#2 Greek Tenses and OSAS

BobRyan: //The OSAS doctrine guts the very core of the “motivation” we see
in 1Cor 9 as Paul EXPLICITLY says “LEST after preaching the
Gospel to others I MYSELF should be disqualified”. OSAS goes
after that point – directly, explicitly and without remorse.//

You argue that the BENEFIT of preaching the Gospel identified by Paul in 1 Cor 9 is the circular point of "preaching the Gospel" without a red shirt.

But in the text itself - it has been shown that the BENEFIT that Paul sought in the gospel work - was NOT to avoid being red shirted - the Benefit HE explicitly identified EVEN for HIMSELF in that Gospel is salvation. So when he speaks of being disqualified from that very benefit - we can not insert "red shirts" into the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No my view is much more exegetically sound than what you propose for yourself or me.

I argue that the SAME author, the SAME text the SAME topic is using the term "WE" in the SAME way!

So "WE" in every case refers to the group of the saints who have ALREADY accepted Christ (as opposed to some pagan who is not saved, not a Christian and who must first ACCEPT Christ before he can either FAIL to endure or he can then DENY what has been accepted).

So in my view it is the exegetically supportable SAME we in the SAME text as used by the SAME authors addressing the SAME subject.

Revising/editing the definition for "we" as though it is some slippery animal trying to dodge the clear constructs of the text in favor of the bias that you bring to the text - is not in my view at all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

OK, let's look at the other Greek word in Ephesians 1:13, 14 - the one translated "down payment" or "pledge."

ARRABON - pledge/down payment:

It is also important to look carefully at this word, and here are some conclusions I came to after a word study of ARRABON.

But before we look at ARRABON we need to go back to the concept of being sealed by the Holy Spirit. Because being the active verb it is what controls how we view ARRABON, does it not?

It says here that the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who sealed us, is the "down payment" of our inheritance.

Clearly the concept of being sealed is that of being sealed by the Holy Spirit as a pledge indicating that we are His possession, and that He will protect us from being tampered with, and preserve us to the end (time of glorification at the Day of redemption).

Now, here's what my sources said regarding ARRABON:

Here's what the Bible Knowledge Commentary says regarding ARRABON:

BTW, though I rarely use Vine's, I will list it here:

In this instance, its usage as shown by BGAD & Liddell & Scott is that of a down payment or pledge - by God that what He has started in us He will complete. We WILL receive our new bodies. It's "guaranteed." That's the basic idea of ARRABON - a guarantee - by God.

Notice that it is not us who must complete the transaction, but God. He will complete it.

Many like Strong's, though all he says is:

Here's BGAD:

Here's L & S:

Says the same thing.

Here's a lexicon based on semantic domains (Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (UBS) 1988, 1989. - they are famous for their translation work):

Notice how he translates Eph. 1:13, 14: ‘you have been sealed by the Holy Spirit which he promised and which is the first installment of what we shall receive’ I like that - very clear.

Now is God going to give us the Holy Spirit as a down payment or first installment of more to come (remember HE not us, is making the payments here) and then default on the payments? May it never be! This term is ONLY used in a one-way sense - that of a purchaser giving a down payment & promising the rest. How can there be something the person owed the money can do to forfeit the continued payments! That's not at all what the word means. If the person making the down payment (NOT us) defaults, then he will lose possession of the property (us). That cannot happen because it is based on the character of God.

But the fulfillment of the transaction does not depend on us at all. That is the very nature of ARRABON

BTW, FWIW the word was most likely originally a Hebrew word. What a beautiful promise. It is completely unconditional. Remember when God first made a covenant with Abraham? Abraham had absolutely nothing to do... it was unconditional. Later, more opportunities were added to a later covenant which was conditioned on circumcision. But that does not make void the original promise by grace, as Paul reasoned in Galatians. God's original promises to Abraham always stood - based on God's faithfulness. Paul is making the same sort of statement here in Ephesians 1:13, 14.

