Temporal Salvation?

[GDL]

We would need to address actual passages in question to pursue from here (and I prefer only one or two at a time). Thanks!

Jesus' command & instruction re abiding in John 15:4-6 at minimum (& whatever context you desire), including the part about being withering, being gathered, thrown into fire & being burned (v.6)

Why give such command & warning to someone who's been granted & assured by the Father.

 

[FreeGrace2]

GDL said: ↑
To clarify then, the only ones granted are those who will not walk away, fall away & thus will proceed to maturity & beyond & endure to the end?

If you'd like to modify this, please do.

Yes, to me one who is genuinely saved cannot fail to continue to endure, because the Father ensures it (Phl 1:6; 2:13; 2Th 3:3; 1Th 5:24).

The guarantee of "enduring" refers to eternal security, not 'enduring in the faith'.

The evidence for this conclusion is what Paul wrote.

2 Tim 2:12 - if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;

The Greek word for "disown":
Strong's Concordance
arneomai: to deny, say no
Original Word: ἀρνέομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: arneomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-neh'-om-ahee)
Definition: to deny, say no
Usage: (a) I deny (a statement), (b) I repudiate (a person, or belief).
HELPS Word-studies
720 arnéomai – properly, deny (refuse); hence, contradict, refuse to affirm or to confess (identify with); disown (repudiate). See also 4716/staurós ("cross").

It means to 'deny', not 'disown'. And from the context of the whole verse, what will be denied is the privilege of "reigning with Him", which is an eternal reward.

So Paul acknowledged the reality of not enduring, or denying Him. How does a believer deny Him? Easy. Simply keeping their mouth shut at the water cooler at work when someone or the whole group begins to bash Christianity, God, or Jesus Christ. Just like Peter denied that he knew Jesus.

Those who are too chicken to speak up and acknowledge their faith before others will LOSE out on eternal rewards.

Or like Chuck Templeton, the evangelist who mentored a very young Billy Graham when he started out as an evangelist, who lost his faith when he couldn't reconcile the evidence for a very old earth with the common view among evangelicals that the earth is very young. It caused him to doubt everything and he left the faith. This, after leading untold people to the Lord Jesus Christ.

So don't tell me that he never "truly believed". He spent a good portion of his life as a public evangelist and preaching the biblical gospel.

If he was a phony, no doubt Billy Graham would have smelled a rat.

 

[WordSword]

Jesus' command & instruction re abiding in John 15:4-6 at minimum (& whatever context you desire), including the part about being withering, being gathered, thrown into fire & being burned (v.6)

Why give such command & warning to someone who's been granted & assured by the Father.

To me, abiding is an exhortation in the sense that reveals it is the only way one can be in Christ, i.e if it's not permanent, it's not abiding.

 

[TibiasDad]

Sorry to not quote you in #132.

No problem!

To clarify: On the one hand, I don't think the warnings are to be reduced. I think things like being dried up & burned are ultimate consequences beyond fellowship & rewards interpretations.

I agree

On the other hand, I think Eternal Security does have an application, but it's more strict than I supposedly just have to believe in Christ at a moment in time 1 time.

Our security is based solely on God's promises! We are secure because God cannot lie. He promises to do A if condition X is a reality, and promises to do B if non-X is a reality.

What I'm saying is, once we have the rebirth (EZ36), does our Father fail in raising us (question may be akin to Perseverance of the Saints)? He's giving His Spirit to people to enable them for experiential righteousness in Christ. Does He grant people to Christ and provide His Spirit to those He knows in advance will insult & extinguish the Seal & not repent?

!

The problem with the decidedly Reformed tendency you are proposing is that if God causes us to keep his statutes then we would necessarily always do what is right because our wills are acted upon by God and are completely passive. But we know this is not the case, so then the question is begged, "why does God not cause us to always keep his statutes, and why would he deliberately allow us to necessarily fall at one point and necessarily cause us to keep his statutes at another. To me, this is the problem with cause in Ezekiel 36. I can see that Ezekiel is talking about New Covenant realities, but have always tended to think such language as cause them to, in the sense of absolute perfection, is a New Jerusalem kind of expression of the New Covenant. This said, based on many years of conversing with staunch Five-Pointers, the cause is typically so strongly emphasized that I cannot but reach the point of view stated above.

