To those who don't believe in eternal security...

[DingDing]

Good post!

Here's my favorite verse on eternal security:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

How deeply have you looked into this verse? And are you willing to put it under careful examination?

He has passed from death unto life. He has everlasting life.

It speaks for itself.

I agree it does speak for itself, but it was written originally in Greek, and that is where one must go for a careful examination. My time is short, but the Greek verbs used suggest a different interpretation than you think. The use of present participles and the perfect tense strongly suggest something like the following reading.

"Truly, truly, I am saying to you, he that is hearing (in a present, active, ongoing sense) and is believing (in a present, active, ongoing sense) on Him that sent Me, is not presently under condemnation, but is presently passed from death to life."

So, even though I rather strongly suspect you will reject it, a careful study of the Greek reveals that this verse connects a current state of life to a current state of hearing/belief. This verse makes no promise of continued life in the case of former (not current) hearing/belief.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I agree it does speak for itself, but it was written originally in Greek, and that is where one must go for a careful examination. My time is short, but the Greek verbs used suggest a different interpretation than you think. The use of present participles and the perfect tense strongly suggest something like the following reading.

"Truly, truly, I am saying to you, he that is hearing (in a present, active, ongoing sense) and is believing (in a present, active, ongoing sense) on Him that sent Me, is not presently under condemnation, but is presently passed from death to life."

So, even though I rather strongly suspect you will reject it, a careful study of the Greek reveals that this verse connects a current state of life to a current state of hearing/belief. This verse makes no promise of continued life in the case of former (not current) hearing/belief.

Very good

 

[aiki]

how pray tell do you partake of the Holy Spirit without belief unto salvation? Just for the record, your answer needs to include scripture cause I don't know of any way to partake of the HS without being a true believer from a biblical perspective.

As I already explained, one can "partake" of the Holy Spirit without being saved in at least two ways:
1.) By a second-hand experience of His power moving in and through others and 2.) by coming under the conviction of the Spirit.

Again, I point to Christ's teaching on the tares and wheat (Matt. 13:24-30). Tares "partake" of the Spirit in exactly the way I've described and do so in such a perfect way that they can be very difficult to distinguish from genuine believers (as Christ teaches in his parable).

shall I call up the websters definition for you? Let's look at some key words from the Lexicon, shall we?

Pedantic much?

Notice that definition does NOT match yours

You've shown no such thing. More to the point, I have offered no formal definition thus far to which to make your match.

so, no, it cannot mean church for the church is not in heaven at the moment.

I did not indicate that what was meant in Hebrews 6 by "heavenly gifts" was "church." What I described were the spiritual endeavours of the church, enabled by the heavenly gifts of the Spirit: praise and worship, Spirit-filled, biblical teaching, and conviction of sin. The unsaved frequently partake of these things and in so doing partake of the "heavenly gifts."

Notice that this is not as you proclaim experiencing but rather it is sharing in, that is in partner with...now please present a single passage that shows a non believer sharing in or partnering with the HS.

The unsaved "tares" share in church life and the work of the Spirit in and through the Church all the time. Now, they don't share in such things the way the truly regenerate do, but they share in them nonetheless.

for space we will leave the rest because you see, there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret scripture.

Yes, I am well aware of how to properly interpret Scripture. You, however, seem in need of some instruction in this regard.

I just showed you that your pov of view is wrong because of translation.

I'm afraid you haven't done any such thing.

That being said, you are free to believe what you want but unless you bring scripture that rightly divides the word as I have done here, all you are doing is preaching your ideas and beliefs and not God's at all.

You have not done what you think you have. It seems you're so convinced of your perspective that you believe it is self-evident. Well, it's not. Throwing out definitions and then saying, "See? You're wrong," does not constitute anything like a reasoned argument for your position nor a refutation of mine.

Show in the word of God what you are saying so we can examine it or don't but know this, in me, you have the perfect opportunity to prove me wrong, you just have to do it through careful and correct interpretation not some "cause I believe this..." song and dance.

Kettle calling the pot black here, I'm afraid.

notice what scripture says about knowledge Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction....a wisdom that leads to salvation I might add
but then again, the word in question is not knowledge but enlightenment and above you will see the definition for the word.

All of this quite misses my point. Really, your words above look like an awkward deflection of it.

As I pointed out, knowledge is essential to enlightenment. You can't be enlightened while an ignoramus. Nothing you've said here refutes this. I have known many unsaved people who feared God and understood the Gospel quite well. They could talk quite expertly of many Christians doctrines. Clearly, they had some illumination, some understanding, of the truths of the faith even though they were not saved - just like the people Hebrews 6 describes.

that isn't what you said...you said that enlightenment is knowledge not the turning away from knowledge...

No, I never said "enlightenment is knowledge"; I said knowledge is necessary to enlightenment - a distinction you seem unable to comprehend.

but, I'll give you the point for clarification here.

How terribly generous of you...

There are 24ish passages in the new testament alone that talk about turning from. Isn't it curious to you that the wording would be changed here if the intent was the same?

No.

well since I am the only one offering biblical interpretation not personal interpretation your point and attempt here to get under my skin is meaningless.

I've no interest in "getting under your skin," only in stating the facts of the matter. You have not explained how my interpretation is wrong. All you've done, really, is show how your interpretation differs and then assume I must therefore be mistaken. That isn't, of itself, an effective refutation of my view. It's just expressing your bias.

You see, the real Church (capital C) is all true believers. But your post clearly talks about the earthly church and as such falls apart under the scrutiny that all biblical truth can hold up under.

Really? Kinda' grasping at straws here...I don't ever suggest that the tares in the Church are part of the Church in the sense of being spiritually-regenerate members of the Body of Christ. Not once. But they are in the Church in the sense of participating in Church activities and ministries. This isn't that difficult a thing to understand...

???? You believe the heavenly gifts are things like praise and prayer and stuff like that which is found in the church. I showed above where that is a flawed idea on several levels.

No, in fact, you didn't. Sheesh.

You seem to be getting angry, maybe after this post you should take some time to pray and worship before responding so that God's peace is reigning supreme over all our communications.

Very amusing! You really are full of all sorts of assumptions, aren't you?

notice that it isn't just a causual acknowledgement but an experience, a taking nourishment from, a partaking of....

I never said anything about a "casual acknowledgment." But tasting something is not necessarily the same as eating it entirely, as you know very well. It is this word in particular that suggests a superficial involvement with the faith on the part of those described in Hebrews 6.

that is what you believe, but the passage says differently as I have shown you.

No, in fact, you have not.

why would you think I was trying to convince you otherwise?

I never used the word "convince" in the comments to which you are responding here...

From a biblical perspective your interpretation does NOT line up with scripture as per a study that rightly divides the word.

Maybe you think the simple repetition of this statement will make it true? It won't.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

I'm sorry, but I think it does. A non-believer can't fall away - he can not loose what he never had.

