Temporal Salvation?

[TibiasDad]

This section of Hebrews has the writer chastising his readers for their lack of progress in spiritual growth. "If indeed God allows" is a warning to back up the rebuke.

This is an interesting thought. I hadn't given much thought to the "if God permits/allows" but as I've sought out other opinions, I've found at least two that would seem to follow your line of thought, Ellicott and the Pulpit Commentary. My initial thinking was more in line with Benson, who says of Heb 6:3, " if God permit — That is, afford assistance and opportunity. And we will do this the rather, and the more diligently, because it is impossible for those who were once enlightened..."

I'll have to ponder this....


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Yes, thanks. Sorry about that. See my #657.

Okay, sorry I didn't catch the correction.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Wrong again. Condemnation is for those who "have not believed".

What is your translation of each verse again? Refresh my memory, please. All I recall is that you attempted to prove that "have not believed" cannot mean "has never believed", which is just ludicrous, because it sure does.

So, without all the Greek gymnastics, just provide your own English translation of each verse. Because I still don't know what you think the verses say.

Take your pick of English translations, FG2, for none of them have " because they have never believed".

John 3:18 has πεπίστευκεν, a perfect, active, indicative, the perfect meaning that something has been completed in the past, the effects thereof being yet indicative at the time of writing. There is nothing that defines when in the past this act was completed or how much time has passed between the completion of the act and the present moment of writing.

2 Thess 2:12 has πιστεύσαντες, an aorist, active, participle, where the aorist just speaks of a completed act, without reference of when in the past it was completed or of the continuation of of the effects at the present moment of writing. (Remember that an act completed by the time of writing is logically prior to the present tense moment of expression about that completed act, but that this is not the explicit meaning of the Greek aorist tense. The completion of the act described is the crucial point of the aorist.

So neither the perfect or the aorist tenses can render what you so desperately need and want them to say.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Party line? lol. What an imagination!! My views come straight from the words in the Bible. If one believes what you claim (not demonstrate), then we just can't trust ANY English translation.

Not at all true, but there is not always a direct corollary in English syntax to the syntax of the Greek. This is especially true of the perfect tense. In other words, often the English has difficulty expressing the exact idea of the Greek. That's why the gymnastics of the Greek are sometimes employed to better inform the intended meaning!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Nice ad hominem there. Which you seem to enjoy.

Since my belief is that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, to compare me with any cult is beyond absurd. It just shows how little you apparently understand.

I have stated clearly and often that my comparisons to the JWs is in how you structure your arguments, not that you are necessarily a cultist yourself. I do think that your understanding is "another gospel" and I think that JLB is wise in his observation that the original lie of the devil was precisely that "you shall not die". It certainly should give pause to an honest student and disciple of Christ.

Doug

 

[GDL]

I'll have to ponder this....

Pondering is good...

 

[GDL]

This is an interesting thought. I hadn't given much thought to the "if God permits/allows"

While you're pondering God in control of allowing growth, a few others - I'm sure you've dealt with them:

NKJ 2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

God in control of repentance.


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.

The kindness & severity of God. I sometimes think people conveniently don't recognize He has both.


It's like YWHW's Anointed:

NKJ Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

This was what Paul pointed to in his evangelizing in Acts13 to say who Jesus is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"So, without all the Greek gymnastics, just provide your own English translation of each verse. Because I still don't know what you think the verses say."

One wonders why someone might be afraid of the Greek...the original language

I never even suggested that. Since you have a knack of taking what is so CLEAR in the English and twisting it so far out of meaning by all your Greek knowledge, I just want to know how you understand John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12.

... the language that gives us the meaning of what the writers meant to say. We'll just let discerning minds contemplate this quandary!
Doug

So, just another dodge here. Apparently you KNOW that you can't make "have not believed" to mean anything else but.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"The real bottom line is that Arminians are just too offended by the fact that a child of God can cease to believe and still enter heaven."

1) We are not offended
2) If we were why would that matter?
3) It is not a fact!

Sure it is, Doug.

You've mentioned specifically your offense or revulsion about a believer who apostatizes who still gets into heaven. So don't tell me you're not offended.
If not, why is that the main thing you keep going to?

