Greek Tenses and OSAS

Hey BobRyan

What a list of confusion. Sanctification verses are never proofs for or against justification. This goes back to your failure to utilize (or comprehend) the basic lexical evidences presented a while ago. Error at the sources pollutes your every post.

Here are the refutations of part of this list. It highlights his inabilities to comprehend justification versus sanctification.

Matt 10:22 but it is he who has endured until the end that will be saved.[/quote]
Christ-deniers ignore the context of Kingdom principles. Context! This is a clear case of violently wrenching the verse out of text and forcing one’s opinions upon God’s Word. Matthew 24 begins with Jesus telling His disciples that the glorious temple would come to an end (24:2). His disciples then asked Him about His coming and the end of the age (24:3). Jesus’ answer is known as the Olivet discourse.

Jesus’ answer comes in fours parts (4–14, 15–28, 29–31, and 32–41). The first part of His answer describes the end of the age. Characteristics of this part include the advent of many false-christs, wars, persecutions, and the world wide proclamation of the gospel. The encouragement to endure to the end is in this section. Following this, Jesus describes the Great Tribulation specifically mentioning the attack on national Israel. Then, beginning with verse 29, Jesus describes the exact moment of His second return. He concludes His discourse by providing the Parable of the Fig Tree. We can know the season of His return but not the exact day and hour. No matter which view of end times one holds this passage is clearly linked with a time of great tribulation – not personal loss of salvation.

The context of the entire chapter teaches that Jesus’ discourse was directed to national Israel. The passage is an OT reference to where God promises to save national Israel from its woes: “for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it” (Jer 30:7). The time of Jacob’s trouble is none other than the Great Tribulation. If this passage had been addressed to already saved Christians, then it would have read, “He that is saved will endure to the end” as it does in John 3:16 and John 10:28.

Only shoddy exegesis ignorant of context would take a passage about the end of times addressed solely and specifically to national Israel and twist it into a present fear of personal loss of salvation. Fear and ignorance are some of Satan’s most powerful tools!

Does the Bible give any clear picture of what happens to a person who cannot endure to the end? Yes! In the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8, Jesus gives a clear picture of a seed that germinates and doesn’t endure to the end. Jesus gives a picture of several types of seeds that are cast at random onto the ground; one such seed that falls among poor soil. Due to the shallow soil, the second seed grows into a young plant but fails to produce fruit. In fact, it withers away under the heat of the day. But notice that the seed produced a new life! In biblical terms, the seed was “born again.” The sad part is that it bears no fruit and receives no reward.

The Bible teaches that the fruit of a given life will determine the rewards of the after life. Since King Jesus will only let believers who professed Him to reign (2 Tim 2:11-13), these shallow-soil fruitless believers who fell away “will miss out on Christ’s approval.” This privilege of reigning with Jesus only comes as we share in His sufferings in this life. “While there is a very real price to be paid for failure in the Christian experience, that price will never involve consignment to the Lake of Fire.”

Context helps us understand that endurance “to the end” should be understood as to the end “of this age” (1:2), not to the end “of one’s life.” The Arminian view is a venomous lie! How is it that so many succumb to it?

One’s relationship with Christ is severed because relationship has to do with sanctification – a fellowship issue. But one’s security is not jeopardized because security has to do with justification – a forensic issue. Forensics and fellowship are mutually exclusive terms that must not be confused.

Theologians often tend to polarize their opinions to one of two extremes. The typical exchanges over these warnings fall into two main types. One extreme is that apostasy is not possible for God’s elect. The other extreme is that believers can apostatize and lose their salvation. But there is another group that is not an extreme: free grace OSAS theism.

The free grace OSAS position is that God is faithful to His promises. Forensic justification is a one time event; not an ongoing process. God the Judge declares believing sinners “Not Guilty,” officially pardons them, regenerates them, and closes the judgment book(s) forever. There is no double jeopardy in God’s court. At the same time, God our Father adopts those believing sinners (now called saints) into His family. The Holy Spirit takes up personal residence in our redeemed souls until the day when our bodies are redeemed as well. Filial sanctification is the process of growing into the spiritual maturity. Any sin or good deed is possible here. We encourage the deeds done from love and faith, we oppose but acknowledge all sin. Sin brings a loss of rewards while faithfulness brings crowns, responsibilities and blessings.

It is possible for believers to apostatize. They will lose heavenly rewards but not their eternal destiny.
__Christ made total payment for sins on the Cross!
__What sin could a person commit that hasn’t already been paid?
__God declared a verdict of “Not Guilty” to all who believe.
__What sin could be done that would reverse this declaration?
__God has purchased all believers unto Himself.
__Can the purchased possession sell itself?

The NT doctrine of eschatological accountability teaches that each believer must ultimately give an answer to Christ for his actions (Matt 18:21–35; 25:14–30; Mark 4:21–5; Rom 14:10–2; 1 Cor 3:10–5; 9:24–7; 2 Cor 5:10). This is the doctrine of rewards. Because of a secure positional forensic salvation, Paul could rightly declare that nothing could separate him from God (Rom 8:39). Both of these harmonize when we realize that justification and sanctification are mutually exclusive and disjoint. The results of sanctification do not affect forensic salvation. Constant faithfulness to Christ determines rewards; faithlessness results in losing rewards (1 Cor 9:24–7). There is no denial of a certain future judgment (Heb 10:27,30). However, for believers it will be a judgment of rewards; not a judgment of destiny.