He can lose all of the things he had while participating as a "tare" in the Church.

Selah.

 

[DingDing]

He can lose all of the things he had while participating as a "tare" in the Church.

Selah.

A tare actually has nothing! Think about that.

 

[razzelflabben]

As I already explained, one can "partake" of the Holy Spirit without being saved in at least two ways:
1.) By a second-hand experience of His power moving in and through others and 2.) by coming under the conviction of the Spirit.

Again, I point to Christ's teaching on the tares and wheat (Matt. 13:24-30). Tares "partake" of the Spirit in exactly the way I've described and do so in such a perfect way that they can be very difficult to distinguish from genuine believers (as Christ teaches in his parable).

so let me get this right, your idea of good exegesis of the passage that says they are partners with the HS really means that either they are convicted or just partnering with others who are saved because of where scripture tells us about the tares mixed in with the wheat...wow...I'm not sure you understand how exegesis and biblical study in general works. I think you might benefit from a class on how to study scripture for it's intended meaning. You see, no one is questioning if there are tares in the church, but your claim was that those who are partners with the HS are the tares and the passage in Matt. says the tares are those that are following or children of Satan not partners with the HS. So when you are asked to show a passage that shows any nonbeliever who is partners with the HS, showing tares among the wheat doesn't cut it.

Pedantic much?

good exegesis is not to be mocked when it comes to wanting to know the truths of God. Just saying...not the best course of action on your part.

You've shown no such thing. More to the point, I have offered no formal definition thus far to which to make your match.

huh???? I showed you the definition from the original text...claiming otherwise is just lying...as to you offering a definition you didn't you offered ways you want to change the meaning and the definition, which is popular in the millinals today but very disturbing to say the least. We can't just change meanings of words at a whim and expect communication to thrive.

I did not indicate that what was meant in Hebrews 6 by "heavenly gifts" was "church." What I described were the spiritual endeavours of the church, enabled by the heavenly gifts of the Spirit: praise and worship, Spirit-filled, biblical teaching, and conviction of sin. The unsaved frequently partake of these things and in so doing partake of the "heavenly gifts."

that is what i repeatedly said you said it was...wow but none of that changes the problem with your interpretation....seriously you need to either show a good exegesis that shows your view or just give up because all I am interested in is what God wants us to know not what you want us to know about your beliefs based on something other than rightly dividing the word of God.

The unsaved "tares" share in church life and the work of the Spirit in and through the Church all the time. Now, they don't share in such things the way the truly regenerate do, but they share in them nonetheless.

you still aren't making the case for how being partner with the HS is a thing done by non believers.

Yes, I am well aware of how to properly interpret Scripture. You, however, seem in need of some instruction in this regard.

please instruct away...enlighten us all...oh, wait, enlighten only means knowledge of, right? So you have knowledge of how to study scripture and interpret it accordingly but lack the ability to put it into practise by your own argument...this is going to be fun...I am always interested in learning something new. I'll try to put it into practise not just have knowledge of it like you claim is part of Heb. 6

I'm afraid you haven't done any such thing.

no reason to be afraid, I did do exactly what I said and it is a matter or record.

You have not done what you think you have. It seems you're so convinced of your perspective that you believe it is self-evident. Well, it's not. Throwing out definitions and then saying, "See? You're wrong," does not constitute anything like a reasoned argument for your position nor a refutation of mine.

lol wow, I showed you definitions, not throw them out and then added scripture...so you see, I did exactly what I think I did, I went to the meaning of the word in the original text and added scripture to that to see what the result would be...seems maybe you should reread my posts.

Kettle calling the pot black here, I'm afraid.

herein lies your basic problem...in order for there to be an interpretation of any written text there needs to be rules of comprehension. in most text, common literary rules are enough, but for ancient manuscripts the original lang is vital. you are trying to throw both out in exchange for your belief. as i said there is no reason to get salty about it, you have been given the right to believe anything you want and that right is given to you by God but that doesn't make you right.

All of this quite misses my point. Really, your words above look like an awkward deflection of it.

As I pointed out, knowledge is essential to enlightenment. You can't be enlightened while an ignoramus. Nothing you've said here refutes this. I have known many unsaved people who feared God and understood the Gospel quite well. They could talk quite expertly of many Christians doctrines. Clearly, they had some illumination, some understanding, of the truths of the faith even though they were not saved - just like the people Hebrews 6 describes.

already dealt with that but why dwell on it? Why try to convince me that your interpretation is better than God's interpretation? You claim to have knowledge (enlightenment) into how to study the Bible but lack the ability to do so...you made your point. I disagree but you did make your point.

No, I never said "enlightenment is knowledge"; I said knowledge is necessary to enlightenment - a distinction you seem unable to comprehend.

the text says they are enlightened...you claimed that just meant they had knowledge...so are you now changing your claim? see, if it said they had knowledge your claim would hold water, but it says they were enlightened which leaves your argument in want.

How terribly generous of you...
No.
I've no interest in "getting under your skin," only in stating the facts of the matter. You have not explained how my interpretation is wrong. All you've done, really, is show how your interpretation differs and then assume I must therefore be mistaken. That isn't, of itself, an effective refutation of my view. It's just expressing your bias.

wow, you need to read my posts...it shows very clearly how you are wrong using the definitions of the words used in the original text as well as context in the totality of scripture. Dear one, that is much more than just making a claim and then trying to flame you as you continue to do with me.

Really? Kinda' grasping at straws here...I don't ever suggest that the tares in the Church are part of the Church in the sense of being spiritually-regenerate members of the Body of Christ. Not once. But they are in the Church in the sense of participating in Church activities and ministries. This isn't that difficult a thing to understand...

that has never been questioned or disagreed with. the point of disagreement is that of whether the tares are those that are partners with the HS or not. I say only a believer can be a partner with the HS, you say no the tares are partners with the HS. So I asked you to evidence this and you just posted the parable of the tares which doesn't evidence your claim that the tares are partners with the HS as you claim. And before you try the side step of claiming that is not your claim, I showed you very clearly that the original text shows that the word partake of the HS means to partner with. So the only way you can claim something else is if you throw away the text and what it says and that is dishonest.

I never said anything about a "casual acknowledgment." But tasting something is not necessarily the same as eating it entirely, as you know very well. It is this word in particular that suggests a superficial involvement with the faith on the part of those described in Hebrews 6.

according to the meaning of the original word used, you are wrong...see, that is the real beauty of actual study...you are trying to accuse me of misinterpretation when I said nothing at all about my interpretation instead I present the interpretation of the original lang. so you are in essence arguing with the ancient Greek scholars.

 

[aiki]

A tare actually has nothing! Think about that.

You give me a good reason to and I will.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

so let me get this right, your idea of good exegesis of the passage that says they are partners with the HS really means that either they are convicted or just partnering with others who are saved because of where scripture tells us about the tares mixed in with the wheat...wow...I'm not sure you understand how exegesis and biblical study in general works.