I know there are commands not to do these things and the coordinate commands to remain, etc. But my question still remains: Why does (assumption) God grant people to His Son, whom He knows in advance will fail? I'm not saying that He does, or doesn't - I'm asking why He does, or would?

Probably mot clear still. Happy to rephrase as needed.

For me, the question is why do you see that as a problem? After all, God allows sin to be a reality and no one accuses him of failing; it would seem that if God wanted to cause something to necessarily happen that he would have caused Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree. He didn't do that, however, and the only logical reason that I can infer from scripture is that he desires a volitional and reciprocal relationship with his creation and is willing to allow himself to not have as well as have such under such a paradigm. As I suggested in another post, God's self-sufficiency means, among other things, that he has no need of relationship outside of himself, and whether or not his creation wants to respond to God doesn't scrape any skin off his nose in the least. God didn't have to save anyone, he could have saved us all, so what's the problem with him saving only some and knowing that some would ultimately reject him even though he was "not willing that any should perish", and that some would even throw his grace back in his face?

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

2 Tim 2:12 - if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;

The Greek word for "disown":
Strong's Concordance
arneomai: to deny, say no
Original Word: ἀρνέομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: arneomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-neh'-om-ahee)
Definition: to deny, say no
Usage: (a) I deny (a statement), (b) I repudiate (a person, or belief).
HELPS Word-studies
720 arnéomai – properly, deny (refuse); hence, contradict, refuse to affirm or to confess (identify with); disown (repudiate). See also 4716/staurós ("cross").

BDAG on ἀρνέομαι, definition 3: deny, repudiate, disown w. acc, someone, something
definition 3c: of denial of Christ by men, Matt 10:33, 2 Tim 2:12

Disown is a proper and accepted definition.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Why give such command & warning to someone who's been granted & assured by the Father.

An excellent question!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

So Paul acknowledged the reality of not enduring, or denying Him. How does a believer deny Him? Easy. Simply keeping their mouth shut at the water cooler at work when someone or the whole group begins to bash Christianity, God, or Jesus Christ. Just like Peter denied that he knew Jesus.

Silence is not a denial, it is saying nothing for fear of being rejected or ridiculed. Denial is what Peter did! Sure, denial can be for such fear, but a young believer may be silent because of fear or insecurity of intellectual capacity to speak out, but that is not denial. Denial is if asked "Do you believe in Christ?" and you say "No" out of fear of retaliation. John 9:22 speaks of this in relation to the parents of the man born blind saying, "His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue."

Doug

 

[GDL]

To me, abiding is an exhortation in the sense that reveals it is the only way one can be in Christ, i.e if it's not permanent, it's not abiding.

Not certain I completely understand you. Abide means to remain, to stay. To remain is being commanded. I would agree that it reveals one must remain in Christ. I would also bring 15:10 into the matter.

Can the command be disobeyed and, if so, the consequences are what - and how does this effect or tie to having been granted & assured?

 

[FreeGrace2]

BDAG on ἀρνέομαι, definition 3: deny, repudiate, disown w. acc, someone, something
definition 3c: of denial of Christ by men, Matt 10:33, 2 Tim 2:12

Disown is a proper and accepted definition.

Doug

Really? Even though I copied and pasted from biblehub.com -

The Greek word for "disown":
Strong's Concordance
arneomai: to deny, say no
Original Word: ἀρνέομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: arneomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-neh'-om-ahee)
Definition: to deny, say no
Usage: (a) I deny (a statement), (b) I repudiate (a person, or belief).
HELPS Word-studies
720 arnéomai – properly, deny (refuse); hence, contradict, refuse to affirm or to confess (identify with); disown (repudiate). See also 4716/staurós("cross").