John Piper captures the essence of the issue very well. [fn1] In the following presentation I’ve borrowed heavily from his very excellent sermons.
The immediate context begins at verse 1. The author calls them “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” This section is not teaching about getting saved since his audience is already partakers of God’s gracious offer of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Their eternal destinies are already forensically and positionally secure.
The “if” in verse 6 (“if you hold fast to your confidence in God”) is a 3rd class conditional sentence involving a subjunctive verb. Although the subjunctive is the mood of contingency, this rhetorical construct states the likelihood of the statement. [fn2] The idea is that it is likely that Christians will hold fast firm to the end. There is no room for the Arminian twisting of the contingency into a warning of losing one’s eternal life. It is a general indication of the expected holding fast.

Context helps makes it clear that the author is speaking of the relationship within the household of God exactly as was the case for Moses. But the worst that could happen is that the believer falls in the desert and appears with Jesus in glory – just like Moses! The evidence of continuing faithfulness is one’s holding fast to Jesus and rejoicing in that certain hope in an ever increasing personal fellowship with God.

Verse 14 has two compelling features: GPT and a 1st class conditional sentence. First, the words are made partakers are in the perfect tense. The GPT states that the past fact of being made a partaker of Christ continues into the present. The only way to undo this fact is to have a bold specific statement that nullifies the GPT. No such statement is given. 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. [fn3] The word for word translation resulted in an unfortunate English conditional allowing the Arminian 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.
It certainly isn’t a warning – it is the general truthful idea of holding fast to the end.
The issue is not the certainly of justification (which is sure), but rather it is an issue of sanctification – our relationship with Christ and the household of faith.
If you read the theological synopsis of Heb 2:3, then you saw that judgment against sin happened at the Cross. There will be no specific judgment concerning sin – ever. The Great White Throne Judgment will specifically look at whether or not one accepted God’s gracious offer of a pardon through faith in Jesus Christ. This Judgment results in heaven or hell. Sin will not be the issue.

Christ’s Judgment Seat will specifically look at the types of works that believers do: good or bad. The result will be lesser or greater rewards. Even if believers receive no rewards, they will still be saved. Sin will not be the issue – faithfulness will be the issue. Hence, these “if’s” are not related to sin. They are related to the quality of our fellowship within God’s household. The exhortation is to prove, evidence, or demonstrate that you are a partaker of Christ. Communion is a conditional relationship, union is not. [fn4]
These features combine to show both the justified (positional) and sanctified (experiential) aspects of salvation in the same verse. The Arminian heresy is not willing to admit both. They would rather just emphasize the slightly errant English translation and hope you never find out about the underlying Greek.

Partakers are those who are both in Christ and are currently partaking of Christ. They share in Christ’s LIFE. [fn5] Paul, by way of rhetoric, assumes for a fact that they will hold fast to the end their once-for-all position of being a partaker.
The Arminian view would like to twist the Greek into say that our position in Christ is dependent on fulfilling the English “if” clause. But they overlook the Greek and totally forget Moses, the faithful servant, who fell in the wilderness. The right way to look at this warning is that believers are rooted and grounded in Christ but the degree of their fellowship with Christ is dependent upon the degree to which they remaining steadfast.

fn1 John Piper, “Jesus: Worthy of More Glory Than Moses - Hebrews 3:1-6,” Sermon at Bethlehem Baptist Church August 04, 1996 [sermon on-line]; available: http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper96/08-04-96.htm.
fn2 Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 696-9.
fn3 Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 690-4.
fn4 David B. Curtis, “Apostasy and its Prevention – Hebrews 3:13-19,” [sermon on-line]; available: http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/hebrews/3_13-19.htm.
fn5 George Zeller, “Sign of Life #10--The True Believer Continues in the Faith to the End,” Middletown Bible Church; [article on-line; available: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/nbelieve/nbeliev8.htm

 

Hey BobRyan

Thanks to you! I typed the above long post in WORD and SAVED IT!

Next time you cut and paste this worthless list of abused sanctification verses and try to pass it off as verification of process justification, I'll paste it again.

You need a medal of some sort for some TEN THOUSAND POSTS with eyes blinded to the truth and fists clenched around a Christ-denying human-centered self-righteous theology.

Congrats!
Lloyd

 

Hey Bob Ryan

Had trouble posting this. It is quite long. But cheer up - I had it SAVED!

Christ-deniers miss the fact that the “if” clause modifies the presentation of the believer as holy, unblameable, and unreproveable. It has nothing to do with salvation. It is terrible exegesis to slice up a passage and pick and choose only what you want.

In context, the analysis of the Greek “if” clause shows that the final embarrassment is with the Arminian position for slicing scripture and picking only the parts that it seem to support its self-righteous view.

A significant clue can be seen in verse 21. They were once alienated. The word alienated (apallotriomenoos) is in the Greek Perfect Tense (GPT). The basic explanation of this tense is that it denotes an action that was brought to completion and whose effects are felt in the present. The perfect tense isn’t the normal choice for even most Greek speakers. We must assume that there is a reason for its use whenever it occurs whether or not we understand it. The act of being alinenated happened in the past and continues in the present. Since the Greek Perfect Tense has no wiggle room for a cessation of the action, there must be a definitive statement that will specifically undo the action mentioned in the Greek Perfect Tense for it to stop. Here, there is a direct reference to reconciliation that stops the formerly continuous action! If there is no direct reference; there is no cessation of action!

The word reconciliation is an aorist. Paul is wishing to view past salvation as if it were a point event without emphasizing the continuance of the results of that point event. The believer is only inserted into Christ’s body by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) once. Nowhere in the Bible is there any language of being immersed into Christ a second time. Salvation is called the second birth – not the third birth or fourth birth.

