Illumination and Conviction without Regeneration

[oworm]

No amount of linguistic gymnastics can avoid what the passage is actually saying. Basically it boils down to the fact that there are those in the church who can be partakers of some of the benefits of being attached to the covenant community and yet remain outside of Christ. You can be a taster and not a swallower you can sit under the ministry of an enlightened preacher and remain in darkness. That's the point that is being made here.


When you read Matthew 7:21-23 note the incredulity of those who protest that they have done great things for Jesus and his sober response "I never knew you". The point is that it is possible to say and do great things for Jesus and even be a partaker of the benefits of church membership and at the same time remain unregenerate.

 

[oworm]

A fine application of the passage but I think he missed the point of the passage.

You think Professor Sinclair Ferguson missed the point of the passage? Did you actually type those words? I don't mean to sound conceited but you do know who Sinclair Ferguson is right?

 

[twin1954]

You think Professor Sinclair Ferguson missed the point of the passage? Did you actually type those words? I don't mean to sound conceited but you do know who Sinclair Ferguson is right?

Yes I know who he is. I put no confidence in men. He is not infallable. I can just as easily disagree with him as I can my own pastor. I don't always agree with Gill or any of the other men I read after. I can think for myself and have some gifts of the Spirit of my own. I use men to check myself to see that I don't go off the deep end and gain much light from other men but I don't rely on them for my own understanding of the Scriptures.

 

[twin1954]

No amount of linguistic gymnastics can avoid what the passage is actually saying. Basically it boils down to the fact that there are those in the church who can be partakers of some of the benefits of being attached to the covenant community and yet remain outside of Christ. You can be a taster and not a swallower you can sit under the ministry of an enlightened preacher and remain in darkness. That's the point that is being made here.

I have never contended that one cannot be a partaker of the benefits or be under the sound of the Gospel preached in the Spirit. Many sit in darkness while the light shines all around them. My disagreement was that the passage implies that the work of the Spirit can be known without regeneration as Owen contends.

When you read Matthew 7:21-23 note the incredulity of those who protest that they have done great things for Jesus and his sober response "I never knew you". The point is that it is possible to say and do great things for Jesus and even be a partaker of the benefits of church membership and at the same time remain unregenerate.

Certainly but does that necessarilly mean that they have partaken of the Spirit?

 

[oworm]

My disagreement was that the passage implies that the work of the Spirit can be known without regeneration as Owen contends.


Certainly but does that necessarilly mean that they have partaken of the Spirit?

What about in the case of King Saul

1 Samaual 10:9
When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day.


1 Samual 16:14
Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the LORD tormented him.

 

[oworm]

The word "for" in the beginning of verse 4 is a connecting word. It connects what he just said to what he is about to say. It is also a "because" word. You can substitute the word because in the place of the word for and it begins to make sense that he is laying an illustration of the impossibility for a believer to fall away and be restored. His point isn't that one can taste of the heavenly gifts and be a partaker of the Spirit and not be saved. He goes on to show the faithfulness of the promise of God to those who are true follwers of God. His point being that those who fall away are not believers because believers have experienced the things of the Spirit.

Sorry brother but in the original text the conjunction for appears after the adjective impossible/incapable. So for does not connect what is being said in the immediate context to what has been said before verse 4. Also, the sentence begins with a capital which means that a new thought is being introduced. The construct of the greek text does not support what you are suggesting.

Verses 4-6 form an immediate pericope which stands inside the wider context of Hebrews.

 

[oworm]

Can Believers Forfeit Their Salvation? (Hebrews 6) John MacArthur - YouTube

 

[oworm]

Q and A (Hebrews 6 and Apostasy) Part 1 - YouTube

 

[twin1954]

Sorry brother but in the original text the conjunction for appears after the adjective impossible/incapable. So for does not connect what is being said in the immediate context to what has been said before verse 4. Also, the sentence begins with a capital which means that a new thought is being introduced. The construct of the greek text does not support what you are suggesting.

Word order in the Greek doesn't carry any weight. In the Greek gar(for) is postpositive, meaning it cannot stand first in its clause. It is a conjuntion in every use of it and as such connects. The English translations all put it at the beginning of the verse because that is where it belongs. The construct of the Greek text absolutely supports what I am saying but I am not going to argue about it. Dana and Mantey have a section just on the use of the word in "A Manual Grammer of the Greek New Testament" Pg. 242 Both Strong and Thayer support my understanding of the use of the word. As to the use of capitals, in the original Greek all of the letters in the words were in capitals and only later did scholars use capitals for proper names. It has come to be used to begin paragraphs but that is not the rule. Your argument has no basis in fact. My understanding of the passage is valid.

Verses 4-6 form an immediate pericope which stands inside the wider context of Hebrews.

Only if you force it to because that is what you have been taught. Now I am done debating the interpretation of Heb. 6. If you want to continue the discussion on whether the Spirit illuminates those who are unregenerate I am willing.

 

[twin1954]

Can Believers Forfeit Their Salvation? (Hebrews 6) John MacArthur - YouTube

I have no use for the man. I would honestly rather listen to a politician.