Are you smarter than Strong's? Though it acknowledges "disown" it clarifies the meaning as "repudiate".

But what you won't address is that the CONTEXT is clear that what is being denied is "reigning with Christ.

The verse is a 2 part conditional statement. The first part is "IF IF IF we endure---THEN we will reign with Christ"

The second part is "IF IF IF we deny Him---THEN He will deny us". This is not separate from the first part. It is directly related.

Those who endure in the faith WILL reign with Christ. Those who don't endure (deny Him) WILL NOT reign with Christ.

But, again, Arminians reject any idea of eternal reward, and make the mistake of thinking that heaven itself is a reward, which shows that Arminian thinking views entrance into heaven as something EARNED, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

[FreeGrace2]

GDL said: ↑
Why give such command & warning to someone who's been granted & assured by the Father.

An excellent question!
Doug

And there is an excellent answer, of course.

The Father WANTS to reward His children, but it is only on His terms. He rewards faithfulness and punishes unfaithfulness.

Isa 1:18-20 is a perfect example of the consequences of

18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

v.19 is the reward for being obedient and v.20 is the punishment for being rebellious.

Salvation is by grace through faith. Nothing else.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"So Paul acknowledged the reality of not enduring, or denying Him. How does a believer deny Him? Easy. Simply keeping their mouth shut at the water cooler at work when someone or the whole group begins to bash Christianity, God, or Jesus Christ. Just like Peter denied that he knew Jesus."

Silence is not a denial

You are in DENIAL, sir. Peter denied the Lord by his silence. And by silence, I mean he failed to acknowledge that he knew Him or had been with Him.

it is saying nothing for fear of being rejected or ridiculed.

All you're doing is identifying the MOTIVATION for denial. But you cannot prove that silence isn't a denial.

Denial is what Peter did! Sure, denial can be for such fear, but a young believer may be silent because of fear or insecurity of intellectual capacity to speak out, but that is not denial.

Huh? Your opening statement is just the opposite. Are you ok?

Denial is if asked "Do you believe in Christ?" and you say "No" out of fear of retaliation.

Well, that is just your own every narrow opinion of what denial is.

John 9:22 speaks of this in relation to the parents of the man born blind saying, "His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue."
Doug

Yes, they were in denial out of fear. So what? The obvious FACT is that silence when Christ or Christianity is attacked IS A DENIAL.

Your opinions don't count. The Bible determines what "denial" means. And Peter denied the Lord.

Do you want to DENY what the Lord Jesus said?

John 13:38 - Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times.

Point proven. By Jesus Himself.

 

[GDL]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

re·pu·di·ate | \ ri-ˈpyü-dē-ˌāt \
repudiated; repudiating
Definition of repudiate


transitive verb

1a: to refuse to accept especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force repudiate a contract repudiate a will
b: to reject as untrue or unjust repudiate a charge
2: to refuse to acknowledge or pay repudiate a debt
3: to refuse to have anything to do with : DISOWN repudiate a cause… unless they repudiated the failed policies of the past and took decisive action, the party might fracture or lose its hold on the electorate.— Walter A. McDougall
4 dated : to divorce or separate formally from (a woman to whom one is betrothed or married)"The incident was witnessed by … the Marquess Zanipolo, who, in consequence, has already repudiated his unhappy bride."— Edith Wharton


There really isn't any issue with how this word is translated & what it means. The point is in the context & how serious one decides to interpret the offense. One should look at how the author generally uses the word, and how some other authors use it. When done, it's obvious there is a range of how it's used in Scripture, but it seems obvious that it's not a minor matter.

NewCov verses using arneomai ("deny"):

NKJ Matt. 10:33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

NKJ Matt. 26:70 But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you are saying."

NKJ Matt. 26:72 But again he denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man!"

NKJ Mk. 14:68 But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are saying." And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed.