We are sealed by the Holy Spirit - no tampering allowed.
We have received the Holy Spirit as a guarantee/down payment of more to come.

Like I said earlier: I've never seen decent responses to those verses.

FA

 

If Jesus died for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD", Adam/Eve to the last saved person, then how can his death "NOT COVER", ALL YOUR SINS once you're saved????

Jesus said "without me, you can do nothing", being saved is the first order of business, nothing else matter until that is complete.

How I/we live our Christians life depends on how well we keep the "OLD MAN" (will of the flesh) "Crucified", and that is a battle we fight "EVERYDAY".

And it's this battle with the "FLESH" that "Paul"/"Scripture" says "WE" have to "OVERCOME",

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

"SALVATION" is before "OVERCOMERS".

"OVERCOMERS" does not lead to "SALVATION".

Jesus "OVERCOME" the "LAW" for our salvation.

We have to "OVERCOME THE FLESH", for his salvation.


"Perseverance of the Saints" can not in "ANY WAY" be linked/condition of "SALVATION", which is "FREEDOM FROM THE LAW" of death for sin, Jesus is the only link between these two.

Spirit is spirit, flesh is flesh, you're born of the spirit, freed from the law of death, and saved irregardless of the "Success/failure" of the "FLESH" to persevere/Overcome.

One sin will condemn you to hell, any one of them,

And when you make an exception, for any sin, you're "WRONG".

In dying "ONCE" Jesus paid for "ALL SINS" of the saved, and if you can commit a sin he didn't pay for, then he hasn't paid for any of your sins.

Repenting/asking Forgiveness, doesn't pay the "wages of sin", only "DEATH" pays those wages/debt, however they will help you "OVERCOME" the flesh.

You either have "TOTAL COVERAGE" under Jesus or no coverage at all. OSAS.

Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

God is the one that sets the rules. Peter tells us that the rules are "Forgiveness of sins past" in 1Peter 1.

John tells us that we must confess sins to be forgiven.

Christ tells us about forgiveness revoked in MAtt 18.

He also points to this in the Lord's prayer declaring that God will not forgive us if we do not forgive.

The clear references to the error of failing to endure to persevere with the result that "Christ will deny us" 2Tim 2

All this points to issues AFTER justification - AFTER being in Christ, AFTER being forgiven of sins past - AFTER being born again.

You seem to be arguing that HE should not be able to do that since Christ died for all!

I am not sure your reasoning holds on that point.

It is not a question of HOW much is covered by Christ's death in His "Atoning Sacrifice" it is a question of the Gospel model HE set up SHOWING that He does not give out forgiveness for future sinning as if you have a blank check. But rather He WARNS of sins AFTER Justification that result in the "Shipwreck of faith" 1Tim 1 and "Christ denying us".

Those terms are never the description of "saved".

In Christ,

Bob

 

There is no text that says that after becoming a Christian ONE sin will cause Christ to deny you or will cause the shipwreck of faith. But "by contrast" the Bible DOES point to rejection of faith and failing to persevere as causing that!

No way to get around it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Details. Context. Exegesis please.

Now comes that “unpleasant section” for many where Paul points out the seriousness of this Gospel pursuit for the goal of saving people -- so that I may by all means save some. as he says.

It is as a “fellow partaker of the GOSPEL” that Paul wants to participate in preaching. He then shows that his own example in persuing that goal of being “A fellow partaker of the Gospel” is the standard/model/role-model for the saints. He has left the realm of “I am a leader and Apostle and so I have special rights” to the perspective of WE ALL want to be “Fellow partakers” of the Gospel for as he has just pointed out when the Gospel is received the people are saved. (; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.)