 

[twin1954]

Q and A (Hebrews 6 and Apostasy) Part 1 - YouTube

Obviously I would disagree. If my understanding of the passage is correct, and I am convinced that it is because I look at it without the influence of teachers such a this one, I must disagree. Not that they are wrong but that they are influenced by tradition as to the interpretation of the passage and the constant use of the passage as a prooftext against eternal security. Sure what they are saying is correct, except when they contend that the Spirit illuminates those who remain unregenerate, to a point as to an answer to those in opposition. But the passage isn't intended as an answer to an opposing view but an illustration of the certainty of eternal salvation and the failthfulness of God's promises in Christ. It shows the work of Christ to be sure and certain.

 

[oworm]

Twin1954. I'm thankful for your contributions to this thread. It stimulates me to further study, consideration and meditation. I hope it does the same for you my brother.
God bless you this Lords day

 

[bricklayer]

Sorry brother but in the original text the conjunction for appears after the adjective impossible/incapable. So for does not connect what is being said in the immediate context to what has been said before verse 4. Also, the sentence begins with a capital which means that a new thought is being introduced. The construct of the Greek text does not support what you are suggesting.

Verses 4-6 form an immediate periscope which stands inside the wider context of Hebrews.

Quite apart from the particular text you cite, don't get too caught up with the nuances of the original Greek because that Greek is conveying Hebrew ideas.

The fact of the matter is that ideas about God, that are uniquely found in the bible, are not self-evident from the words in the bible. Ideas about God that are unique to the bible are made evident through a process.

 

[oworm]

Quite apart from the particular text you cite, don't get too caught up with the nuances of the original Greek because that Greek is conveying Hebrew ideas.

The fact of the matter is that ideas about God, that are uniquely found in the bible, are not self-evident from the words in the bible. Ideas about God that are unique to the bible are made evident through a process.

Thanks for your input. Can you elaborate on that more, especially with relevance to the subject under discussion?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Quite apart from the particular text you cite, don't get too caught up with the nuances of the original Greek because that Greek is conveying Hebrew ideas.

The fact of the matter is that ideas about God, that are uniquely found in the bible, are not self-evident from the words in the bible. Ideas about God that are unique to the bible are made evident through a process.

Sorry, that's not going to fly here.

Leaving aside the questions about verbal inspiration of scripture for the moment, why would one question what the text actually says?

Had the human author of the epistle been trying to convey uniquely Jewish thoughts, he could have easily used the Hebrew language for the epistle.

A Hebrew original is not extant or even hinted at.

The obvious conclusion is that the Greek language was sufficient to communicate all that the author intended to communicate to the recipients of the epistle.

It seems interesting that many of the New Testament citations of Old Testament Scripture appears to be from the LXX, and not the Hebrew texts.

In light of the above, it seems absurd to suggest that because Jewish concepts are being discussed, the Greek language is insufficient to convey those thoughts.

 

[bricklayer]

Sorry, that's not going to fly here.

Leaving aside the questions about verbal inspiration of scripture for the moment, why would one question what the text actually says?

Had the human author of the epistle been trying to convey uniquely Jewish thoughts, he could have easily used the Hebrew language for the epistle.

A Hebrew original is not extant or even hinted at.

The obvious conclusion is that the Greek language was sufficient to communicate all that the author intended to communicate to the recipients of the epistle.

It seems interesting that many of the New Testament citations of Old Testament Scripture appears to be from the LXX, and not the Hebrew texts.

In light of the above, it seems absurd to suggest that because Jewish concepts are being discussed, the Greek language is insufficient to convey those thoughts.

Insufficient is your word not mine. I wrote nothing so hyperbolic. It is important to remember the Holy Spirit's role in enlightenment. You make no mention of Him or spiritual discernment. I was left to believe that you may consider such things a matter of pure verbal calculus.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Insufficient is your word not mine. I wrote nothing so hyperbolic. It is important to remember the Holy Spirit's role in enlightenment. You make no mention of Him or spiritual discernment. I was left to believe that you may consider such things a matter of pure verbal calculus.

Irrelevant blather.

When you can demonstrate an instance of the Spirit contradicting the letter you may have an argument. i won't hold my breath, and i'm certain that you would not make the attempt.

The Spirit works through Word and Sacrament. God has ordained the means of salvation, and that is the proclamation of the Gospel (Word).

With or without the Spirit working, the word is either true or it is not true. Either A or !A. i know of no instance where the Spirit ever contradicted the letter.

 

[twin1954]

What about in the case of King Saul

1 Samaual 10:9
When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day.


1 Samual 16:14
Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the LORD tormented him.

I am sorry I missed this post.

There seems to be 2 things we know about Saul: He was an unregenerate man and he was put in the place of king by God.

We read that the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and it turned him into another man. Sam. 10:6. Certainly it didn't turn him into a regenerate man but into a man capable of ruling wisely. The Spirit gave him what was needed to do what he was ordained to do but that isn't illumination in my way of thinking. It is simply giving the tools needed to do the task set for him. There was no light of Gospel knowledge in him.

 

[oworm]

I haven't forgotten this thread. I've just finished a seminary course on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and have chosen this topic for one of my papers. Watch this space