This isn't refuting my explanation. It is essentially ad hominem - a form of fallacious arguing in which you indulge quite a lot.

I don't think "partner" is a good equivalent to "partaker." "Sharer" or "one who shares in" is a much better rendering of "partaker."

from <G3348> (metecho); participant, i.e. (as noun) a sharer; by implication an associate :- fellow, partaker, partner.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

In fact, "sharer" is how many Bible versions translate "partaker" in Hebrews 6:4. As I've explained, the tares in the church do just that: they share in what the Holy Spirit is doing in the Church - illegitimately and superficially, to be sure - but they share in it nonetheless. God does make the rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45).

You see, no one is questioning if there are tares in the church, but your claim was that those who are partners with the HS are the tares and the passage in Matt. says the tares are those that are following or children of Satan not partners with the HS.

As I've explained, I don't think the tares in the Church are partners with the Holy Spirit. If there is any partnering going on, it is only in a second-hand way, not in the way a genuine child of God is partnered with the Spirit. This should be very obvious...

So when you are asked to show a passage that shows any nonbeliever who is partners with the HS, showing tares among the wheat doesn't cut it.

Not the way you're misunderstanding and limiting the meaning, no.

good exegesis is not to be mocked when it comes to wanting to know the truths of God.

Acting the pedant is not good exegesis.

huh???? I showed you the definition from the original text...claiming otherwise is just lying...as to you offering a definition you didn't

Showing me the definition does not, by itself, prove anything. What is far more useful is understanding the meaning of the word in its context. As I have explained, "sharer" is a better rendering than "partner." And the context supports this rendering very well.

Thank you for acknowledging that your attempt to match your definition to mine was something you manufactured, not something you were actually responding to in my comments.

seriously you need to either show a good exegesis that shows your view

You have done nothing to establish my exegesis is faulty. You simply say it is and expect me to agree. Very strange way you have of arguing...

or just give up because all I am interested in is what God wants us to know not what you want us to know about your beliefs based on something other than rightly dividing the word of God.

Ah, but you have yet to show that my view is not biblical. It is different than yours, but that doesn't, by itself, make it unbiblical. You seem to think you can set yourself up as the final arbiter of what is "rightly dividing the word of truth" but you just simply can't. Nothing about the way I'm reading the passage does violence to it in the least and you have yet to show otherwise.

you still aren't making the case for how being partner with the HS is a thing done by non believers.

See the word "share" in my explanation? It's there a number of times. It should have cued you to the fact that I am not using the same meaning of the word "partaker" that you are. And there is nothing that obliges me, either in the context or actual meaning of the word, to read "partaker" as "partner" - especially in the sense in which you want to take it. So, I am making my case very well; you just refuse to acknowledge it.

please instruct away...enlighten us all...oh, wait, enlighten only means knowledge of, right?

Well, here's an opportunity for your first lesson: Learn to hear and understand what a writer is saying before you start making assertions about their meaning. I explain what I actually said about knowledge and enlightenment later in my last post. Apparently, you hadn't read that far when you made the comments above. I clarify that what you assert here that I said about knowledge and enlightenment is not actually what I said at all. Taking notes?

no reason to be afraid, I did do exactly what I said and it is a matter or record.

Nope. You didn't.

in most text, common literary rules are enough, but for ancient manuscripts the original lang is vital.

No, in fact it is not vital. It is certainly often helpful, but the meaning of words change over time in every language. If this has happened with a word in Scripture, limiting the word to its root often obscures rather than clarifies its meaning. What is much more vital, then, is understanding the word in its context and in its common usage of the time.

you are trying to throw both out in exchange for your belief.

Nope. As anyone who reads my post can see, I am not simply reworking the passage to say what I want it to say. As I have pointed out a number of times now, I have not twisted or warped the meaning of the passage at all in reading it the way I do. My reading differs from yours but you have yet to show why your reading eliminates mine.

you have been given the right to believe anything you want and that right is given to you by God but that doesn't make you right.

Hey, right back at you.

already dealt with that but why dwell on it? Why try to convince me that your interpretation is better than God's interpretation?

Because, quite obviously, your interpretation is not God's interpretation. And I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely defending my interpretation from your attempts to misconstrue and misrepresent it.

the text says they are enlightened...you claimed that just meant they had knowledge...

No, I did not. That was your misconstruction of my comments.
What I wrote was:

"There is no enlightenment without knowledge." (post #176)

As you can see, I did not say knowledge was enlightenment. What I did say is that knowledge is necessary to enlightenment.

so are you now changing your claim? see, if it said they had knowledge your claim would hold water, but it says they were enlightened which leaves your argument in want.

Nope, you can't limit meaning when it gives you trouble not to. As I have explained - and you have failed to effectively argue against - there are degrees of enlightenment (as I pointed out from Scripture). One can be enlightened superficially as the people in the Hebrews 6 passage were. You have offered no good textual reason why this is not the way the passage may be understood except to say this is not how you understand it and to play fast-and-loose with my words.

it shows very clearly how you are wrong using the definitions of the words used in the original text as well as context in the totality of scripture.

You haven't come close to offering the "totality of Scripture" on the matter we are discussing. You have shown your view of the passage and offered definitions and some loose associations to other verses to make your case. But you have not actually argued in a way that shows my interpretation is illegitimate. As I said, you've been arguing in way that appears to take for granted that your view can be the only one.

that has never been questioned or disagreed with. the point of disagreement is that of whether the tares are those that are partners with the HS or not. I say only a believer can be a partner with the HS, you say no the tares are partners with the HS.

No, I have never said this. I have never said the tares are partners with the Holy Spirit. They share in the experience of what the Holy Spirit is doing in the Church, but they don't partner with the Spirit in the spiritual sense in which the born-again do. You would have understood this if you'd actually read - and took the time to comprehend - what I've been writing. This has been your biggest problem right from the start of our conversation.

 

[aiki]

according to the meaning of the original word used, you are wrong...

No, I'm not. Strong's indicates:

a primary verb; to taste; by implication to eat; figurative to experience (good or ill) :- eat, taste.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

What in this definition denies what I have said? Nothing. Nothing at all. According to Strong's, the word "tasted" in the Hebrews 6 passage may mean exactly what I said it means. You see? You make these bald assertions about the meaning of terms and then expect it to be taken as gospel. Very strange...

Selah.

 

[greenguzzi]

This isn't refuting my explanation. It is essentially ad hominem - a form of fallacious arguing in which you indulge quite a lot.

Oh dear, here we go again!

Whenever aiki starts to lose an argument he uses this ruse.
He accused me of the same also, I challenged him; he predictably ignored my reply.

Worth thinking about, huh?! (Selah)

 

[razzelflabben]

This isn't refuting my explanation. It is essentially ad hominem - a form of fallacious arguing in which you indulge quite a lot.

as a reading teacher one of the first things that we were taught is to teach comprehension. Notice that the lang. of the quote here is one of trying to clarify what you believe and not a rebuttal of your ideas at all. IOW's if you are reading for comprehension then you would not make such a false accusation as you are here.