NKJ Mk. 14:70 But he denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, "Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it."

NKJ Lk. 8:45 And Jesus said, "Who touched Me?" When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, "Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say,`Who touched Me?'"

NKJ Lk. 12:9 "But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

NKJ Lk. 22:57 But he denied Him, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him."

NKJ Jn. 1:20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."

NKJ Jn. 18:25 Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, "You are not also one of His disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not!"

NKJ Jn. 18:27 Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.

NKJ Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.

NKJ Acts 3:14 "But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,

NKJ Acts 4:16 saying, "What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.

NKJ Acts 7:35 "This Moses whom they rejected, saying,`Who made you a ruler and a judge?' is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush.

---------------------------
Paul's usage:

NKJ 1 Tim. 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

NKJ 2 Tim. 2:12 If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.

NKJ 2 Tim. 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

NKJ 2 Tim. 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

NKJ Tit. 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

NKJ Tit. 2:12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,

----------------------------

NKJ Heb. 11:24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,

NKJ 2 Pet. 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

NKJ 1 Jn. 2:22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

NKJ 1 Jn. 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

NKJ Jude 1:4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

NKJ Rev. 2:13 "I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

NKJ Rev. 3:8 "I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

-----------------------------------

(2 Tim. 2:10-13 NKJ) w/o verse numbers/breaks:

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

Observations (opinions):

1. Paul is enduring his sufferings so he can assist the Elect to hit with eternal glory the mark of Salvation in Christ Jesus. A goal is in mind.

2. We can rely on the Faithful Saying

3. Dying and enduring could be separated - it's interpretive

4. Dying and enduring could be unified - it's interpretive

5. Denying Him thus Him denying us could pertain to reigning only.

6. Denying Him thus Him denying us could pertain to reigning & dying (How has one died with Him if one is denying Him?)

7. Being unfaithful to Him seems an expansion on the denial of Him and thus the same comments as 5 & 6.

8. What never makes sense is how one can believe that Jesus is the Christ and then deny Him & be unfaithful to Him (and not repent). Christ at the right hand of the Father is the title of absolute authority in heaven & earth. To disobey Him is to not believe who He is. To be unfaithful to Him is to deny who He is. Peter came back from his denial. What if he didn't? We all are unfaithful & deny Him at times & hopefully we repent & acknowledge our failures/sins. What if we don't? Did we ever truly die with Him?

This is all interpretive. Theological systems are interpretations. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong.

What I learn here: Don't deny Him. Do what He says because of who He is (a.k.a. believe in Him).

 

[TibiasDad]

Are you smarter than Strong's? Though it acknowledges "disown" it clarifies the meaning as "repudiate".

BDAG is smarter than Strongs!

Doug

 

[GDL]

Our security is based solely on God's promises! We are secure because God cannot lie. He promises to do A if condition X is a reality, and promises to do B if non-X is a reality.

No problem with it being based in His promises. I assume your conditions mean not getting into & remaining in the sin that the warnings address.

!

The problem with the decidedly Reformed tendency you are proposing is that if God causes us to keep his statutes then we would necessarily always do what is right because our wills are acted upon by God and are completely passive. But we know this is not the case, so then the question is begged, "why does God not cause us to always keep his statutes, and why would he deliberately allow us to necessarily fall at one point and necessarily cause us to keep his statutes at another. To me, this is the problem with cause in Ezekiel 36. I can see that Ezekiel is talking about New Covenant realities, but have always tended to think such language as cause them to, in the sense of absolute perfection, is a New Jerusalem kind of expression of the New Covenant. This said, based on many years of conversing with staunch Five-Pointers, the cause is typically so strongly emphasized that I cannot but reach the point of view stated above.

Maybe this depends on what one invests into the word "cause." The fact that He provides all that is needed to obey Him, can mean He is the cause for obeying Him. This doesn't automatically take free will out of the equation.

