Greek Tenses and OSAS

Hi ascund,


ascund:

So which contractual clause of the New Testament do you use to support this statement of conditionality?


Jim:

The contract is that everyone who believes in Him has eternal life (John 3:16 and 6:47). That’s the contract. If a believer stops believing and literally no longer believes that Jesus is the Son of God or that he took the sins of the world on Himself or that He rose from the dead, then the contract is broken.

Jesus says that one must endure to the end (Matthew 24:13) to be saved. That is, one must continue to believe. If one ceases to believe, he has broken the contract. That’s all the author of Hebrews is saying in chapters 3-6. He’s not saying that one has to be a perfect Christian. He’s saying that one must continue to believe.

Common sense dictates that if the believer has eternal life, then the unbeliever does not have eternal life, regardless of whether or not he ever believed in the past.


Jim

 

Hi ascund,


ascund:

Second, the “if” clause in verse 14 is really a first class conditional. Here, there is no itsby bitsy wiggle room for contingency. This rhetorical construct states an assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The word for word translation resulted in an unfortunate English conditional allowing the NSNS heresy just enough room to claim this verse as a warning. Wrong! The underlying Greek speaks of the certainty of our position in Christ and the likelihood of walking by the Spirit. It assumes the fact of becoming made partakers in Christ continues in the present walk of sanctification.


Jim:

No. Hebrews 3:14 is a third-class condition, the protasis (“if” clause) featuring the indefinite “eanper" (if ever) and the subjunctive “katascwmen" (we should retain), and apodosis (“then” clause) featuring the perfect indicative (probably proleptic/futuristic) “gegonamen" (we have become). This kind of condition covers the entire spectrum of conditionals.


Jim

 

Quoting Ascund, "It makes Christianity a hopeless one-shot religion", referring the word "impossible" in Hb.6:4.
Last night unable to sleep I just thought in my simple way about this very word for the understanding of which I have been confronted all my life. Thought I, but it actually tells us WHAT is the impossible, which namely is, that "those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come", THAT, "they should fall away (impossible) to renew them again to repentance (one of the "foundation-coctrine of Christ") etc.?
Am I wrong?

 

I mean, it says, "For it is impossible (adunaton gar) once being enlightened (hapacs phohtisthentes) ... and falling away, again to renew to repentance (kai parapesontes palin anakainidzein eis metanoian)".
Why "impossible", "Because" - participles! - "Because that would imply / mean such persons would unto themselves again crucify the Son of God" ... "impossible" supposition!.
Is that not what the writer has in mind - and says?

 

Hi Gerhard Ebersoehn,


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

I mean, it says, "For it is impossible (adunaton gar) once being enlightened (hapacs phohtisthentes) ... and falling away, again to renew to repentance (kai parapesontes palin anakainidzein eis metanoian)". Why "impossible", "Because" - participles! - "Because that would imply / mean such persons would unto themselves again crucify the Son of God" ... "impossible" supposition!. Is that not what the writer has in mind - and says?


Jim:

I don’t think so. All of the accusative participles modify “touV” (the ones), which is the accusative direct object of the infinitive “anakainizein” (to renew). The nominative adjective “adunaton” (impossible) is the predicate adjective to the subject of the implicit (not explicitly written) verb “estin” (it is), the infinitive “anakainizein” (to renew) being the subject. To renew to repentance the ones (who do these things described by the participles) is (implicit verb) impossible (predicate adjective). What is impossible is renewing them to repentance.

Now, the adjective "adunaton" (impossible) could be either nominative or accusative in the neuter gender, as both are spelled the same. However, only the nominative case makes sense, because the only logical function for this adjective in this passage is as the predicate adjective to the infinitive subject "anakainizein" (to renew).

6:4 adunaton gar touV apax fwtisqentaV geusamenouV te thV dwreaV thV epouraniou kai metocouV genhqentaV pneumatoV agiou 5 kai kalon geusamenouV qeou rhma dunameiV te mellontoV aiwnoV 6 kai parapesontaV palin anakainizein eiV metanoian anastaurountaV eautoiV ton uion tou qeou kai paradeigmatizontaV

6:4 For impossible (it is) the ones once having been enlightened, both having tasted the heavenly gift and having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and having tasted the beautiful word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 and having fallen away, again to renew to repentance, (the ones) crucifying to themselves the Son of God and disgracing


Jim

 

That is interesting. I am taking this to the "Does God send His children to hell" thread since this is a thread for Greek.

 

Jim - nice work.

And much appreciated at that!

However there is a big problem with it. You make it appear that the Translators actually knew what they were doing and translated the text correctly such that it has the same meaning in English as it does in Greek.

For some small group of Christians - that result is totally unnacceptable since they are among those that build their doctrine on the hope that the translators and linguists doing the well respected Bible translations "got their tenses wrong".

So going to NASB, NKJV, Youngs etc - does nothing to disuade them. Neither does exegeting the text move them to reason.