I don't think "partner" is a good equivalent to "partaker." "Sharer" or "one who shares in" is a much better rendering of "partaker."

and the Lexicon which is essentially a dictionary for ancient biblical lang. says you are wrong...that is good enough for me unless of course you can share with us the official documents that you are more of an ancient biblical lang. scholar than those that put the Lexicon together.

from <G3348> (metecho); participant, i.e. (as noun) a sharer; by implication an associate :- fellow, partaker, partner.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

In fact, "sharer" is how many Bible versions translate "partaker" in Hebrews 6:4. As I've explained, the tares in the church do just that: they share in what the Holy Spirit is doing in the Church - illegitimately and superficially, to be sure - but they share in it nonetheless. God does make the rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45).

shame on you for changing what it says so that you can justify your ideas...it says partakers of the Holy Ghost, not partakers in what the HS is doing in the church...did you think I wouldn't catch that change of the text you are offering here as some sort of evidence to what you want this to mean? Just as troubling is that you want Matt. 5:45 to evidence that partakers of the HS is the same thing as partakers in that which the HS is doing in the church. And honestly if you can't see the difference in the two versions, that is the biblical version and your reinvented version there is nothing more you and I can say to one another. Scripture warns us not to change scripture...I will leave it at that...Matthew 5:18

As I've explained, I don't think the tares in the Church are partners with the Holy Spirit. If there is any partnering going on, it is only in a second-hand way, not in the way a genuine child of God is partnered with the Spirit. This should be very obvious...

Problem 1...you offer no reason to question that they are partaking of the HS since that is what the text says problem 2...this is the first time you actually accepted what the word partake means problem 3...this is just your opinion and offers no evidence to back it up which is what you were asked for.

Showing me the definition does not, by itself, prove anything. What is far more useful is understanding the meaning of the word in its context. As I have explained, "sharer" is a better rendering than "partner." And the context supports this rendering very well.

lol...the definition is part of the understanding in context, a context btw that I did show... it's one of the first things we teach in elementary school when teaching reading comprehension.

Ah, but you have yet to show that my view is not biblical. It is different than yours, but that doesn't, by itself, make it unbiblical. You seem to think you can set yourself up as the final arbiter of what is "rightly dividing the word of truth" but you just simply can't. Nothing about the way I'm reading the passage does violence to it in the least and you have yet to show otherwise.

notice I am just ignoring all your inflammatory responses while waiting for you to offer anything at all relevant in any way to the discussion...it would be very helpful to our discussion if you would simply refrain from trying to flame me in this matter. I have offered everything that is important to a proper exegesis and all you have offered is "cause I say so" please at least offer something to work from....

I have absolutely shown that your version is violating 1. common literary rules, 2. definition from translated words and 3. context. Just because you don't want to accept that I did doesn't make it so...

See the word "share" in my explanation? It's there a number of times. It should have cued you to the fact that I am not using the same meaning of the word "partaker" that you are. And there is nothing that obliges me, either in the context or actual meaning of the word, to read "partaker" as "partner" - especially in the sense in which you want to take it. So, I am making my case very well; you just refuse to acknowledge it.

see above...I would really love to aknowledge that you are making any significant point because it would mean that there was a reason to continue with the discussion but you simple keep saying over and over "I believe it says X so I am right and you and the Lexicon and the context are wrong." come on, you are able to offer more.

Well, here's an opportunity for your first lesson: Learn to hear and understand what a writer is saying before you start making assertions about their meaning. I explain what I actually said about knowledge and enlightenment later in my last post. Apparently, you hadn't read that far when you made the comments above. I clarify that what you assert here that I said about knowledge and enlightenment is not actually what I said at all. Taking notes?

no....what I said if you read for comprehension is that if we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion you just gave us a perfect example of how when the text says they are enlightened it simply means they have knowledge of..you know, like you have enlightenment into how to evidence your position...since the text says they are enlightened and you claim they just have knowledge of, then that must mean that you are enlightened in how to study scripture but that only means you have knowledge of and not experience with....see, the Lexicon and the context disagree with you. I don't have to agree or disagree the lexicon and context do that for me. As is evidenced here.

No, in fact it is not vital. It is certainly often helpful, but the meaning of words change over time in every language. If this has happened with a word in Scripture, limiting the word to its root often obscures rather than clarifies its meaning. What is much more vital, then, is understanding the word in its context and in its common usage of the time.

that is why we look at the Lexicon and the context as I did with you...too bad you can't offer anything other than "cause I say so." Seriously I am interested in a good study of the passage that uses Lexicon (translational issues) and context both in the passage directly and in the totality of scripture but so far I am the only one offer such and I am growing tired of asking you to do the same and show what I am missing and all you offer is that there are tares in the church...duh, we all know there are tares in the church but clearly through context and translational issues we know that isn't who this passage is talking about.

Nope. As anyone who reads my post can see, I am not simply reworking the passage to say what I want it to say. As I have pointed out a number of times now, I have not twisted or warped the meaning of the passage at all in reading it the way I do. My reading differs from yours but you have yet to show why your reading eliminates mine.

look at what you say here..."I have not twisted or warped the meaning of the passage at all in reading it the way I do." compared to what I have said...which is ...based on the translational issues that are identified through the Lexicon, the context, and the totality of scripture we cannot read the text as you are trying to because to do so means we would have to rewrite it.

Do you see the two differences? you basically are saying "cause I say so" and I am laying out the way we know that your interpretation is wrong with points and evidences and careful study and literary rules.

No, I did not. That was your misconstruction of my comments.
What I wrote was:

"There is no enlightenment without knowledge." (post #176)

yeah, that is what you said after I pressed you on the topic...first you said that the portion that says they are enlightened means that they have knowledge of but are not true believers...when I showed you wrong using your own words you back pedaled to this...which is fine, at least we got that far....enlightenment comes from knowledge....but what then is enlightenment? How would one be enlightened by the gospel and not be a true believer? See, you even admit here that enlightenment is more than mere knowledge. Previously we looked at the lexicon now let's look at websters....

1. : freed from ignorance and misinformation <an enlightened people> <an enlightened time>
   
   
2. 2: based on full comprehension of the problems involved <issued an enlightened ruling>
   

Now look at this passage....Eph. 4:18; Hosea 4:6 both of which tell us that ignorance is that of the unbeliever and yet the passage in question says they are the enlightened ones, according to websters those that are free from ignorance and ignorance that scripture says makes then unbelievers....hum...definition, context, totality of scripture and your still wrong...

