourself" The only thing that could be left would be faith.

Context:

Look at the next verse which reads (roughly translated from the Greek ~sorry, don't have an English version handy at the moment~) "Not out of works in order that no one should boast" Based on verse 8, which of the alternatives could possibly be considered as a work? Not salvation, that is passive voice, not Grace, because it is by definition not a work. The only alternative left here is Faith.

Even if it could be established (from other sources) that “faith” is, in some sense, a “gift,” that truth alone would not establish the proposition argued by Calvinistic teaching. Faith conceivably could be viewed as a “gift,” but if so, only in the same sense that “repentance” is a gift.

When Peter declared to his Hebrew kinsmen that God had “granted” (given) the Gentiles “repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18), the sense was this. The Gentiles, along with their Jewish neighbors, were granted the opportunity to repent. The text certainly does not suggest that they had no responsibility to act themselves in the repentance process (cf. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30). Perhaps, then, it might be said, in a similar sense, that we have been given the privilege to believe – by the exercise of our wills, as we contemplate the evidence provided by God that produces faith (cf. Rom. 10:17).

It seems though that you are arguing as though Calvinists believe man has no moral responsibility in faith and repentance. Though I suspect that you are are actually presenting what you believe to be the logical conclusion of their position, that is not in fact what they believe. Acts 11:18 indeed does speak of repentance as a gift, and in its context regarding the Jews' anger at Peter preaching to the Gentiles I believe it is best understood as granting the opportunity to the Gentiles.

This of itself does not negate the notion that repentance itself is also a gift. 2 Tim 2:24-26 does not fit with the notion that only the opportunity for repentance can be seen as a gift.

24And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

The servant of the Lord offers the truth to those in opposition (corrects them). If God perhaps will grant them repentance SO THAT they may know the truth, come to their senses, and escape the snare of the devil who has taken them captive. If it is merely the opportunity to repent that is granted, why would there be any "perchance" as to whether or not it would be granted. Would God, who desires the repentance of all individuals, NOT grant the opportunity of repentance that would lead to the escape of an individual from the snares of the devil? Would He NOT grant repentance itself SO THAT that individual would know the truth and come to their sense?

Those who argue that salvation is solely of God’s sovereignty, and that forgiveness is “unconditional,” have set themselves against the Savior (Heb. 5:9), regardless of how sincere they may be.

Your citation of Heb 5:9 fails to establish what the determining factor is in who actually will obey Him and receive the eternal salvation He authored. Simply stating the conditional truth that those who obey will receive eternal salvation doesn't solve the issue of who will actually meet the condition and the circumstances involved. There is nothing in this verse whatsoever that "sets us against the Savior."

 

[Ben johnson]

I see. So it's impossible for a non-believer to become hardened?

Do you deny that "hardening" means "hardening their hearts"? What is the contextual OBJECT of that hardening?

"Hearts hardened by sin to falling away from God".

Your defense is that "some lurking were never really believers, they only made profession of faith but were never really saved."

You say "two groups of people --- the TRULY SAVED, and the unsaved-PROFESSING-to-BEING-saved".

What separates the saved from the unsaved? Hint:
Saved --- are believers.
Unsaved --- are unbelievers.

Thus the UNSAVED cannot become "hardened to unbelief", BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY UNBELIEVERS!

What you're denying is the DIRECTION. They aren't EXPOSED as "hardened", they BECOME hardened!

Only BELIEVERS can BECOME hardened TO UNBELIEF.

"Encourage one another, lest any ONE OF YOU BECOME hardened by deceitful sin".

Thus --- verse 14 is undeniably CONDITIONED on their "TAKING CARE" and "ENCOURAGING EACH OTHER". "Holding fast", Fru; against --- against becoming HARDENED by deceitful sin that FALLS AWAY FROM GOD!

And the presentation is SOLIDIFIED by the rest of context.

1. The Israelites with Moses disbelieved and were disobedient.
2. THEREFORE, fear that any one of YOU fall short of His grace.
3. BE DILIGENT to enter His rest, lest ANYONE (of you) FALL by IMITATTING their unbelief and disobedience".

None of your understandings are tenable here, Fru. He's speaking to the SAVED BRETHREN, who are in Jesus enough TO fall away.

Is he requiring DILIGENCE of the not-truly-saved? Is that idea credible? No.

None of the "accommodations" work here.
1. They weren't really saved. (The unsaved cannot BECOME hardened, they aready ARE.)
2. They didn't really fall. (He plainly says "fall away from the living God", "not enter His rest", "fall short of it".)
3. It's hypothetical, can't happen. (Not one word reads as such.)
4. He's talkin' to a DIFFERENT GROUP, back THEN --- doesn't apply to us today." (That isn't tenable either; there's nothing to indicate the concepts spoken about here aren't couched in "grace salvation to Jews and Gentiles".)

Become hardened, Fru; partners in Christ IF we hold fast ..our assurance, and not BECOME HARDENED BY SIN, AWAY FROM HIM. I really don't see any way to deny this.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Do you deny that "hardening" means "hardening their hearts"? What is the contextual OBJECT of that hardening?