For me, the question is why do you see that as a problem? After all, God allows sin to be a reality and no one accuses him of failing; it would seem that if God wanted to cause something to necessarily happen that he would have caused Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree. He didn't do that, however, and the only logical reason that I can infer from scripture is that he desires a volitional and reciprocal relationship with his creation and is willing to allow himself to not have as well as have such under such a paradigm. As I suggested in another post, God's self-sufficiency means, among other things, that he has no need of relationship outside of himself, and whether or not his creation wants to respond to God doesn't scrape any skin off his nose in the least. God didn't have to save anyone, he could have saved us all, so what's the problem with him saving only some and knowing that some would ultimately reject him even though he was "not willing that any should perish", and that some would even throw his grace back in his face?

I'm not sure I do see it as a problem. I'm posing the question & can see your take, which fits with the way you see the warnings, which at this point I agree with (the warnings are important & severe - NKJ Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off). I don't, as far as I know, presume to limit, or expand the extent of His severity.

I still go back to His granting: At the end of all this, does He grant those He knows will fail (thus removing the question of failure on His part & Him thus providing the opportunity to free will again)? I think I know your answer (already given) and I think I know mine, but I am continuing to wring this out.

To ask another way: Were the ones who don't remain & thus wither, are gathered, thrown into fire & burned, ever granted?

Are the commands to do thing such things as abide/remain indicative that some will & some won't (but each were granted), or are the commands more in the sense of Torah meaning instruction, and thus at the end of the analysis, simply identifying what those who were granted, do? I think this would invest into pisteuo all that is ultimately in it in the end. So, believe in Him is more of a forward looking, comprehensive statement, than the simplistic way it is typically interpreted.

An example of such a concept: NKJ Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." So, a statement of initial Salvation, or a forward looking & comprehensive statement of Salvation from A-Z?

Again, hope this is clear.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

re·pu·di·ate | \ ri-ˈpyü-dē-ˌāt \
repudiated; repudiating
Definition of repudiate

transitive verb

1a: to refuse to accept especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force repudiate a contract repudiate a will
b: to reject as untrue or unjust repudiate a charge
2: to refuse to acknowledge or pay repudiate a debt
3: to refuse to have anything to do with : DISOWN repudiate a cause… unless they repudiated the failed policies of the past and took decisive action, the party might fracture or lose its hold on the electorate.— Walter A. McDougall
4 dated : to divorce or separate formally from (a woman to whom one is betrothed or married)"The incident was witnessed by … the Marquess Zanipolo, who, in consequence, has already repudiated his unhappy bride."— Edith Wharton


There really isn't any issue with how this word is translated & what it means. The point is in the context & how serious one decides to interpret the offense. One should look at how the author generally uses the word, and how some other authors use it. When done, it's obvious there is a range of how it's used in Scripture, but it seems obvious that it's not a minor matter.

NewCov verses using arneomai ("deny"):

NKJ Matt. 10:33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

NKJ Matt. 26:70 But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you are saying."

NKJ Matt. 26:72 But again he denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man!"

NKJ Mk. 14:68 But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are saying." And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed.

NKJ Mk. 14:70 But he denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, "Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it."

NKJ Lk. 8:45 And Jesus said, "Who touched Me?" When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, "Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say,`Who touched Me?'"

NKJ Lk. 12:9 "But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

NKJ Lk. 22:57 But he denied Him, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him."

NKJ Jn. 1:20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."

NKJ Jn. 18:25 Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, "You are not also one of His disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not!"

NKJ Jn. 18:27 Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.

NKJ Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.

NKJ Acts 3:14 "But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,

NKJ Acts 4:16 saying, "What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.

NKJ Acts 7:35 "This Moses whom they rejected, saying,`Who made you a ruler and a judge?' is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush.

---------------------------
Paul's usage:

NKJ 1 Tim. 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

NKJ 2 Tim. 2:12 If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.