No, I have never said this. I have never said the tares are partners with the Holy Spirit. They share in the experience of what the Holy Spirit is doing in the Church, but they don't partner with the Spirit in the spiritual sense in which the born-again do. You would have understood this if you'd actually read - and took the time to comprehend - what I've been writing. This has been your biggest problem right from the start of our conversation.

right...but the text clearly says they are partakers of the HS...I know what you believe what I am asking you is how the text matches what you believe when it says they are partakers (partners) of the HS. Not of the things the HS is doing in the church....you fail to address how your ideas fit with what the text actually does say.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, I'm not. Strong's indicates:

a primary verb; to taste; by implication to eat; figurative to experience (good or ill) :- eat, taste.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

What in this definition denies what I have said? Nothing. Nothing at all. According to Strong's, the word "tasted" in the Hebrews 6 passage may mean exactly what I said it means. You see? You make these bald assertions about the meaning of terms and then expect it to be taken as gospel. Very strange...

Selah.

see above...you have to do better than that...it says experience....as in taking it in and allowing the body to utilize it...as in true believers. I get this is hard for you to accept and I am impressed you have gone this far in the discussion of this passage but changing the text won't help your case. read the whole definition in the Lexicon....

 

[aiki]

as a reading teacher one of the first things that we were taught is to teach comprehension.

I should hope so. What happened to your training?

shame on you for changing what it says so that you can justify your ideas...it says partakers of the Holy Ghost, not partakers in what the HS is doing in the church...

I don't think your righteous indignation is warranted. Whether it is "partakers of" or "sharers in" the sense remains fundamentally the same. Sharing in what the Holy Spirit is doing is to share in Him. The "sharing in/of" the Spirit may not be as full or as intimate as that of the genuine believer, but there is a sharing in Him nonetheless.

Paul the apostle declared,

Acts 17:27-28
27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

Even the unsaved "live, and move, and have their being" in God. Inasmuch as they do, they partake of Him as the sustaining Power of their lives. Now, they don't experience God the way the born-again do, but the unsaved are just as reliant upon, just as sustained by, God as the saved folk are and so partake of/share in Him, too. In light of this, and what Christ teaches in Matthew 5:45 and in Matthew 13:24-30, my reading of Hebrews 6:4 is hardly controversial.

did you think I wouldn't catch that change of the text you are offering here as some sort of evidence to what you want this to mean?

The insinuation you make here of a deceitful or sneaky tactic is just more backhanded ad hominem. You do this a lot, you know.

And honestly if you can't see the difference in the two versions, that is the biblical version and your reinvented version there is nothing more you and I can say to one another.

Yup. You're so biased toward your own view, you can't seem to comprehend any other. You show here just how deep your bias runs when you distinguish my view (the "reinvented version") from the "biblical version" (which is, of course, your view). But bias is, really, all your communicating here.

Problem 1...you offer no reason to question that they are partaking of the HS since that is what the text says

What the text says and what it means are not necessarily one and the same thing - as your faulty reading of it demonstrates. Here's a good example:

Colossians 3:3
3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Paul is obviously writing to the living Colossian believers. But he says to them that they have died. If we are to follow your way of interpreting Scripture here, Paul must mean they are actually dead. It's what the verse says, right? But if that were so, why would he write to them at all? Dead people cannot read letters. Clearly, what Paul has written is not all that he means. This is true of much of Scripture - including the passage from Hebrews 6.

this is just your opinion and offers no evidence to back it up which is what you were asked for.

It is my reading of the verse but it is no more "just my opinion" than your reading of the verse is. I have explained why I read the passage as I do, working from the text of the passage itself, and demonstrating both from life and from Scripture the basis for my reading. Now, you may not accept my view, but that doesn't mean, therefore, that it is mere opinion.

notice I am just ignoring all your inflammatory responses while waiting for you to offer anything at all relevant in any way to the discussion...it would be very helpful to our discussion if you would simply refrain from trying to flame me in this matter.

Now this is funny! Flaming? Read your own comments here!

I have offered everything that is important to a proper exegesis and all you have offered is "cause I say so" please at least offer something to work from....

Again, the pot calling the kettle black.

you simple keep saying over and over "I believe it says X so I am right and you and the Lexicon and the context are wrong." come on, you are able to offer more.

See? Here is this myopia from which you suffer on plain display. In fact, I haven't simply repeated
"I believe it says X so I am right." I have offered a rationale for my view both from the words themselves, their context, from Scripture and from real life examples. But all you've been able to see is "I believe it says X so I am right." I don't need to offer more; you need to be able to see another view other than your own.

no....what I said if you read for comprehension is that if we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion you just gave us a perfect example of how when the text says they are enlightened it simply means they have knowledge

This is you putting your own construction upon my words. Instead of taking my words to their "logical conclusion," simply understand how I used them (you teach reading comprehension, do you not?). I have explained now a number of times that enlightenment requires knowledge. These two things go together. As I said, you can't be enlightened and be an ignoramus. But I don't believe that knowledge is identical to enlightenment.

since the text says they are enlightened and you claim they just have knowledge of

Again, this is not what I claim; this is what you claim. See above.

see, the Lexicon and the context disagree with you. I don't have to agree or disagree the lexicon and context do that for me. As is evidenced here.

I have shown you the meaning of the words in question from Strong's Bible Dictionary and they support the way I'm defining terms. Your continued reference to "the Lexicon" doesn't, therefore, carry any weight. And as for context, well, I have explained that "tasted" clearly communicates a superficial or very limited experience of something which supports my reading of the Hebrews 6 passage as referring to the tares in the Church. So, your comments above are quite false.

Seriously I am interested in a good study of the passage

No, you aren't serious, nor are you genuinely interested. Your posts on this thread make this very evident.

I am missing and all you offer is that there are tares in the church...duh, we all know there are tares in the church but clearly through context and translational issues we know that isn't who this passage is talking about.

"Duh"? What was that you were saying about flaming?

I didn't simply say, "There are tares in the church." See? Again, you thoroughly misrepresent what I wrote. I said that the tares share in the life of the Church - though more superficially than the truly born again - and in so doing are partakers/sharers of/in God's work in the Church. Insofar as they do, they are partakers of God. See above for further explanation.

As for your "translational issues" and discussion of context, well, your explanations have been scant and confused to say the least. Certainly, you have said nothing that has well-established your view.

compared to what I have said...which is ...based on the translational issues that are identified through the Lexicon, the context, and the totality of scripture we cannot read the text as you are trying to because to do so means we would have to rewrite it.

I have done exactly what you claim here to have done yourself. But you are writing as though I haven't. Again, this speaks loudly of your myopia and bias in discussing this issue, not to the actual facts of the matter.

first you said that the portion that says they are enlightened means that they have knowledge of but are not true believers...

Well, they do have knowledge of the truths of God's word. I also pointed out that they understand the doctrines of the faith better sometimes than the genuinely born-again. To the degree these tares know and understand God's truth, they can be said to be enlightened. Are they enlightened in the same way as those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No. But they are enlightened nonetheless.

when I showed you wrong using your own words you back pedaled to this...which is fine

"Backpedaled"? See? Bias again. What I actually did was explain and clarify my meaning. No backpedaling was required.

but what then is enlightenment? How would one be enlightened by the gospel and not be a true believer? See, you even admit here that enlightenment is more than mere knowledge.