"Hearts hardened by sin to falling away from God".

Your defense is that "some lurking were never really believers, they only made profession of faith but were never really saved."

You say "two groups of people --- the TRULY SAVED, and the unsaved-PROFESSING-to-BEING-saved".

What separates the saved from the unsaved? Hint:
Saved --- are believers.
Unsaved --- are unbelievers.

Thus the UNSAVED cannot become "hardened to unbelief", BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY UNBELIEVERS!

what about pharaoh's heart in exodus 7:13

What you're denying is the DIRECTION. They aren't EXPOSED as "hardened", they BECOME hardened!

Only BELIEVERS can BECOME hardened TO UNBELIEF.

"Encourage one another, lest any ONE OF YOU BECOME hardened by deceitful sin".

Thus --- verse 14 is undeniably CONDITIONED on their "TAKING CARE" and "ENCOURAGING EACH OTHER". "Holding fast", Fru; against --- against becoming HARDENED by deceitful sin that FALLS AWAY FROM GOD!

And the presentation is SOLIDIFIED by the rest of context.

1. The Israelites with Moses disbelieved and were disobedient.
2. THEREFORE, fear that any one of YOU fall short of His grace.
3. BE DILIGENT to enter His rest, lest ANYONE (of you) FALL by IMITATTING their unbelief and disobedience".

None of your understandings are tenable here, Fru. He's speaking to the SAVED BRETHREN, who are in Jesus enough TO fall away.

Is he requiring DILIGENCE of the not-truly-saved? Is that idea credible? No.

None of the "accommodations" work here.
1. They weren't really saved. (The unsaved cannot BECOME hardened, they aready ARE.)
2. They didn't really fall. (He plainly says "fall away from the living God", "not enter His rest", "fall short of it".)
3. It's hypothetical, can't happen. (Not one word reads as such.)
4. He's talkin' to a DIFFERENT GROUP, back THEN --- doesn't apply to us today." (That isn't tenable either; there's nothing to indicate the concepts spoken about here aren't couched in "grace salvation to Jews and Gentiles".)

Become hardened, Fru; partners in Christ IF we hold fast ..our assurance, and not BECOME HARDENED BY SIN, AWAY FROM HIM. I really don't see any way to deny this.

think there talking about living ones lifestyle in a sinful way without punishment one becomes hardened

 

[costlygrace]

Great job! Of course only believers can become hardened to unbelief, becuase non-believers and false believers already are! It would be absurd to think otherwise. This is a CLEAR WARNING ADRESSED TO BELIEVERS, to take care lest they harden their hearts and fall away.

 

[frumanchu]

Do you deny that "hardening" means "hardening their hearts"? What is the contextual OBJECT of that hardening?

"Hearts hardened by sin to falling away from God".

Your defense is that "some lurking were never really believers, they only made profession of faith but were never really saved."

You say "two groups of people --- the TRULY SAVED, and the unsaved-PROFESSING-to-BEING-saved".

What separates the saved from the unsaved? Hint:
Saved --- are believers.
Unsaved --- are unbelievers.

Thus the UNSAVED cannot become "hardened to unbelief", BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY UNBELIEVERS!

What you're denying is the DIRECTION. They aren't EXPOSED as "hardened", they BECOME hardened!

Only BELIEVERS can BECOME hardened TO UNBELIEF.

"Encourage one another, lest any ONE OF YOU BECOME hardened by deceitful sin".

Thus --- verse 14 is undeniably CONDITIONED on their "TAKING CARE" and "ENCOURAGING EACH OTHER". "Holding fast", Fru; against --- against becoming HARDENED by deceitful sin that FALLS AWAY FROM GOD!

And the presentation is SOLIDIFIED by the rest of context.

1. The Israelites with Moses disbelieved and were disobedient.
2. THEREFORE, fear that any one of YOU fall short of His grace.
3. BE DILIGENT to enter His rest, lest ANYONE (of you) FALL by IMITATTING their unbelief and disobedience".

None of your understandings are tenable here, Fru. He's speaking to the SAVED BRETHREN, who are in Jesus enough TO fall away.

Is he requiring DILIGENCE of the not-truly-saved? Is that idea credible? No.

None of the "accommodations" work here.
1. They weren't really saved. (The unsaved cannot BECOME hardened, they aready ARE.)
2. They didn't really fall. (He plainly says "fall away from the living God", "not enter His rest", "fall short of it".)
3. It's hypothetical, can't happen. (Not one word reads as such.)
4. He's talkin' to a DIFFERENT GROUP, back THEN --- doesn't apply to us today." (That isn't tenable either; there's nothing to indicate the concepts spoken about here aren't couched in "grace salvation to Jews and Gentiles".)

Become hardened, Fru; partners in Christ IF we hold fast ..our assurance, and not BECOME HARDENED BY SIN, AWAY FROM HIM. I really don't see any way to deny this.