Verse 22 shows that believers are inserted into the body of Christ in order to be presented holy, blameless, and irreproachable before God. The point event of justification needs a process of shaping. The goal of this shaping is rewards – not justification.
Verse 23 provides the biggest clue in this whole passage. The word grounded (teqemeliwmevnoi) is yet another Greek Perfect Tense. Note that there is no other construct that will undo this verb. The intent is that this act continues! Many of the significant passages in Scripture describing the new birth use the Greek Perfect Tense to highlight the permanence of that change. So the GPT implies that the Colossians were perfectly and continuously grounded in the faith from a past act of faith in Jesus Christ.

The outcomes of whether or not they continued in the faith had nothing whatsoever to do with their present reality of being completely and firmly grounded in Jesus Christ. This means that the outcomes of whether of not they continued in the faith had everything to do with their present reality of fellowship. Were they settled? Where they moved away from the gospel?
The presentation of the believers is equivalent to Eph 5:27 where the church is presented to God with almost the exact same words. The issue isn’t salvation but sanctification. The words holy, unblameable, and unreproveable are all three words that describe the process of Christian growth. The Christian’s growth is marked by up’s and down’s, varying degrees of faithfulness, and incomplete obedience at the best. This is sanctification.

If justification depended on our faithfulness, then no one would be saved. God tells us that even in our BEST state that we are but “vanity” (Psa 39:5). Paul declares that at the final judgment that everyone in the whole world will be so convinced of their own personal guilt that every mouth will be stopped (Rom 3:19). The Romans Road includes a verse that common-sense indicates that everyone falls short of God’s glory through sin and disobedience (Rom 3:23). If Christ hasn’t risen, then we are all “most pitiable” for we are still in our sins (1 Cor 15:17)! In Adam all die (1 Cor 15:22)! If justification depends in any little part on continued human faithfulness, then we all will fall short of the mark. God demands perfection and anything short of perfection will be judged. Unless we can claim Christ’s righteousness, it will be a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God! Since no one (but Jesus) has been able to fulfill the law, how is it that the Arminian Sadvocates think so highly of human faithfulness?

When the apostles were faced with the very same corrupting Arminian view, they were quick to condemn it saying, “Why would you test God by adding the yoke of faithfulness which neither our fathers nor we were able to fulfill?” (Acts 15:10). If the negative response wasn’t enough they rephrased it positively saying, “Even we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner [of purifying faith (see verse 9)] as they.” (Acts 15:11).

In context, the passage in question is in John’s seven letters to the seven Churches. “Churches” in this context the assembly composed of believers in general and hopefully those who are seeking the Lord Jesus as well. Chapters 2 & 3 form a message to seven specific churches in existence during the time of Christ’s revelation to John.

Each of the letters to these churches begins with a warning and has a specific reference to an aspect of Christ’s glory given in chapter 1. The focus of each letter centers on Christ. He is the author of each letter. He has an answer for the particular problem identified. He is also the blessing for obedience to His recommendations.

To Ephesus, Jesus was the One Who held the seven stars in His hand. He is the author and controller of His Church. He walks among the lampstands showing His imminent interaction with the Church. He knows them and their deeds.

The context has to do with a Church not individuals. Christ does not walk amidst the believers. He is seated in the heavenly places and He personally indwells believers.
Both Calvinists and Arminians consistently misapply corporate passages Israel and the Church to individuals or vice versa. This is a great hermeneutical mistake and nothing but bad theology can arise from taking principles that are specifically directed to a Church and misapplying them to individuals. That the Church at Ephesus was eventually buried by mud slides and was removed as a light-bearing witness has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual’s security.

It is amazing how ignorance combined with a right fear of the consequences of sin can produce such errant theology. How human we humans are!

The Greek construct of the words he that soweth is the article + participle. This is the key to the Gnomic Present Tense. It does not deal with the need for a continued lifestyle of constant sowing. Instead, it simply says that if any sows to the Spirit, then they will reap eternal life as a general rule of life. The verb reaping to the Spirit is a future, not a subjunctive. This speaks of a future certainty if the sowing is done to the Spirit. There is no implication whatsoever in this passage of conditionality or probability. Any act of sowing to the Spirit results in eternal life. This is easily OSAS. Even the narrow look at the individual words should bring more than suspicion on the Arminian view.

Second, context is usually the best determination of meaning. Beginning with chapter 5, Paul embarks upon a practical exhortation section. He has already laid down the argument for the believer’s liberty in Christ and now applies the secure standing in Christ to daily living. Chapter 5 deals with the battles between the flesh and the Spirit. We are encouraged to live to the Spirit and produce spiritual fruit. We are cautioned against walking by the flesh for we don’t do the things that we want to do (v17). A list of characteristics of for both walking in the flesh and walking by the Spirit is provided. He ends the chapter with an exhortation to make the fleshly walk match the inner Spirit life (v25). If Paul taught conditional security then he was negligent in sounding the alarm about losing one’s eternal security.

In chapter 6, it is clear that Paul was discussing how to help others. He speaks of the spiritual helping the weak (v1) and bearing one another’s burdens (v2). In the verse immediately before the text, Paul discusses communicating the Word. In the verse immediately after the text, Paul encourages us to do good to all, but especially to those of the household of faith (v10). Paul is saying that those who have been born “according to the Spirit” (4:29) should continue to live “according to the rule of the Spirit.” It must be clear that this passage has nothing to do whatsoever with justification and everything to do with sanctification. But nowhere in these two chapters is the topic of justification discussed or loss of eternal security implied. How bold of Arminians to go where angels would never dare.

Third, Arminians deceptively twist the natural reading of the verses by omitting the words: “of the flesh.” This is the only way in which this passage on present sanctification can be violently forced to support his view of conditional justification. The correct quotation shows that sowing to the flesh yields destruction to the flesh while sowing to the Spirit yields eternal life. Paul is using a generic contrast not a particular comparison. If Christians sow to the flesh, then they will suffer temporal consequences to the flesh – NOT the Spirit. If Christians sow to the Spirit, then they reap eternal life – forever.
The right use of the word implies moral decay – not eternal damnation. Context tells us that Paul is speaking about sanctification – not loss of eternal life. The text speaks of negatively only of temporal punishment; positively only about eternal life. Everything in this text verifies OSAS, nothing serves as a refutation of OSAS - - - - unless you choose the wrong definitions, ignore context, and misquote the verses.