"Admit"? I have clarified that enlightenment and knowledge overlap - something I wouldn't have had to do if you hadn't been misconstruing my comments.

Now look at this passage....Eph. 4:18; Hosea 4:6 both of which tell us that ignorance is that of the unbeliever

Neither the verse in Ephesians nor in Hosea give a blanket description of all non-believers. Yes, many unbelievers are totally ignorant about the tenets of the Christian faith and the Gospel. But, obviously, this wouldn't necessarily apply to the tares in the Church who, as I said, sit regularly under biblical teaching and sometimes have a better handle on Christian doctrine than genuine believers do.

and yet the passage in question says they are the enlightened ones

See above.

but the text clearly says they are partakers of the HS...I know what you believe what I am asking you is how the text matches what you believe when it says they are partakers (partners) of the HS.

I explained this in the first part of this post but I will reiterate here that we all of us - believer and non-believer - are fundamentally connected to God who is the Sustainer of our existence. We all partake of Him every moment of every day. Without Him, none of us would exist. As Paul wrote, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." So, the idea that we can partake of God without being spiritually-regenerate is not a controversial idea at all and supports my reading of Hebrews 6:4.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

see above...you have to do better than that...it says experience....as in taking it in and allowing the body to utilize it...as in true believers.

No, this is straining the natural sense of the term. I don't think the emphasis in the use of the word "taste" is "ingestion" but "superficiality of experience." We say things like, "I had just a taste," to indicate the small degree of our experience of something. Compare "tasted" to how Paul describes the new birth:

2 Corinthians 5:17
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

This sounds nothing like a "taste" of Christ. Paul describes a total and fundamental transformation that "tasted" does not communicate at all. So, again, your choice to emphasize "taking in" as the correct way to read "tasted" is a very weak reading.

Selah.

 

[Wordkeeper]

So, the idea that we can partake of God without being spiritually-regenerate is not a controversial idea at all and supports my reading of Hebrews 6:4.

Excuse the interruption. Could you clarify what spiritual regeneration looks like?

I should hope so. What happened to your training?



I don't think your righteous indignation is warranted. Whether it is "partakers of" or "sharers in" the sense remains fundamentally the same. Sharing in what the Holy Spirit is doing is to share in Him. The "sharing in/of" the Spirit may not be as full or as intimate as that of the genuine believer, but there is a sharing in Him nonetheless.

Paul the apostle declared,

Acts 17:27-28
27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

Even the unsaved "live, and move, and have their being" in God. Inasmuch as they do, they partake of Him as the sustaining Power of their lives. Now, they don't experience God the way the born-again do, but the unsaved are just as reliant upon, just as sustained by, God as the saved folk are and so partake of/share in Him, too. In light of this, and what Christ teaches in Matthew 5:45 and in Matthew 13:24-30, my reading of Hebrews 6:4 is hardly controversial.



The insinuation you make here of a deceitful or sneaky tactic is just more backhanded ad hominem. You do this a lot, you know.



Yup. You're so biased toward your own view, you can't seem to comprehend any other. You show here just how deep your bias runs when you distinguish my view (the "reinvented version") from the "biblical version" (which is, of course, your view). But bias is, really, all your communicating here.



What the text says and what it means are not necessarily one and the same thing - as your faulty reading of it demonstrates. Here's a good example:

Colossians 3:3
3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Paul is obviously writing to the living Colossian believers. But he says to them that they have died. If we are to follow your way of interpreting Scripture here, Paul must mean they are actually dead. It's what the verse says, right? But if that were so, why would he write to them at all? Dead people cannot read letters. Clearly, what Paul has written is not all that he means. This is true of much of Scripture - including the passage from Hebrews 6.



It is my reading of the verse but it is no more "just my opinion" than your reading of the verse is. I have explained why I read the passage as I do, working from the text of the passage itself, and demonstrating both from life and from Scripture the basis for my reading. Now, you may not accept my view, but that doesn't mean, therefore, that it is mere opinion.



Now this is funny! Flaming? Read your own comments here!



Again, the pot calling the kettle black.



See? Here is this myopia from which you suffer on plain display. In fact, I haven't simply repeated
"I believe it says X so I am right." I have offered a rationale for my view both from the words themselves, their context, from Scripture and from real life examples. But all you've been able to see is "I believe it says X so I am right." I don't need to offer more; you need to be able to see another view other than your own.



This is you putting your own construction upon my words. Instead of taking my words to their "logical conclusion," simply understand how I used them (you teach reading comprehension, do you not?). I have explained now a number of times that enlightenment requires knowledge. These two things go together. As I said, you can't be enlightened and be an ignoramus. But I don't believe that knowledge is identical to enlightenment.



Again, this is not what I claim; this is what you claim. See above.



I have shown you the meaning of the words in question from Strong's Bible Dictionary and they support the way I'm defining terms. Your continued reference to "the Lexicon" doesn't, therefore, carry any weight. And as for context, well, I have explained that "tasted" clearly communicates a superficial or very limited experience of something which supports my reading of the Hebrews 6 passage as referring to the tares in the Church. So, your comments above are quite false.



No, you aren't serious, nor are you genuinely interested. Your posts on this thread make this very evident.



"Duh"? What was that you were saying about flaming?

I didn't simply say, "There are tares in the church." See? Again, you thoroughly misrepresent what I wrote. I said that the tares share in the life of the Church - though more superficially than the truly born again - and in so doing are partakers/sharers of/in God's work in the Church. Insofar as they do, they are partakers of God. See above for further explanation.

As for your "translational issues" and discussion of context, well, your explanations have been scant and confused to say the least. Certainly, you have said nothing that has well-established your view.



I have done exactly what you claim here to have done yourself. But you are writing as though I haven't. Again, this speaks loudly of your myopia and bias in discussing this issue, not to the actual facts of the matter.



Well, they do have knowledge of the truths of God's word. I also pointed out that they understand the doctrines of the faith better sometimes than the genuinely born-again. To the degree these tares know and understand God's truth, they can be said to be enlightened. Are they enlightened in the same way as those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No. But they are enlightened nonetheless.


"Backpedaled"? See? Bias again. What I actually did was explain and clarify my meaning. No backpedaling was required.



"Admit"? I have clarified that enlightenment and knowledge overlap - something I wouldn't have had to do if you hadn't been misconstruing my comments.



Neither the verse in Ephesians nor in Hosea give a blanket description of all non-believers. Yes, many unbelievers are totally ignorant about the tenets of the Christian faith and the Gospel. But, obviously, this wouldn't necessarily apply to the tares in the Church who, as I said, sit regularly under biblical teaching and sometimes have a better handle on Christian doctrine than genuine believers do.



See above.