So now in this “fellow partaker of the Gospel” model for ALL that Paul is offering (in the form of his own life example) he shows how it works. He shows the perspective of the saint, the attitude, the focus the Olympic ALL for the Gospel focus that is NEEDED. IN fact he argues that it is critical EVEN for an Apostle for even in this most exaulted case HE is at risk “LEST after preaching the Gospel to other I MYSELF should be disqualified” from that very Gospel!

How instructive!

Yet how fervently ignored by those who find this to be an “unpleasant” section of scripture!

Take each "detail" and show the meaning IN the 1Cor 9 context itself. Let the argument speak for itself IN the text you are exegeting.

Or do you read vs 23-27 and respond with

And so when Paul says

Do you respond with

"Are you saved by your efforts of paying close attention, persevering and taking pains with those disciplines?"

Will your response to each of these displeasing texts be simply to challenge them and show how your view of "other texts" don't allow these unpleasant texts to exist??


When Paul says

Do you respond with I would hope that you are humble enough to put no faith in yourself........and at least a little in God!

In an effort to misdirect away from the texts above where Paul is being crystal clear – perhaps when you see yourself needing to “gloss over” the details of these text and you respond to them as “inconvenient” to your views on other texts (like Eph 2 for example) it is a sign that those other texts are being taken to extremes in your interpretation.

When we let THE TEXT speak does it cause you to immediately jump to some other "more comfortable" text?

IF so - it is a sign that you have taken what your comfortable texts do not actually say explicitly and have added "inferences" that were never in those texts to start with.

In the case of these "unpleasant" texts - it is the mere quote of them and the insistence on seeing their details rather than glossing over them that is causes so many to have heart burn.

 

Details. Context. Exegesis please.

 

Details. Context. Exegesis please.


Lets pay special attention to the details of the starting Context that PAUL gives in his letter to the Romans and SEE how "choice" plays out in this IMPARTIAL system where the IMPARTIAL God calls ALL to repentance.

.

Vs 4 shows us that the mercy - kindness - grace leads us to repent. This chapter starts with the Gospel basics of God's offer to grant repentance and that all need to repent.

Note: The Context for Romans 2 is STARTING with judgment, AND of the mercy of God that leads to repentance.

Let's continue letting the scripture speak for itself;

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”. Paul here identifies the “impartial” basis of God’s judgment. Instead of His simply “arbitrarily selecting” some to favor and others to ignore – ALL are judged according to deeds IN the context of the “call to repentance” of vs 4.

He speaks of this again in 2Cor 5 talking about future judgment and judged based on deeds “whether they be good or evil”.

Notice that in these first 6 verses we have an Arminian-style motivation - not to engage in man's faulty judgment of others. And there is no sense or expectation that this sin is not to stop or just to continue because we are totally depraved. Rather the argument is to stop.

Romans 2 - if this chapter is only about the failing case, only about the wrath of God - then we will not find success, mercy, reward but only condemnation, wrath, punishment. Let's now let the text reveal which way it will go.

Here is the “succeeding case” explicitly listed by Paul. And it is in the context of God - leading to repentance. We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

Barns commentary agrees –

Some have supposed that a “judgment” that is impartial as Paul points to in vs 6 and 11 must “only have failing cases”. But Paul shows in vs 7 that such is not the case. The “Good News” does not require God to arbitrarily be “partial to the FEW of Matt 7” as some have supposed. Rather it allows for God to be “impartial” and to SAVE mankind on that basis!

The “Failing case”: Clearly a contrast is being introduced "but to those who are selfish" - contrasted with what? Those who repent, seek eternal glory and honor and persevere. Persevere in what?

You must be on the right path to be approved in perseveringly staying on the right path. It is obvious I know, but worth noting.

So God has now contrasted the good and the wicked, those who persevere on the right path and those who are not even on it. The opposite of such a just, objective just system would be “arbitrary selection” of the saved vs lost. It would be to arbitrarily select some for favor instead of “So loving the World”.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" because God will “favor the few over the many” of Matt 7. He does not let us suppose that the “many” will be lost for doing evil while the “favored” ones also do evil and yet due to “arbitrary selection and gross partiality to the FEW”, go to heaven. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or even magic phrases) allowing some of the rebels in.