Context! These are clear cases of violently wrenching the verse out of text and forcing one’s opinions upon God’s Word. Let me use Matthew 24. Matthew 24 begins with Jesus telling His disciples that the glorious temple would come to an end (24:2). His disciples then asked Him about His coming and the end of the age (24:3). Jesus’ answer is known as the Olivet discourse.

Jesus’ answer comes in fours parts (4–14, 15–28, 29–31, and 32–41). The first part of His answer describes the end of the age. Characteristics of this part include the advent of many false-christs, wars, persecutions, and the world wide proclamation of the gospel. The encouragement to endure to the end is in this section. Following this, Jesus describes the Great Tribulation specifically mentioning the attack on national Israel. Then, beginning with verse 29, Jesus describes the exact moment of His second return. He concludes His discourse by providing the Parable of the Fig Tree. We can know the season of His return but not the exact day and hour. No matter which view of end times one holds this passage is clearly linked with a time of great tribulation – not personal loss of salvation.

The context of the entire chapter teaches that Jesus’ discourse was directed to national Israel. The passage is an OT reference to where God promises to save national Israel from its woes: “for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it” (Jer 30:7). The time of Jacob’s trouble is none other than the Great Tribulation. If this passage had been addressed to already saved Christians, then it would have read, “He that is saved will endure to the end” as it does in John 3:16 and John 10:28.

Only shoddy exegesis ignorant of context would take a passage about the end of times addressed solely and specifically to national Israel and twist it into a present fear of personal loss of salvation. Fear and ignorance are some of Satan’s most powerful tools!
Does the Bible give any clear picture of what happens to a person who cannot endure to the end? Yes! In the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8, Jesus gives a clear picture of a seed that germinates and doesn’t endure to the end. Jesus gives a picture of several types of seeds that are cast at random onto the ground; one such seed that falls among poor soil. Due to the shallow soil, the second seed grows into a young plant but fails to produce fruit. In fact, it withers away under the heat of the day. But notice that the seed produced a new life! In biblical terms, the seed was “born again.” The sad part is that it bears no fruit and receives no reward.

The Bible teaches that the fruit of a given life will determine the rewards of the after life. Since King Jesus will only let believers who professed Him to reign (2 Tim 2:11-13), these shallow-soil fruitless believers who fell away “will miss out on Christ’s approval.” This privilege of reigning with Jesus only comes as we share in His sufferings in this life. “While there is a very real price to be paid for failure in the Christian experience, that price will never involve consignment to the Lake of Fire.”

Context helps us understand that endurance “to the end” should be understood as to the end “of this age” (1:2), not to the end “of one’s life.” The Arminian view is a venomous lie! How is it that so many succumb to it?

The Arminian view simply cannot keep justification and sanctification separate. One Arminian wrote: “If we do not reciprocate [love back to God], the relationship He has begun will fall apart.” In the same message, he equates a broken relationship with loss of eternal life. How can this be when God has:
__1) forgiven ALL sins! What is left to condemn (Rom 8:30)? Nothing! But the Arminian view thinks that God’s court uses double jeopardy.
__2) given the Holy Spirit to indwell and as a seal to the DAY OF REDEMPTION (Eph 4:30). Is God’s seal made of wax? Can it be tampered with? Is His guarantee a clever deception? No! But the Arminian view thinks that we can undo God’s work.
__3) entered into a binding eternal covenant. Is Jesus inept that He cannot be a mediator? Is Jesus bankrupt that He cannot be a surety? Is Jesus unclean that He cannot be our High Priest? Is eternal only just as long as the next sin? No to all of these! But the Arminian view unwittingly denigrates and defames the name of Jesus with their fleshly inferences.

The Arminian view terribly violates the text by forcing their self-righteous works philosophy upon the text. The passage must be understood in context.
Peter starts his letter showing the great things that God has done. In verse 3, God has given all things that pertain unto eternal life (using a PERFECT TENSE which implies that those results do not cease!). In verse 4, God has given unto us exceeding great and precious promises (using a PERFECT TENSE which implies that those results do not cease!). Verses 5-7 contain a list of things that believers are to add to their faith in order that they should not be BARREN or UNFRUITFUL (v8). If a believer fails to do these things, then Peter equates them to the blind who cannot see (v9).

Curiously, Peter’s only criticism at this crucial point is that these faithless less-than-marginal believers have merely forgotten that their sins were purged (using a noun that shows the rock-solid unchangeable state). If one could lose their eternal salvation, then Peter was unspeakably negligent in sounding the alarm. But all Peter could do was to shake his head at the ignorance of these securely saved believers who pass up the heights and joys of inexpressible fellowship with God.

Only here, after understanding context, can we see that Peter’s remarks are aimed at securing a boundless fellowship. There is nothing in Peter’s warning or the context that speaks of losing one’s destiny. There is everything in the context that speaks of losing a reward – even as other Arminians so unwittingly admitted. There’s more!

In verse 12, Peter wishes that these silly believers would be established in the present truth that they already know and have. The crux of the matter is the difference between the certain knowledge of eternal membership in God’s family and being established within that fellowship.

The Arminian heresy is only possible if one ignores context, closes their eyes to God’s truth, and forces their own worldly self-righteous philosophy upon the text. But grace is so one-sided that many of these horribly confused teachers will still be in heaven – saved by the blood of the Lamb through simple faith. It doesn’t take much theology to be saved.
Grace is so easy that a child can understand and be saved; yet so deep that corrupted human philosophy stumbles in the dark clinging to lies in the name of Jesus. No wonder grace is called AMAZING!