NKJ 2 Tim. 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

NKJ 2 Tim. 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

NKJ Tit. 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

NKJ Tit. 2:12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,

----------------------------

NKJ Heb. 11:24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,

NKJ 2 Pet. 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

NKJ 1 Jn. 2:22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

NKJ 1 Jn. 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

NKJ Jude 1:4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

NKJ Rev. 2:13 "I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

NKJ Rev. 3:8 "I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

-----------------------------------

(2 Tim. 2:10-13 NKJ) w/o verse numbers/breaks:

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

Observations (opinions):

1. Paul is enduring his sufferings so he can assist the Elect to hit with eternal glory the mark of Salvation in Christ Jesus. A goal is in mind.

2. We can rely on the Faithful Saying

3. Dying and enduring could be separated - it's interpretive

4. Dying and enduring could be unified - it's interpretive

5. Denying Him thus Him denying us could pertain to reigning only.

6. Denying Him thus Him denying us could pertain to reigning & dying (How has one died with Him if one is denying Him?)

7. Being unfaithful to Him seems an expansion on the denial of Him and thus the same comments as 5 & 6.

8. What never makes sense is how one can believe that Jesus is the Christ and then deny Him & be unfaithful to Him (and not repent). Christ at the right hand of the Father is the title of absolute authority in heaven & earth. To disobey Him is to not believe who He is. To be unfaithful to Him is to deny who He is. Peter came back from his denial. What if he didn't? We all are unfaithful & deny Him at times & hopefully we repent & acknowledge our failures/sins. What if we don't? Did we ever truly die with Him?

This is all interpretive. Theological systems are interpretations. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong.

What I learn here: Don't deny Him. Do what He says because of who He is (a.k.a. believe in Him).

Nice try. But no dice.

God will repudiate any reward to the believer who does not endure.

 

[FreeGrace2]

BDAG is smarter than Strongs!

Doug

This is what I think of the "smarter" BDAG

Danker revised and edited the 3rd English edition in 2000, based on the previous edition and the 6th German edition. BDAG. There have been several significant changes to this edition.

The Greek word for “to believe” is pisteuo. In the BAGD edition is the following under pisteuo: “to entrust oneself in complete confidence”

The 2000 BDAG added to that phrase the following: “with implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted”.

Further, in previous editions, the phrase “those who became Christians” in a number of passages was changed to “those who made their commitment” in the BDAG.

It is clear that Frederick Danker has a theological agenda in mind with these changes. Never before in any edition was “believe” linked with “commitment”, until 2000. Now, those pastors who have been saying that have a reference to back them up. Never mind that nearly a century of work never linked the two words before. This should cause alarm for all serious students of the Word of God, since the meaning of the very important word has been changed to fit the specific theology of Lordship salvation.

How's that for a very biased edition.

The only way to use the word 'commit' in regard to salvation is that the believer is committing his very soul to the Lord's protection and salvation.

But that's not how anyone uses "commitment" today. Commitment is all about working for a cause. There is no grace in "commitment salvation". Only works.

 

[TibiasDad]

I said:
"So Paul acknowledged the reality of not enduring, or denying Him. How does a believer deny Him? Easy. Simply keeping their mouth shut at the water cooler at work when someone or the whole group begins to bash Christianity, God, or Jesus Christ. Just like Peter denied that he knew Jesus."

You are in DENIAL, sir. Peter denied the Lord by his silence. And by silence, I mean he failed to acknowledge that he knew Him or had been with Him.


All you're doing is identifying the MOTIVATION for denial. But you cannot prove that silence isn't a denial.


Huh? Your opening statement is just the opposite. Are you ok?


Well, that is just your own every narrow opinion of what denial is.


Yes, they were in denial out of fear. So what? The obvious FACT is that silence when Christ or Christianity is attacked IS A DENIAL.

Your opinions don't count. The Bible determines what "denial" means. And Peter denied the Lord.

Do you want to DENY what the Lord Jesus said?

John 13:38 - Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times.

Point proven. By Jesus Himself.

Matt. 26:72 But again he [Peter] denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man!"

Is this silence?