I explained this in the first part of this post but I will reiterate here that we all of us - believer and non-believer - are fundamentally connected to God who is the Sustainer of our existence. We all partake of Him every moment of every day. Without Him, none of us would exist. As Paul wrote, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." So, the idea that we can partake of God without being spiritually-regenerate is not a controversial idea at all and supports my reading of Hebrews 6:4.

Selah.

 

[razzelflabben]

Just a reminder, I am ignoring the flaming, eventually I will grow tired of it and report it.

Whether it is "partakers of" or "sharers in" the sense remains fundamentally the same. Sharing in what the Holy Spirit is doing is to share in Him. The "sharing in/of" the Spirit may not be as full or as intimate as that of the genuine believer, but there is a sharing in Him nonetheless.

so, what do you then do with these passages...I Peter 4:13; Romans 8:17 both indicate that it is the true believer that shares in or partakes of or is partnered with the HS. What you have failed to do is show any reason to conclude that a non believer can share in, partake of, or partner with the HS. That is the burden on your shoulders to be able to do here. See, your claim is that the one who is partaking/sharing/partners of the HS is the unbeliever. So far you haven't even tried to evidence that claim. I am truly interested in what passages you want to offer to show the context of both the passage and the totality of scripture that says that a non believer can share/partake/partner with the HS. Please do so or end the discussion cause that is what it will take at this point.

Paul the apostle declared,

Acts 17:27-28
27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

Even the unsaved "live, and move, and have their being" in God. Inasmuch as they do, they partake of Him as the sustaining Power of their lives. Now, they don't experience God the way the born-again do, but the unsaved are just as reliant upon, just as sustained by, God as the saved folk are and so partake of/share in Him, too. In light of this, and what Christ teaches in Matthew 5:45 and in Matthew 13:24-30, my reading of Hebrews 6:4 is hardly controversial.

that wasn't the claim you were asked to evidence....see, here you are talking about God as creator. the Heb. passage specifies HOLY SPIRIT which was given to believers not the unsaved. So in order to evidence your claim you need to provide a passage that shows the unbeliever partaking/partnering/sharing in the power of the indwelling HS. This does NOT do that, it doesn't even come close...nice try though, if I didn't know scripture and the witness of the HS within I might have been convinced by the slight of hand you did here.

Yup. You're so biased toward your own view, you can't seem to comprehend any other. You show here just how deep your bias runs when you distinguish my view (the "reinvented version") from the "biblical version" (which is, of course, your view). But bias is, really, all your communicating here.

I called it what I did because you have failed to provide any evidence to suggest that your version is the intent of the passage. whereas the version I presented is straight from a careful study of the word. Now I know you don't agree with that because you have repeatedly told us you disagree with that but you have failed to back up your assertions which leaves only one possible. See how important it becomes to be able to back up your claims with good exegesis...it's the difference between a correct interpretation and a flawed one.

What the text says and what it means are not necessarily one and the same thing - as your faulty reading of it demonstrates. Here's a good example:

wow...I can't wait to hear what my husband says when I read that sentence to him...he might have an anurism...

Colossians 3:3
3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Paul is obviously writing to the living Colossian believers. But he says to them that they have died. If we are to follow your way of interpreting Scripture here, Paul must mean they are actually dead. It's what the verse says, right? But if that were so, why would he write to them at all? Dead people cannot read letters. Clearly, what Paul has written is not all that he means. This is true of much of Scripture - including the passage from Hebrews 6.

that isn't even close to what I said...I said in fact that context and literary rules are vital to our understanding...using both we know that this is talking aobut the spiritual life and death and the old man vs. the new...shall I show it to you or just assume you know this given that you are trying to use it to belittle me and thus know your point is irrelevant?

It is my reading of the verse but it is no more "just my opinion" than your reading of the verse is. I have explained why I read the passage as I do, working from the text of the passage itself, and demonstrating both from life and from Scripture the basis for my reading. Now, you may not accept my view, but that doesn't mean, therefore, that it is mere opinion.

Actually you did not do what you claim to have done...here is the summary of what I asked you to do...use 1. literary rules, 2. translational issues, 3. context of the passage, and 4. context of the totality of the bible to evidence your position that those that are enlightened, tasting heavenly gifts, partaking of the HS etc. are the unbelievers. The only thing you offered us was a passage about tares among the wheat which is not addressing the issue at all much less using the 4 criteria. To make matters worse for you, this very post ignored 1 above, literary rules to try to mock me into letting go of this very important passage and concept.

See? Here is this myopia from which you suffer on plain display. In fact, I haven't simply repeated
"I believe it says X so I am right." I have offered a rationale for my view both from the words themselves, their context, from Scripture and from real life examples. But all you've been able to see is "I believe it says X so I am right." I don't need to offer more; you need to be able to see another view other than your own.

clearly if you really believe this and it isn't just your attempt to flame me you have not read for comprehension anything I have said because I have used all four of the above methods of study to show you wrong.

This is you putting your own construction upon my words. Instead of taking my words to their "logical conclusion," simply understand how I used them (you teach reading comprehension, do you not?). I have explained now a number of times that enlightenment requires knowledge. These two things go together. As I said, you can't be enlightened and be an ignoramus. But I don't believe that knowledge is identical to enlightenment.

you are refusing to address what I said which is a form of flaming...sorry, you loss.

and yet the text says they are enlightened and you said that they are the unbelievers who just have knowledge of....which is why claiming I am not relating what you said correctly is a falacy you have created in your own head to justify your position. Notice I show why I am making the claim I am...

I have shown you the meaning of the words in question from Strong's Bible Dictionary and they support the way I'm defining terms. Your continued reference to "the Lexicon" doesn't, therefore, carry any weight. And as for context, well, I have explained that "tasted" clearly communicates a superficial or very limited experience of something which supports my reading of the Hebrews 6 passage as referring to the tares in the Church. So, your comments above are quite false.

no, you presented a portion of the definitions after I present the whole definition then showed your chosen version of the definition to justify your position...you know, kind of like here when you say "communicates a superficial or very limited experience of something which supports my reading of the Heb. 6 passage..." nothing you presented shows a superficial or very limited experience except for your opinion. this is why I keep telling you you need to present more than the "cause I say so argument" .

No, you aren't serious, nor are you genuinely interested. Your posts on this thread make this very evident.

are you now trying to flame me by calling me a liar? I am 100% genuninely interested in knowing what God intends for us to know but pulling stuff like you are throughout this post and then trying to claim it is good exegesis isn't going to cut it. We need true exegesis not proof texting. And just for the record, you would do well to refain from trying to call me a liar, it is a personal attack and is a false witness of my and my character as well.

I didn't simply say, "There are tares in the church." See? Again, you thoroughly misrepresent what I wrote. I said that the tares share in the life of the Church - though more superficially than the truly born again - and in so doing are partakers/sharers of/in God's work in the Church. Insofar as they do, they are partakers of God. See above for further explanation.

but not in the life of Christ and the HS that dwells within which I showed you ages ago and you refused to rebut other than to make another false accusation of how I am representing you.