II Pet 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."[/quote]

Verse 22 sets the context. A dog is a dog. A pig is a pig. They do what they do because of their natures. Since a Christian has a changed nature, this passage is not talking about Christians. The Arminian view twists the context using fear and partial exegesis to force their view upon the text.

The context of chapter 2 demands that the chapter is speaking of “false teachers” (2:1) The Lord will cast these false teachers into hell (2:4) but yet knows how to deliver the godly (2:7-9). Verse 10 begins a lengthy discussion of these false teachers. They are presumptuous (10), shall receive the reward of unrighteousness (13), have forsaken the right way and are gone astray (15). While they promise liberty, they are servants of corruption (19). Finally, Peter calls them dogs.

Does the Bible ever refer to a Christian as a dog? These unsaved professing teachers can escape the damage of the world’s moral pollutions … to some extent. They are the equivalent of the moral people in Romans 2 that God condemns. Righteous living always yields benefits whether or not the person is truly saved. The clear teaching is of those who have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Jesus who nevertheless do not have a changed nature. Many untold thousands have lived in Christian homes, heard daily Bible readings, weekly sermons and even professed Christ without having a changed nature. They can look and sound rather Christian without being a Christian. They are still dogs.

The word knowledge (v20) and have is from the Greek epignoosis which means knowledge, recognition. To get the full meaning one should know that the root gnoosis means knowledge in general and the preposition epi’ means around. Hence the word epignoosis is only a surface knowledge. These people are around the truth, they know about Christ, but they don’t know him personally. They are still dogs. Greek is nice but context is better!

Neither do they describe a casual “drift into hell.”
Regarding Heb 6, gross confusion of the mutual exclusivity of justification and sanctification makes interpretation difficult. The positional destiny of apostate believers is secure, but they might lose their conditional rewards. The natural conclusion of the word “impossible” destroys the Arminian view. The Bible testifies to abundant forgiveness.

The word “impossible” is the death knell for Arminian. They are right for trying to wiggle out of the common sense understanding. If we take this word “impossible” to its natural conclusions then even the Arminian Sadvocates have no proper explanation and quickly avoid any further discussions on that avenue. Why? In the Arminian view, if a person was saved and then lost, it would be impossible to restore such a person. This is heavy duty trouble for the Arminian view since it nullifies repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. It makes Christianity a hopeless one-shot religion. The natural conclusions of the word “impossible” should make anyone see that salvation is not being discussed. This is a good example of how an unclear verse should not be allowed to nullify an already clearly established doctrine.

Verses 7-8 show us what is being discussed by using an analogy to farmland. The land wasn’t productive. Nothing but thorns grew on it and the owner had to bear its fruitlessness. Today, many people burn their lawns to eliminate dead stuff and enhance the new growth. Burning only prepares it for the next cycle of cultivating, sowing and reaping so that it can bring fruit in its due time. The ground properly burned and prepared will produce fruit NEXT YEAR! The Arminian view would have to say that land can only produce one crop or that God doesn’t tend to His own fields or that after burning the field He sells it. Each of these options is a damnable heresy!

In verse 9, the readers receive BETTER things than the apostates. Better is a comparative word. Both apostates and the faithful receive the same type of judgment differing only in a comparative degree. The faithful receive a better reward than the apostates; not a different destiny as in heaven or hell. Here again, if a different type of judgment was in mind the author had other choices of words such as: artatos or heteros (Gal 1:6) or nearly 100 other words.

In context, the Jewish Christians suffering from intense Roman persecution had determined to return to the faith of their fathers. They thought that God was still pleased with the Old Covenant system. Their mind was made up – it would be impossible to return them to the faith. The author was writing to say that God had abandoned the Old Covenant in favor of the New. The author used strong words because they were actually turning their backs on the Majestic God to Whom they thought they returning.

There is no mention of eternal damnation. Either the author was terribly incompetent to say Arminians were right OR the issue of losing one’s eternal life was never considered because the author believed in OSAS! Clearly God isn’t incompetent; so OSAS is biblical.

Cor 13:5, Paul is fearful that his readers might be reprobates. Here, he knows that not everyone wins for he asks, “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but ONLY one receives the prize?” Therefore, Paul disciplines himself lest he too becomes a castaway. But word for castaway is adokimos, just as it is here for the word reprobates. Which translation is the best? Perhaps there is another better word!

The word adokimos means not standing the test (as in cults) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in reprobate). If adokimos means not standing the test, then the Day of Judgment will indeed be fearful. Likewise, if we are examined and found unfit, then the only recourse is to be cast out like salt.

The word adokimos is mistranslated in the KJV as castaway or reprobate. It could be inauthentic. The negating particle means that prior definitions must be understood first as unapproved then as inauthentic. Bromiley shuns the English words castaway or reprobate even in Rom 1:28 where those apart from Christ give themselves over to an outlook which “is unattested or inauthentic.”

A better way to see the meaning of adokimos is that it is the negative of dokimos (tested, precious). But dokimos means approved in 1 Cor 11:19 and 2 Cor 13:7, and 2 Tim 2:15. In 2 Tim, studying is something a Christian is to do. Studying is not a requirement for justification. Studying is something for which one gains approval after justification.

Moses did not win the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. He rebelled at God’s command to speak to the rock. In his anger against his fellow Israelites, Moses struck the rock instead thus break a type God was developing. As a result of Moses’ disobedience, God disqualified him from receiving the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. Moses fell in the wilderness with the rest of the rebellious and stiff-necked generation. But since Moses came out of heaven at the transfiguration, it is clear that the falling in the wilderness is not the equivalent of losing one’s eternal salvation. Hence, we can see that the Arminian heresy that equates failing to win the prize with eternal damnation is built on a faulty understanding of context and the word adokimos.