I do not care that you believe what you believe, for you have the right to believe what you will; nor does your belief offend me. I am not appreciative of your arguments

Probably because they put you into a corner that you can't get out of.

but that you hold them takes no skin off my teeth. The word of God will stand against all manner of error, and my feelings will not effect any difference, so there is reason to be offended.

Then why do so many Arminians always come up with the most egregious scenarios where highly sinful people still get into heaven?

What does matter, is that the fact of your assertions is anything but a fact!

Here is a fact for you. My claims can be read plainly in Scripture. And another fact for you. You still haven't provided any evidence from the Bible that salvation can be lost.

Facts are things like the Deity of Christ, the death and resurrection of Christ, but that "a one and done" interpretation is beyond doubt is not a fact of orthodoxy!
Doug

Fact: yes it is. Jesus said as much in John 10:28. Once given eternal life (John 10:28a) the MOMENT one believes (John 5:24, 6:47) the recipient shall never perish (John 10:28b). Fact.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Wrong again. Condemnation is for those who "have not believed".

What is your translation of each verse again? Refresh my memory, please. All I recall is that you attempted to prove that "have not believed" cannot mean "has never believed", which is just ludicrous, because it sure does.

So, without all the Greek gymnastics, just provide your own English translation of each verse. Because I still don't know what you think the verses say."

Take your pick of English translations, FG2, for none of them have " because they have never believed".

Is that what I asked for? No, it is not. Of course I have the same web link as anyone else and can look up all 28 English translations.

But, since you have claimed to be a trained Greek student, and you refuse to admit that "have not believed" cannot mean "have never believed", I was wonderiing why they don't mean the same thing. And I gave a great example of how they DO mean the same thing in English.

So, why would they be different in the Greek? Maybe all your training can explain that.

Given the hypothetical that you have NEVER murdered anyone, is it correct to say that "Doug has not murdered anyone"?

So, if "has not" does NOT mean "never", then why do both terms really mean the same in the English.

I'm trying to get your line of reasoning.

John 3:18 has πεπίστευκεν, a perfect, active, indicative, the perfect meaning that something has been completed in the past, the effects thereof being yet indicative at the time of writing.

No, that's not what I asked. I don't really understand your statement here. "thereof being yet indicative at the time of writing" makes no sense to me. Sounds like you just copied and pasted from some text.

And "something has been completted in the past" doesn't even fit John 3:18, since the verse is dealiing with those who "have NOT believed".

There is nothing that defines when in the past this act was completed or how much time has passed between the completion of the act and the present moment of writing.

Again, irrelevant, since the issue is about "have NOT believed".

2 Thess 2:12 has πιστεύσαντες, an aorist, active, participle, where the aorist just speaks of a completed act, without reference of when in the past it was completed or of the continuation of of the effects at the present moment of writing. (Remember that an act completed by the time of writing is logically prior to the present tense moment of expression about that completed act, but that this is not the explicit meaning of the Greek aorist tense. The completion of the act described is the crucial point of the aorist.

Why do you keep referring to a "completed act", when the verse is about those who "have NOT believed".

So neither the perfect or the aorist tenses can render what you so desperately need and want them to say.
Doug

Well, you sure failed this task. I asked for an English translation of what each verse communicates in your perspective. And all you do is talk about "completed acts", which is opposite of what both verses are talking about.

I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.

You can't prove that "have not believed" does not mean "have never believed".

Of course you know that words in the English and Greek have a range of meanings. And different words can mean the same thing, right?

So, prove that "not" and "never" cannot mean the same thing.

Even though I gave you an example that shows that they DO mean the same thing.

If you have NOT murdered anyone, then you have NEVER murdered anyone.

They mean the same thing.

To argue anything else is pure insanity.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not at all true, but there is not always a direct corollary in English syntax to the syntax of the Greek. This is especially true of the perfect tense. In other words, often the English has difficulty expressing the exact idea of the Greek. That's why the gymnastics of the Greek are sometimes employed to better inform the intended meaning!

Doug

C'mon Doug. Just show me what Jn 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 mean about who is condemned.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Since my belief is that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, to compare me with any cult is beyond absurd. It just shows how little you apparently understand."

I have stated clearly and often that my comparisons to the JWs is in how you structure your arguments, not that you are necessarily a cultist yourself.