You still have not provided one shred of "credible" evidence as to why it is impossible to understand the author as addressing them by their confession, nor have you even approached explaining why it is not "credible" to understand this in light of God's ability to accomplish efficaciously His will via divine agency.

It is truly a sight to behold watching you build the card house you just built, Ben.

Oh, btw...you still haven't said anything about my explanation of the different types of knowledge/belief. Have you no opinion on that understanding?

 

[Ben johnson]

what about pharaoh's heart in exodus 7:13

Pharaoh didn't come to UNBELIEF; it's "hardening against the Israelites", Heb is speaking of "hardened to unbelief against God". Pharaoh was unbeleiver BEFORE he was "hardened against Israel", he was unbeliever AFTER.

Heb says "be diligent, lest anyone FALL by following Israel's disobedience and unbelief". How can that not mean "fall by UNBELIEVING and DISOBEYING"?

You still have not provided one shred of "credible" evidence as to why it is impossible to understand the author as addressing them by their confession, nor have you even approached explaining why it is not "credible" to understand this in light of God's ability to accomplish efficaciously His will via divine agency.[/quot]Because he speaks of the "unbelief and disobedience of Israel with Moses, THEY COULDN'T ENTER REST". And he charges "brethren" (3:12) to not become hardened to falling away from God (only those who are NOT FALLEN AWAY, can FALL AWAY), charges brethren to be DILIGENT TO NOT FALL by UNBELIEF and DISOBEDIENCE". How can you make this, "to the UNSAVED LURKING AMONG you, don't FALL by following THEIR example of disobedience and unbelief"?

Is that how you read it? If so, why is that credible to you?

Oh, btw...you still haven't said anything about my explanation of the different types of knowledge/belief. Have you no opinion on that understanding?

What is there to say? Peter uses the exact same Greek words in 2:2:20-22 (including "knowledge"), as he does in 2:1:1-4. In ch1 they are SAVED, you say they were NEVER-SAVED in ch2. This is identical to how you understand "ALL" to mean "only SOME of all TYPES" in many passages. Look at Romans 5:18 --- SO THEN condemnation CAME to all men, EVEN SO jusification CAME to all men". Obviously the FIRST "pas-anthropos-all-men" means EVERYONE. But you must assert that the SECOND "pas-anthropos-all-men" means "only SOME of all TYPES" --- in spite of the "SO THEN -- EVEN SO" equality. I seem to lack the ability to convince you of your "interpreting the Scripture to support the prior premise of predestination".

I hope to show you at least one passage that cannot be accommodated, in your esteem, to "Predestined-Election". I thought 2Pet was one, but you see "escaped defilements through the epignosis-knowledge of the LORD and SAVIOR JESUS" as "only APPEARING escaped, PROFESSING but not changed in HEART". So this passage in Hebrews says "don't FALL by following THIER disobedience and unbelief". How could this be written to the NEVER-SAVED? Does that make sense?

What do the unsaved have to fall FROM?

 

[frumanchu]

What is there to say? Peter uses the exact same Greek words in 2:2:20-22 (including "knowledge"), as he does in 2:1:1-4. In ch1 they are SAVED, you say they were NEVER-SAVED in ch2. This is identical to how you understand "ALL" to mean "only SOME of all TYPES" in many passages. Look at Romans 5:18 --- SO THEN condemnation CAME to all men, EVEN SO jusification CAME to all men". Obviously the FIRST "pas-anthropos-all-men" means EVERYONE. But you must assert that the SECOND "pas-anthropos-all-men" means "only SOME of all TYPES" --- in spite of the "SO THEN -- EVEN SO" equality. I seem to lack the ability to convince you of your "interpreting the Scripture to support the prior premise of predestination".

Do I need to link you to the post where I explained what my view of Rom 5:18 ACTUALLY is, or should I not bother as you won't acknowledge it anyway, choosing instead to argue against strawmen?

The question was asked before and is restated here: how far does it have to go before it becomes libel?

I hope to show you at least one passage that cannot be accommodated, in your esteem, to "Predestined-Election".

And I hope to show you that you are following an anthropocentric false doctrine...but alas, some hopes are never realized.

I thought 2Pet was one, but you see "escaped defilements through the epignosis-knowledge of the LORD and SAVIOR JESUS" as "only APPEARING escaped

That is an outright blatant fabrication, Ben and YOU KNOW IT. I have explained repeatedly that my position is NOT that they "only appeared to escape but didn't really." But you expose the weakness of your argument here as with so many other passages. You NEED for these phrases to be seen only as euphemisms for salvation and not possible to be anything else or your whole argument for these proving lost salvation falls to pieces.

So, will you acknowledge that you did in fact misrepresent my position, or shall I hit report?

 

[MizDoulos]

This thread has been closed for obvious reasons. And this topic has been discussed over and over again without changing anyone else's mind and developing into personal conflicts. Again, after each side has been presented and some discussion has taken place, accept each other's viewpoint and move on. If not, this is exactly what develops if both sides try to convince each other without success.

Let's please respect each other's opinion and stop the arguing. Move on to another topic or forum.

Thank you.