Well, they do have knowledge of the truths of God's word. I also pointed out that they understand the doctrines of the faith better sometimes than the genuinely born-again. To the degree these tares know and understand God's truth, they can be said to be enlightened. Are they enlightened in the same way as those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No. But they are enlightened nonetheless.

but by definition both in the Lexicon and in Websters as well as your previous comment above, if all they have is knowledge and no life experience of the Christ and the indwelling HS they are not enlightened....see how that works, when someone believes something that is not true, they catch themselves in trying to argue their way out of it and I don't have to do anything but show scripture....it's really a facinating phenomena...

Neither the verse in Ephesians nor in Hosea give a blanket description of all non-believers. Yes, many unbelievers are totally ignorant about the tenets of the Christian faith and the Gospel. But, obviously, this wouldn't necessarily apply to the tares in the Church who, as I said, sit regularly under biblical teaching and sometimes have a better handle on Christian doctrine than genuine believers do.

I didn't say they did, what I said is that they how that ignorance is a non believer thing and not something for the believer...iow's I showed through the totality of scripture that enlightened ones by definition are believers and those that are ignorant are unbelievers. That was the burden of proof I had to reach and I just did so. You see, these two scriptures equate lack of ignorance to salvation...another way to say the same thing is that the ignorant remain unsaved. In Heb. we see that the ones being talked about falling away are not ignorant but enlightened. According to the totality of scripture as Eph. and Hosea testify, that means they are true believers. Boom...that is how you use the totality of scriptur to make your case.

I explained this in the first part of this post but I will reiterate here that we all of us - believer and non-believer - are fundamentally connected to God who is the Sustainer of our existence. We all partake of Him every moment of every day. Without Him, none of us would exist. As Paul wrote, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." So, the idea that we can partake of God without being spiritually-regenerate is not a controversial idea at all and supports my reading of Hebrews 6:4.

Selah.

as I pointed out above, Hebrew 6 does NOT say we are partaking of God's rich blessings but rather that we are partaking of the HS which you have not yet shown is given to non believers to partake of....the HS was given to believers only.[/QUOTE]

 

[razzelflabben]

No, this is straining the natural sense of the term. I don't think the emphasis in the use of the word "taste" is "ingestion" but "superficiality of experience." We say things like, "I had just a taste," to indicate the small degree of our experience of something. Compare "tasted" to how Paul describes the new birth:

wow...let's explore that for a moment...if I taste something and thus experience it, what am I doing? Please be careful in how you answer..remember it does NOT say "they just had a taste" It says they tasted...thus what does it mean when I say I tasted the cake or that I had a taste for rap music.

2 Corinthians 5:17
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

This sounds nothing like a "taste" of Christ. Paul describes a total and fundamental transformation that "tasted" does not communicate at all. So, again, your choice to emphasize "taking in" as the correct way to read "tasted" is a very weak reading.

Selah.

but again, the taste talked about in. 6 is NOT Christ that is where enlightened comes in...the tasting is of heavenly gifts...you know the gifts that reside in heaven according to the Lexicon. So when you confuse the words and subjects like this it really is no wonder you have no idea what the text is saying as evidenced by the 4 criteria you were asked to use. Now, how do we do more than "taste" the things in heaven while we are still on this earth? See, if the taste was associated with the subject Christ you would be able to make this claim but the word taste is associated with the subject heavenly gift which is according to translation found in the Lexicon those things in heaven.

 

[aiki]

Excuse the interruption. Could you clarify what spiritual regeneration looks like?

Just so I don't tell you what you already know, what do you think it looks like?

Selah.

 

[razzelflabben]

Just so I don't tell you what you already know, what do you think it looks like?

Selah.

why not just answer the question, it's a valid question.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Just so I don't tell you what you already know, what do you think it looks like?

Selah.

Actually, I don't mind putting my understanding down for comparison.


Let's lay out the framework fist.


Let's assume that the target group for the Gospel message is mixed. It consists of two main groups. Those who are privileged, born into wealth, have the means to protect that wealth and intend to keep that wealth.


The other group is born, again, into a situation: have less wealth, have less means to retain that wealth, such retaining being in the form of servitude to the first group and see no way to change. In fact, the only way that change can happen is if they overrun the first group by sheer numbers, something the first group realises and works actively to prevent.


Along comes the good news bearer, with the announcement that the owner of the second group has arrived and wishes to retrieve his property.


Let's ignore his communication and interaction with the first group.


He informs his people that he has returned to take them home, a place with rest from servitude and oppression.


It's not a near place, it requires making a journey.


The group agrees to leave and sets out. on the journey. As the journey progresses, it is easy to make out that there are two factions. One is impressed with the ability of the deliverer, realises that the hardships he creates are artificial and set up to prepare them for making choices like the one they made in leaving the security, oppressive but still security, of their point of departure. This disciplining will be crucial in preparing them to partner with their benefactor in the rescue business he is involved with. Not only will he take them out of a bad situation, he will give purpose to their lives.


The other group is fearful, faint hearted. In their paranoia, they see evil motivation in the project. They have tasted the gifts of the deliverer, rescue from pointless existence, silencing of the powers that once held them in captivity to that pointless existence, plundering and reassigning of the resources of that previous existence to benefit the project. The training that was supposed to prepare them to be empowered to be rescuers in their own right, revealed their fearful side. When the going gets tough the tough get going.


The tares are tares because they were always interested in saving their own skins. The true believers were the ones who remembered or maybe even intuited the old myths, the promise that they would be blessings, would save the world from its sins, confirmed by the drinking from the Rock. They were created to be rescuers, completers of creation, subduing it to serve the master.


To answer your question, the spiritual regenerated are the ones who drink from the Rock, receive enlightenment about God's plans, how those plans were placed in suspension when his partner who was supposed to complete the plan made himself incomplete, how God promised to intervene and bring his plan back on track, by first rescuing his partner and offering him an opportunity to take part in the original task and how that opportunity involved a weeding out of those who were fearful and unloving, unwilling to show love by sacrificial living.


Of course this isn't the framework that the Gospel is presented in evangelical outreaches, but I assure you that this is what the Ethiopian eunuch was presented with. As time passed, the language and the message changed, but intuition is a strong force and as we grope to seek out God, He is not far from us, and will give those who are His sheep to His Son, who will in no ways turn them away. But will lead them to regeneration. Through training. Through setting out on the Journey.


Of course our intuition should tell us that the Gospel as presented by the mainline churches isn't faithful to the original, but it can be compelling and can distract us from what we originally felt the world needed and what we wanted to make happen: being saved from its sins. Through setting out on the Journey. Made possible by our own completion of the Journey. Of being enlightened. Of the plans of God. Of “meta noia” ing, changing our mindset. Being regenerated. In our thinking. In our spirit.