Scripture does refer to God Himself as Abraham’s reward (Gen 15:1). Beyond this, rewards are given for service done (Num 18:31; 1 Sam 24:19; 2 Sam 22:21; Psa 18:20, 19:11, 58:11, 127:3; Jer 31:16; Matt 5:12, 6:4,6,18, 10:41-2, 16:27; Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 3:8,14; Col 3:24; 1 Tim 5:18; Heb 10:35, 11:6; 2 John 8; Rev 22:12). Isaiah shows that our salvation is related to God Himself while rewards are things that He brings with Him (Isa 62:11).

Presuppositions determine choices between words. Under the Arminian short discussion, their philosophy altered the key definitions to support their works-righteous view. But the word dokimos could also mean not standing the test (as in not passing to the next level) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in being extremely young so as not able to do anything). In either of these definitions, eternal security is not lost. What a HUGE difference presuppositions make!

In Romans 4, Paul shows that rewards are not related to the grace of justification. In Hebrews 11:6, we are encouraged by the fact that God gives rewards for faithful service. John notes a difference between a partial reward and full reward (2 John 8). Heb 10:14 shows that one is already perfected while in the process of determining one’s level of sanctification. Finally, Jesus’ last words are to already-saved Christians encouraging them to even greater works for He will give to everyone according to their works.
It must more than clear that rewards are related to service and completely unrelated to what it takes for salvation. Thus the Arminian human related presuppositions are forced upon scripture while the OSAS presuppositions flow naturally from a common-sense reading of God’s Word. Rewards then are for service, not justification.

In 1 Cor 3:12-18a, Paul says that all believers will stand before Christ at His judgment seat that each may receive rewards for service. He shows that there are two types of works: gold, silver, precious stones or wood, hay, stubble. The good works will lead to greater heavenly rewards while the worthless works lead to loss.

But again, is the loss at Christ’s Judgment Seat that of losing one’s eternal security that the Arminian Sadvocates teach? Thank God - No! For we are shown that faithless believers have their works burned up and suffer great loss. But the good news of the gospel is that even those faithless persons ARE STILL SAVED (v15)! Christ’s judgment will not assess destiny – it will assess the quality of Christian life on earth with a view to the quality of heavenly life.

Lloyd

 

Hey BobRyan

I had to do this three times. I finally cut the post into two. Good thing I've started SAVING my posts!

Christ-deniers miss the fact that the “if” clause modifies the presentation of the believer as holy, unblameable, and unreproveable. It has nothing to do with salvation. It is terrible exegesis to slice up a passage and pick and choose only what you want.

In context, the analysis of the Greek “if” clause shows that the final embarrassment is with the Arminian position for slicing scripture and picking only the parts that it seem to support its self-righteous view.

A significant clue can be seen in verse 21. They were once alienated. The word alienated (apallotriomenoos) is in the Greek Perfect Tense (GPT). The basic explanation of this tense is that it denotes an action that was brought to completion and whose effects are felt in the present. The perfect tense isn’t the normal choice for even most Greek speakers. We must assume that there is a reason for its use whenever it occurs whether or not we understand it. The act of being alinenated happened in the past and continues in the present. Since the Greek Perfect Tense has no wiggle room for a cessation of the action, there must be a definitive statement that will specifically undo the action mentioned in the Greek Perfect Tense for it to stop. Here, there is a direct reference to reconciliation that stops the formerly continuous action! If there is no direct reference; there is no cessation of action!

The word reconciliation is an aorist. Paul is wishing to view past salvation as if it were a point event without emphasizing the continuance of the results of that point event. The believer is only inserted into Christ’s body by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) once. Nowhere in the Bible is there any language of being immersed into Christ a second time. Salvation is called the second birth – not the third birth or fourth birth.

Verse 22 shows that believers are inserted into the body of Christ in order to be presented holy, blameless, and irreproachable before God. The point event of justification needs a process of shaping. The goal of this shaping is rewards – not justification.
Verse 23 provides the biggest clue in this whole passage. The word grounded (teqemeliwmevnoi) is yet another Greek Perfect Tense. Note that there is no other construct that will undo this verb. The intent is that this act continues! Many of the significant passages in Scripture describing the new birth use the Greek Perfect Tense to highlight the permanence of that change. So the GPT implies that the Colossians were perfectly and continuously grounded in the faith from a past act of faith in Jesus Christ.

The outcomes of whether or not they continued in the faith had nothing whatsoever to do with their present reality of being completely and firmly grounded in Jesus Christ. This means that the outcomes of whether of not they continued in the faith had everything to do with their present reality of fellowship. Were they settled? Where they moved away from the gospel?
The presentation of the believers is equivalent to Eph 5:27 where the church is presented to God with almost the exact same words. The issue isn’t salvation but sanctification. The words holy, unblameable, and unreproveable are all three words that describe the process of Christian growth. The Christian’s growth is marked by up’s and down’s, varying degrees of faithfulness, and incomplete obedience at the best. This is sanctification.

If justification depended on our faithfulness, then no one would be saved. God tells us that even in our BEST state that we are but “vanity” (Psa 39:5). Paul declares that at the final judgment that everyone in the whole world will be so convinced of their own personal guilt that every mouth will be stopped (Rom 3:19). The Romans Road includes a verse that common-sense indicates that everyone falls short of God’s glory through sin and disobedience (Rom 3:23). If Christ hasn’t risen, then we are all “most pitiable” for we are still in our sins (1 Cor 15:17)! In Adam all die (1 Cor 15:22)! If justification depends in any little part on continued human faithfulness, then we all will fall short of the mark. God demands perfection and anything short of perfection will be judged. Unless we can claim Christ’s righteousness, it will be a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God! Since no one (but Jesus) has been able to fulfill the law, how is it that the Arminian Sadvocates think so highly of human faithfulness?