So while your work is much appreciated - I am afraid the conclusion will be quite unnacceptable. (To some)

But I for one - will be adding it to my files.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jim,
I shall wait to hear what Lloyd has to say on this. You make a lot of irrelevant grammatical technicalities, and loose contact with the larger issue. The writer clearly is stating a rhetorical argument almost dramatically - "though we thus speak" - making suppositions of the impossible. First he supposes the impossibility those once enlightened - once for all - if those might fall, they could be "renewed" as were they at first not really renewed. No he says, "we are persuaded of better things of you!" (As John says, a man cannot be born twice, and if born of the Spirit it is for ever!) And then the writer CONTRASTS such as "once were enlightened" with those who "to themselves crucify the Son of God afresh and put Him to open shame" (those NEVER "enlightened") - No says he, it is impossible, a sacrileges idea "for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit" - that is, it is impossible the OSAS "if they shall fall (away - and the best and every one of them do) that the whole wonder of being born of the Spirit could repeat itself! For that would mean, says this writer, that those redeemed by the omnipotent power and according to the omnipotent power of God actually could be persistent crucifiers of the Son of God. What he means is, this is the most impossible thing of all things impossible!
Bring that 'content' and 'context' into account when you consider the 9finer0 points of grammar, is all I say!

 

The writer illustrates the irrepeatability of being born of the Spirit once in verses 7, where he says the rain falling on the earth brings forth either weeds or fruit-bearing plants. It is not fruit-bearing plants that must be planted over again after they had become weeds - which is supposing the ridiculous. The same - exactly the same - as supposing the once enlightened must all over be sown - die and rise - over and over again!

 

Hi Gerhard Ebersoehn,


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

You make a lot of irrelevant grammatical technicalities


Jim:

Since when is what the language of the Bible actually says irrelevant? I guess it’s irrelevant to those who intend to interpret the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean regardless of what it says.


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

The writer clearly is stating a rhetorical argument almost dramatically - "though we thus speak" - making suppositions of the impossible. First he supposes the impossibility those once enlightened - once for all - if those might fall, they could be "renewed" as were they at first not really renewed. No he says, "we are persuaded of better things of you!"


Jim:

The language says that renewing such a person to repentance is impossible in 3:14. That’s what it says. Everything that the writer warns is possible. That’s why he’s warning the readers. He says that he doesn’t think that the readers have succumbed to the things about which he is warning them, but he warns them of the possibility and encourages them not to go there.


Jim

 

Look how you contradict yourself, 1jim, "The language says that renewing such a person to repentance is impossible in 3:14. That’s what it says. Everything that the writer warns is possible."
We differ because we suppose differently about the thing supposed. The thing supposed is to be renewed again. Hebrews says it's the impossible supposed; you say it the possible supposed. It's up to you to change your mind to agree with the writer's.
I had a quick look at your insistence on the Accusatives of the Participles, and can't see that it makes any difference to the writer's supposition it is impossible to renew again the once enlightened at all as it is impossible to enlighten at all the ones by nature ("unto themselves") crucifying the Son.

 

Quoting Jim, "He says that he doesn’t think that the readers have succumbed to the things about which he is warning them, but he warns them of the possibility and encourages them not to go there."
In fact the writer encourages his readers to do the things about which he is warning them, namely, "leaving the first things of the doctrine of Christ (like repentance from dead works), let us accept responsibility to press on to the perfection." Exactly his warning is his reason for 'warning': 'Look, it's impossible an enlightened person .... can be enlightened again, seeing "if he shall fall (away), to renew (him) again", will be like laying the foundation of Christian doctrine again - which a total absurdity it could be done!

 

That was Jim's quote Lloyd.

God Bless!

 

Hi ascund,


ascund:

The onus is upon BobRyan and 1jim to manufacture the NT clause that would allow a believer to be cast into hell.


Jim:

What?!

Where did you ever get the idea that I thought that a believer would go to hell? That’s where unbelievers go, whether or not they ever believed before.

The onus is on you to show where the Bible teaches that a believer cannot stop believing and thus become an unbeliever.

The Bible is full of assurances to believers, to those who continue to believe. One must believe in order to have these assurances. If one chooses to no longer believe, then that from which he walks away is not forced on him; he forfeits the inheritance.

Eternal security applies to believers, not to unbelievers. As long as one believes, he is eternally secure.

The notion that one cannot lose one’s salvation as long as one continues to believe is Biblical. The notion that one cannot lose one’s salvation even if one stops believing is NOT Biblical. According to this latter view, an unbeliever is saved just as well as a believer is saved, which is NOT Biblical. According to this latter view, once a believer always a believer, EVEN IF ONE NO LONGER BELIEVES. This is nonsense. The truth is obvious: One is a believer if he believes, and one is an unbeliever if he does not believe. The fact that an unbeliever USED TO believe does not make him a believer. If he does not believe, then he is an unbeliever, regardless of whether or not he ever previously believed.

The OSAS doctrine was INVENTED to calm the fears of believers who were worried about their salvation. Whereas it is Biblical that believers should not be worried about their salvation, because they are secure as long as they believe, it is NOT Biblical that unbelievers are just as secure as long as they USE TO believe. What nonsense.

If one is an unbeliever, then he is not worried about his salvation; he isn’t worried about anything, because he doesn’t believe such things, even though he may have believed in the past.

The OSAS doctrine takes the Biblical idea that the believer is eternally secure one step farther into the NON-Biblical idea that even someone who USED TO believe but NO LONGER believes is likewise eternally secure. Thus, the OSAS doctrine ends up teaching that UNBELIEVERS have eternal life, which is NOT Biblical.


Jim