I noted that your "loss of salvation" belief parallels that of the RCC, and other religions.

I do think that your understanding is "another gospel" and I think that JLB is wise in his observation that the original lie of the devil was precisely that "you shall not die".

That's what the Bible says, so what is your point here, exactly?

The real test of a doctrine is whether the Bible makes the same statement. And your 'doctrine' comes up mighty short in that department.

It certainly should give pause to an honest student and disciple of Christ.
Doug

I'll tell you what should give YOU pause, Doug. The FACT that Jesus made a statement about eternal security that was SO CLEAR AND PLAIN that to argue for OSNAS is directly in opposition to the very words of the Lord you claim to believe in.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have stated clearly and often that my comparisons to the JWs is in how you structure your arguments, not that you are necessarily a cultist yourself.

Just a parting shot at your "cult" comment.

Just realize that in every religion and cult, salvation is earned by effort, or works, and there are no guarantees of salvation until the very end. Oh, except in Islam, where suicide bombers are guaranteed 72 black haired virgins to play with.

Only in biblial Christianity is salvation by grace alone, and kept by grace alone.

So your "saved by grace" but "kept by fill in the line" idea is really much closer to cults than what I believe.

 

[WordSword]

Which # - #3 as you said before - or #1 (which is what you seem to be saying in the quote just above, and what you seem to have been saying previously in using "appear" & "hyperbole")?

Here are the points again to make this easier:

Yes, getting a bit turned around. #1 is the only genuine truth in these choices. True faith never becomes unbelief.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes, getting a bit turned around. #1 is the only genuine truth in these choices. True faith never becomes unbelief.

Could you guide me to the verse that actually and clearly communicates this?

Since Jesus taught in a parable that some who believe (using the present indicative active) then cease to believe later on when pressures pile up, it seems clear to me that He was saying that saving faith may falter and cease, and gave some reasons.

If there was a clear verse about "true faith" never ceasing, I'll believe it. Thanks.

 

[WordSword]

The Spirit is alwasys in the believer. But the fruit is manifest only when the believer is filled with the Spirit and walking by Him. But never when the believer grieves or quenches the Spirit.

I don't believe one can have the Spirit and not be gradually conformed by Him (2Co 3:18; Eph 3:16), which is a life-long process of Him using His Word to teach and enable us to apply it by the new nature from Christ. I'm referring to spiritual growth in Christ, in our lifestyle, which is a separate issue from being saved in Christ. If one is truly saved it will eventually show from our growth in Him. If on who professes Christ does not eventually manifest this growth, he is void of the Spirit (unsaved). But the growth is evaluated by God, not necessarily by each other. We are given to see an indication of faith by the lifestyle, but we cannot know others minds and hearts like God does (we will know our own heart by the Spirit - Rom 8:16).

This sounds as though you think every believer will eventually be taught how to "walk in Him."

I see no restrictions in Phl 2:13 concerning believers. If people obviously demonstrate a sinful life, it's also obvious they have yet to be saved, and I believe that nobody can permanently maintain a hypocritical lifestyle. They will either eventually become a true believer or their deception will eventually be seen (Num 32:23; Mat 12:33).

I'm not sure whether an immature believer has the Spirit

A person cannot be a believer without having the Spirit, because He is the Creator of our rebirth in Christ (Jhn 3:5). To me, a believer is one in whom the Spirit of God permanently dwells and has been regenerated in the Life of Christ (Col 3:4).

Unbelievers and even outright atheists can live moral lives.

All we can observe is activity. We can't see the power source. Unbelievers act from their only power source; their willpower. Believer act from 1 of 2 power sources; their willpower, or the Holy Spirit's power.

Good points here. Those who desire to live moral lives apart from salvation are for the purpose of producing a security of conscience about themselves, which most (if not all) believers have encountered. But the believer eventually learns to trust in Christ's obedience to the Cross for security and not in his obedience.

I also see morality primarily as that which is related to one another, and holiness as that which is related to God and man. The Decalogue which God gave to His people was only a moral issue, which could indicate who was holy unto Him. I say "could indicate" but not confirm holiness, which confirmation only God can see for certain in the heart of believers.

Of course believers intentionally grieve the Spirit. Every sin is a sin of choice.