When the apostles were faced with the very same corrupting Arminian view, they were quick to condemn it saying, “Why would you test God by adding the yoke of faithfulness which neither our fathers nor we were able to fulfill?” (Acts 15:10). If the negative response wasn’t enough they rephrased it positively saying, “Even we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner [of purifying faith (see verse 9)] as they.” (Acts 15:11).

In context, the passage in question is in John’s seven letters to the seven Churches. “Churches” in this context the assembly composed of believers in general and hopefully those who are seeking the Lord Jesus as well. Chapters 2 & 3 form a message to seven specific churches in existence during the time of Christ’s revelation to John.

Each of the letters to these churches begins with a warning and has a specific reference to an aspect of Christ’s glory given in chapter 1. The focus of each letter centers on Christ. He is the author of each letter. He has an answer for the particular problem identified. He is also the blessing for obedience to His recommendations.

To Ephesus, Jesus was the One Who held the seven stars in His hand. He is the author and controller of His Church. He walks among the lampstands showing His imminent interaction with the Church. He knows them and their deeds.

The context has to do with a Church not individuals. Christ does not walk amidst the believers. He is seated in the heavenly places and He personally indwells believers.
Both Calvinists and Arminians consistently misapply corporate passages Israel and the Church to individuals or vice versa. This is a great hermeneutical mistake and nothing but bad theology can arise from taking principles that are specifically directed to a Church and misapplying them to individuals. That the Church at Ephesus was eventually buried by mud slides and was removed as a light-bearing witness has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual’s security.

It is amazing how ignorance combined with a right fear of the consequences of sin can produce such errant theology. How human we humans are!

The Greek construct of the words he that soweth is the article + participle. This is the key to the Gnomic Present Tense. It does not deal with the need for a continued lifestyle of constant sowing. Instead, it simply says that if any sows to the Spirit, then they will reap eternal life as a general rule of life. The verb reaping to the Spirit is a future, not a subjunctive. This speaks of a future certainty if the sowing is done to the Spirit. There is no implication whatsoever in this passage of conditionality or probability. Any act of sowing to the Spirit results in eternal life. This is easily OSAS. Even the narrow look at the individual words should bring more than suspicion on the Arminian view.

Second, context is usually the best determination of meaning. Beginning with chapter 5, Paul embarks upon a practical exhortation section. He has already laid down the argument for the believer’s liberty in Christ and now applies the secure standing in Christ to daily living. Chapter 5 deals with the battles between the flesh and the Spirit. We are encouraged to live to the Spirit and produce spiritual fruit. We are cautioned against walking by the flesh for we don’t do the things that we want to do (v17). A list of characteristics of for both walking in the flesh and walking by the Spirit is provided. He ends the chapter with an exhortation to make the fleshly walk match the inner Spirit life (v25). If Paul taught conditional security then he was negligent in sounding the alarm about losing one’s eternal security.

In chapter 6, it is clear that Paul was discussing how to help others. He speaks of the spiritual helping the weak (v1) and bearing one another’s burdens (v2). In the verse immediately before the text, Paul discusses communicating the Word. In the verse immediately after the text, Paul encourages us to do good to all, but especially to those of the household of faith (v10). Paul is saying that those who have been born “according to the Spirit” (4:29) should continue to live “according to the rule of the Spirit.” It must be clear that this passage has nothing to do whatsoever with justification and everything to do with sanctification. But nowhere in these two chapters is the topic of justification discussed or loss of eternal security implied. How bold of Arminians to go where angels would never dare.

Third, Arminians deceptively twist the natural reading of the verses by omitting the words: “of the flesh.” This is the only way in which this passage on present sanctification can be violently forced to support his view of conditional justification. The correct quotation shows that sowing to the flesh yields destruction to the flesh while sowing to the Spirit yields eternal life. Paul is using a generic contrast not a particular comparison. If Christians sow to the flesh, then they will suffer temporal consequences to the flesh – NOT the Spirit. If Christians sow to the Spirit, then they reap eternal life – forever.
The right use of the word implies moral decay – not eternal damnation. Context tells us that Paul is speaking about sanctification – not loss of eternal life. The text speaks of negatively only of temporal punishment; positively only about eternal life. Everything in this text verifies OSAS, nothing serves as a refutation of OSAS - - - - unless you choose the wrong definitions, ignore context, and misquote the verses.

Context! These are clear cases of violently wrenching the verse out of text and forcing one’s opinions upon God’s Word. Let me use Matthew 24. Matthew 24 begins with Jesus telling His disciples that the glorious temple would come to an end (24:2). His disciples then asked Him about His coming and the end of the age (24:3). Jesus’ answer is known as the Olivet discourse.

Jesus’ answer comes in fours parts (4–14, 15–28, 29–31, and 32–41). The first part of His answer describes the end of the age. Characteristics of this part include the advent of many false-christs, wars, persecutions, and the world wide proclamation of the gospel. The encouragement to endure to the end is in this section. Following this, Jesus describes the Great Tribulation specifically mentioning the attack on national Israel. Then, beginning with verse 29, Jesus describes the exact moment of His second return. He concludes His discourse by providing the Parable of the Fig Tree. We can know the season of His return but not the exact day and hour. No matter which view of end times one holds this passage is clearly linked with a time of great tribulation – not personal loss of salvation.