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

No problem with it being based in His promises. I assume your conditions mean not getting into & remaining in the sin that the warnings address.

Yes, that would be a correct interpretation of my conditions, and this it need no longer be an assumption.

Maybe this depends on what one invests into the word "cause." The fact that He provides all that is needed to obey Him, can mean He is the cause for obeying Him. This doesn't automatically take free will out of the equation.

I would agree with your use of the word "enable" , which you used in an earlier post, and in fact Gill uses that word himself in describing the meaning of cause in Ezk 36. But this is not the typical response I've received from Five-Pointers over the years. Enabling makes it possible, and perhaps expected, but does not negate the real potential of the human will being contrary either temporarily or ultimately. 5 point TULIP adherents, pragmatically speaking, allow no real freedom of will in the believer, for God has preordained everything meticulously. Eternal Security adherents, like FG2, Grant free will to respond to the gospel, but not to reject it after initially accepting. This, in my humble opinion, creates numerous places of self-contradictory proposals.

Are the commands to do thing such things as abide/remain indicative that some will & some won't (but each were granted), or are the commands more in the sense of Torah meaning instruction, and thus at the end of the analysis, simply identifying what those who were granted, do? I think this would invest into pisteuo all that is ultimately in it in the end. So, believe in Him is more of a forward looking, comprehensive statement, than the simplistic way it is typically interpreted.

An example of such a concept: NKJ Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." So, a statement of initial Salvation, or a forward looking & comprehensive statement of Salvation from A-Z?

Again, hope this is clear.

I assert that we have God's faithfulness to himself as our security and that he will act toward us in the manner he describes at the judgment. Nothing is set in stone specifically until he judges us, except that he will judge us according to our belief status in his Son at that point. Ultimately, we have faith that God will do as he promises when the time comes, and afterward, we have no need of faith/hope, for we will already have what we had hoped for. The full realization of God's promises, are always set in the future!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

Matt. 26:72 But again he [Peter] denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man!"

Is this silence?

Doug

Oh, I see. You're trying to worm your way out of your mess.

Why would anyone default to such literalness when everyone knows what it means to "be silent". The Bible SAYS Peter DENIED the Lord 3 times. Wasn't that enough to convince you? How many more verses do you demand before you'll believe the Bible??

Peter kept silent about His relationship with Jesus. That's what I meant and what everyone would understand.

Please stop playing word games.

 

[TibiasDad]

This is what I think of the "smarter" BDAG

Danker revised and edited the 3rd English edition in 2000, based on the previous edition and the 6th German edition. BDAG. There have been several significant changes to this edition.

The Greek word for “to believe” is pisteuo. In the BAGD edition is the following under pisteuo: “to entrust oneself in complete confidence”

The 2000 BDAG added to that phrase the following: “with implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted”.

Further, in previous editions, the phrase “those who became Christians” in a number of passages was changed to “those who made their commitment” in the BDAG.

It is clear that Frederick Danker has a theological agenda in mind with these changes. Never before in any edition was “believe” linked with “commitment”, until 2000. Now, those pastors who have been saying that have a reference to back them up. Never mind that nearly a century of work never linked the two words before. This should cause alarm for all serious students of the Word of God, since the meaning of the very important word has been changed to fit the specific theology of Lordship salvation.

How's that for a very biased edition.

The only way to use the word 'commit' in regard to salvation is that the believer is committing his very soul to the Lord's protection and salvation.

But that's not how anyone uses "commitment" today. Commitment is all about working for a cause. There is no grace in "commitment salvation". Only works.

Well this is all well and good, but even if I agreed with your objections to these alleged changes, which I do not, your comments are irrelevant because a) we are not talking about pisteuo, but rather arneomai, and b) I was.quoting from the BDAG, second edition, 1958, published two years before my birth!

And by the way, if you assert that "There is no grace in "commitment salvation". Only works", then you are espousing monergism, and that, logically, makes you a Calvinist!

Doug