To intentionally do anything against the Spirit (grieve, quench) is to deliberately offend Him, which is not within the believer's desire, regardless his immaturity, considering God's "work in you" (Phl 2:13).
This would be to "sin presumptuously" or willfully" (Num 15:30; Heb 10:26). Paul declared that he noticed that there were still times when he wanted to do good but didn't do it, and times when he did not want to sin but did (Rom 7:19). This demonstrates that nobody reborn can live without being affected in some degree by the sin nature ("old man"); and for believers doing wrong is always against their desire, like a "captive" has to be retained against his desire (Rom 7:23).

Since we will continue to possess the indwelling old man, we will at times be thinking, saying and doing wrongs that are against our desire. I think God allowed the sin nature to remain in believers for the same reason concerning its initial purpose--to choose running to Him or from Him!

 

[GDL]

Yes, getting a bit turned around. #1 is the only genuine truth in these choices. True faith never becomes unbelief.

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I did want to know your conclusion, which seemed to me it had to be #1.

Interesting (for me anyway):
#1 WordSword
#2 TibiasDad - Doug
#3 known to be Free Grace position

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"The Spirit is alwasys in the believer. But the fruit is manifest only when the believer is filled with the Spirit and walking by Him. But never when the believer grieves or quenches the Spirit."

I don't believe one can have the Spirit and not be gradually conformed by Him (2Co 3:18; Eph 3:16), which is a life-long process of Him using His Word to teach and enable us to apply it by the new nature from Christ.

It sounds as if you believe that being "conformed by Him" is pretty much guaranteed by your statement. I believe that being conformed by Him refers to the process of spiritual growth, which Scripture clearly indicates isn't guaranteed. In fact, the author of Hebrews said as much in Heb 5.

I'm referring to spiritual growth in Christ, in our lifestyle, which is a separate issue from being saved in Christ.

Yes, agreed.

If one is truly saved it will eventually show from our growth in Him.

But spiritual growth isn't guaranteed. That's the problem. If a believer isn't filled with the Spirit, walking by Him, but rather grieves/quenches the Spirit, they will NOT grow up in their salvation.

1 Pet 2:2 - Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation. "so that..." is a purpose clause. It is by "craving pure spiritual milk" that a believer "may grow up in their salvation".

If on who professes Christ does not eventually manifest this growth, he is void of the Spirit (unsaved).

Why not the professor simply isn't filled with the Spirit, isn't walking by the Spirit, but rather by their own desires, and are grieving/quenching the Spirit?

We know from clear Scripture that on the basis of faith in Christ, the believer possesses the Spirit. Acts 10, Gal 3:2,5 and other verses.

But the growth is evaluated by God, not necessarily by each other. We are given to see an indication of faith by the lifestyle, but we cannot know others minds and hearts like God does (we will know our own heart by the Spirit - Rom 8:16).

Yes, I agree. We cannot and therefore should not try to evaluate another's growth. But to conclude that lack of observed growth means lack of the indwelling Spirit isn't justified.

I see no restrictions in Phl 2:13 concerning believers. If people obviously demonstrate a sinful life, it's also obvious they have yet to be saved

But again, if a believer lives for themselves, and instead of yielding/submitting to the Spirit (being filled with the Spirit), they are grieving or quenching the Spirit. That doesn't mean they aren't saved, but that they aren't growing up in their salvation.

and I believe that nobody can permanently maintain a hypocritical lifestyle.

I haven't found any verses that say that.

They will either eventually become a true believer or their deception will eventually be seen (Num 32:23; Mat 12:33).

There is a difference between deception and lack of spiritual growth.

A person cannot be a believer without having the Spirit, because He is the Creator of our rebirth in Christ (Jhn 3:5).

However, being filled with the Spirit is a command to be obeyed. Eph 5:18 It is failure to obey this command that leads in lack of spiritual growth.

To me, a believer is one in whom the Spirit of God permanently dwells and has been regenerated in the Life of Christ (Col 3:4).

I fully agree. Do you view the filling and indwelling of the Spirit as the same thing?

To intentionally do anything against the Spirit (grieve, quench) is to deliberately offend Him, which is not within the believer's desire, regardless his immaturity, considering God's "work in you" (Phl 2:13).