The context of the entire chapter teaches that Jesus’ discourse was directed to national Israel. The passage is an OT reference to where God promises to save national Israel from its woes: “for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it” (Jer 30:7). The time of Jacob’s trouble is none other than the Great Tribulation. If this passage had been addressed to already saved Christians, then it would have read, “He that is saved will endure to the end” as it does in John 3:16 and John 10:28.

Only shoddy exegesis ignorant of context would take a passage about the end of times addressed solely and specifically to national Israel and twist it into a present fear of personal loss of salvation. Fear and ignorance are some of Satan’s most powerful tools!
Does the Bible give any clear picture of what happens to a person who cannot endure to the end? Yes! In the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8, Jesus gives a clear picture of a seed that germinates and doesn’t endure to the end. Jesus gives a picture of several types of seeds that are cast at random onto the ground; one such seed that falls among poor soil. Due to the shallow soil, the second seed grows into a young plant but fails to produce fruit. In fact, it withers away under the heat of the day. But notice that the seed produced a new life! In biblical terms, the seed was “born again.” The sad part is that it bears no fruit and receives no reward.

The Bible teaches that the fruit of a given life will determine the rewards of the after life. Since King Jesus will only let believers who professed Him to reign (2 Tim 2:11-13), these shallow-soil fruitless believers who fell away “will miss out on Christ’s approval.” This privilege of reigning with Jesus only comes as we share in His sufferings in this life. “While there is a very real price to be paid for failure in the Christian experience, that price will never involve consignment to the Lake of Fire.”

Context helps us understand that endurance “to the end” should be understood as to the end “of this age” (1:2), not to the end “of one’s life.” The Arminian view is a venomous lie! How is it that so many succumb to it?

The Arminian view simply cannot keep justification and sanctification separate. One Arminian wrote: “If we do not reciprocate [love back to God], the relationship He has begun will fall apart.” In the same message, he equates a broken relationship with loss of eternal life. How can this be when God has:
__1) forgiven ALL sins! What is left to condemn (Rom 8:30)? Nothing! But the Arminian view thinks that God’s court uses double jeopardy.
__2) given the Holy Spirit to indwell and as a seal to the DAY OF REDEMPTION (Eph 4:30). Is God’s seal made of wax? Can it be tampered with? Is His guarantee a clever deception? No! But the Arminian view thinks that we can undo God’s work.
__3) entered into a binding eternal covenant. Is Jesus inept that He cannot be a mediator? Is Jesus bankrupt that He cannot be a surety? Is Jesus unclean that He cannot be our High Priest? Is eternal only just as long as the next sin? No to all of these! But the Arminian view unwittingly denigrates and defames the name of Jesus with their fleshly inferences.

The Arminian view terribly violates the text by forcing their self-righteous works philosophy upon the text. The passage must be understood in context.
Peter starts his letter showing the great things that God has done. In verse 3, God has given all things that pertain unto eternal life (using a PERFECT TENSE which implies that those results do not cease!). In verse 4, God has given unto us exceeding great and precious promises (using a PERFECT TENSE which implies that those results do not cease!). Verses 5-7 contain a list of things that believers are to add to their faith in order that they should not be BARREN or UNFRUITFUL (v8). If a believer fails to do these things, then Peter equates them to the blind who cannot see (v9).

Curiously, Peter’s only criticism at this crucial point is that these faithless less-than-marginal believers have merely forgotten that their sins were purged (using a noun that shows the rock-solid unchangeable state). If one could lose their eternal salvation, then Peter was unspeakably negligent in sounding the alarm. But all Peter could do was to shake his head at the ignorance of these securely saved believers who pass up the heights and joys of inexpressible fellowship with God.

Only here, after understanding context, can we see that Peter’s remarks are aimed at securing a boundless fellowship. There is nothing in Peter’s warning or the context that speaks of losing one’s destiny. There is everything in the context that speaks of losing a reward – even as other Arminians so unwittingly admitted. There’s more!

In verse 12, Peter wishes that these silly believers would be established in the present truth that they already know and have. The crux of the matter is the difference between the certain knowledge of eternal membership in God’s family and being established within that fellowship.

The Arminian heresy is only possible if one ignores context, closes their eyes to God’s truth, and forces their own worldly self-righteous philosophy upon the text. But grace is so one-sided that many of these horribly confused teachers will still be in heaven – saved by the blood of the Lamb through simple faith. It doesn’t take much theology to be saved.
Grace is so easy that a child can understand and be saved; yet so deep that corrupted human philosophy stumbles in the dark clinging to lies in the name of Jesus. No wonder grace is called AMAZING!


Lloyd

 

Hey BobRyan

Get a look at what I did! I thot my really long post got lost in the electronic maze. So I cut my really long post into two parts and posted the first part. I just now see that the really long posting made it after all!

Have you noticed that it is far easier for you to violate verses by yanking them out of context and stringing them together?

I have a lot more work to do - I use CONTEXT!

Your human-centered system can make only hermeneutical error you want because you don't tie anything together except self-righteousness to the chagrin of Christ's accomplishments.

Lloyd

 

Hi FA

Absolutely! First, it is a slight misrepresentation to attribute to me the following:

I also claim to be of the Free Grace position. In fact, I endorse your statement:

However, your statement:

is but only part of the picture. Recall that the ho with present participle is a marker for the gnomic present. Hence, your earlier statement that

is right. I simply want to emphasize that this is the gnomic present.

The context of John 3 must agree with the historic reference to Num 21 where one simple look completed the act of salvation from the snakes. In John 3:16, a simple LOOK to Jesus also secure the completed act of salvation from sin.

We are in essential harmony disagreeing only over the nature of the underlying grammatical construct and its syntactical implications.

Lloyd

 

Hey steaver

This is a quotable statement:

Did you just write this? If not, what is the reference?

Lloyd