Then why did Paul tell believers to NOT grieve/quench the Spirit, if that isn't possible for believers?

This would be to "sin presumptuously" or willfully" (Num 15:30; Heb 10:26). Paul declared that he noticed that there were still times when he wanted to do good but didn't do it, and times when he did not want to sin but did (Rom 7:19).

I didn't notice anything about these various desires to be "at times". I get the sense that the competing desires were an on-going battle for him.

Since we will continue to possess the indwelling old man, we will at times be thinking, saying and doing wrongs that are against our desire. I think God allowed the sin nature to remain in believers for the same reason concerning its initial purpose--to choose running to Him or from Him!

Of course.

 

[WordSword]

Could you guide me to the verse that actually and clearly communicates this?

If there was a clear verse about "true faith" never ceasing, I'll believe it. Thanks.

I surly appreciate you sincerity, but there's no passage containing plain direct wording like that for faith, nor any for salvation, but it would seem much easier to discuss if there were. There is one that I think comes close in 1Co 13:13 - "Now abideth (Greek; menō - remains, continues or endures: G3306 - menō - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)) faith, hope and charity" (1Co 13:13).

There are three types of faith: 1) natural faith all have. 2) gift of faith from the Spirit (1Co 12:9). 3) fruit of faith from the Spirit (Gal 5:22), which is the faith given for salvation (Eph 2:8).

 

[TibiasDad]

But, since you have claimed to be a trained Greek student, and you refuse to admit that "have not believed" cannot mean "have never believed",

I am assuming that you meant to say "can mean" and not "cannot mean".
I have only said that "have not believed" does not normally or necessarily mean "have never believed". If that were the normal meaning and inference then English translations would say " because you have never believed" as a normal translation. I suppose that it could, but there would, in my estimation, be an οὐ to clarify the author's intent.

I was wonderiing why they don't mean the same thing. And I gave a great example of how they DO mean the same thing in English.

There are differences between languages, FG, and many times one language (such as English) does not have the capacity to easily express the nuances of another language, especially when dealing with dead languages (such as koine Greek). The perfect tense in biblical Greek, according to Mounce, is an example of such. (Mounce, The Basics of Biblical Greek, pg 222)

Why do you keep referring to a "completed act", when the verse is about those who "have NOT believed".

And "something has been completted in the past" doesn't even fit John 3:18, since the verse is dealiing with those who "have NOT believed".

I thought you said you've studied Greek on your own? Do you not understand the basic ideas of the aorist and prefect tenses? Both are expressing a completed action, i.e., died, said, believed, etc, the primary difference between them is that the perfect tense is used to express, for example, that "Stephen died" and he is still dead at this present moment, whereas the aorist, would just say "Stephen died", without implication as to whether he is still dead at the moment.

Neither tense, in itself, expresses "when" in the past the action took place and was completed. That information is supplied by the context, either specifically or logically inferred. For instance, if we are talking about dying and it is said that "He hasn't (perfect tense) died" then logically it is assumed that he has never died, because normally, we only die once.

But logically speaking, we can believe and disbelieve many times throughout our lives so to say that one "has not believed" does not necessarily mean they have never believed. You may have believed once, but at some point in the past, you stopped believing (a perfect tense, completed act) and the effects of that action at this point in time are still in effect-- you still do not believe presently!

Example: I once believed in Casper the Friendly Ghost and would have sworn to you that I once saw him floating in the sky outside my house. At some point in time I stopped believing this, and I still disavow belief in Casper. But if someone would say to me, "Your life and imagination would be far better if you believed in Casper, but it is not, because you have not believed (perfect tense), it would be wrong to say I have never believed in Casper, because I did! And if life would really be better by believing, then because I stopped believing at some point in the past and still do not believe in Casper (perfect tense implications), then my life is not as good as it could be if I did believe or would start believing again.

The aorist tense is simply a statement of fact, something happened, "Stephen died"! It tells us nothing more than "Stephen died". Not that he is still dead or not. Not a specific point of time when Stephen died.

So this is why I assert that the perfect tense of of John 3:18 and the aorist tense of 2 Thess 2:12, do not support your assertions that it necessarily means "have never believed".

Doug