But basic to Paul’s solution is the affirmation that God is NOT partial when it comes to the Gospel – when it comes to Salvation. That means that He is NOT favoring the “few” of Matt 7 over the “many” so that He can save the “Few”. Rather – impartiality demands that ALL be given the same salvation-sequence. ALL have the Holy Spirit convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8) and ALL have the Drawing of God (John 12:32) and ALL have the Lord Jesus Christ standing at the door and knocking – and ALL have the SAME promise of the New Covenant that “changes the TREE itself” Matt 7 and writes the Law of God on the heart (Heb 8).

Rather than simply “favoring some over others” the system defined above is “impartial” as God HIMSELF is “Impartial”. This Gospel truth was a huge problem for the Jews and is a big problem for Calvinism.

 

Le 5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which..TAKETH AWAY".. the sin of the world.

Bob, do you know the difference between "forgiven sins" and "Taken away sins"??

"Forgiven"= you don't have to pay the debt.
"Taken away"= is having the debt "PAID".

When Jesus said "NO MAN" comes to the father except by "ME",

Those sins "forgiven" under the OT were transferred to Jesus for him to pay.

Sin is a "DEBT" that is "NEVER FORGIVEN" by the law, it must be paid, either by Jesus or the person.

GOD NEVER FORGIVES SIN

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And Jesus came to "fulfil the law" for believers, the "DEBT IS PAID", "IN FULL",

And for "Unbelievers", they will pay the debt themselves, but "NO SIN" will ever go unpaid.

Your "works", "Perseverence", "Repenting", "Asking"Forgiveness", none of these will "fulfill the law", that is "PAY" what the "LAW" demands for sin.

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death;

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price:

This "FALSE IDEA" that "SIN IS FORGIVEN" and "TAKEN AWAY" without Jesus fulfilling the requirements of the "LAW", that is dying to pay the wages, has 90% of the world still in their sins, believing God just forgives their sins and "NNE" must die to pay those wages.

"NO MAN" come to the father except by me, now you know why no man can come, except by Jesus.

 

Yes, we can "walk away from God" after being saved, sure, but will it "UNSAVED US"????

2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Once saved, we're not under the law, so the "LAW" (death for sin) can't condemn us.

As I said, one sin charged against us would "unsave us", that's why the "SOUL" is "SEALED" against sin, our "old man" (Flesh) "NEVER" stops sinning.

IF we continue to sin "WITHOUT" repenting, then God will turn our "FLESH" over to satan for it's destruction, but the soul is still saved.

(Satan/sin does destroy all flesh, eventually, it dies)

1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him (flesh) shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Eating/drinking the "lord's supper" "Unworthy" is also a "death sentence". (Saved/lost)

There's many reasons a "CHRISTIAN" can lose their "PHYSICAL LIFE" over Spiritual matters, but NEVER their "SALVATION",

Jesus has paid for "ALL THEIR SINS".

 

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Now lets pay attention to the details - in bold.

"That I may GAIN Christ" to argue that "GAINING Christ " is not a salvation topic is to miss the Gospel entirely.

"lay hold of that for which I was laid hold of" this again is a salvation topic since as Paul points out - salvation is the entire focus of the Gospel.

Notice that in Phil 3 when Paul gets to the case of those who DO NOT walk in this way - it is a focus on those without salvation!

But "as if" one were determined not to see the bold explicit text as it points to salvation - Paul even says --

11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

It is impossible to imagine Christians thinking that this is not in any way speaking of salvation!!

Yet such are the determined efforts to defend OSAS at any cost to the text of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The point remains - the "Gospel" is never - ever in all of scripture described as "shipwreck of faith" or "Christ denying us".

No scripture ever says "you may have Christ deny you - but you are still saved".

NO text says "Christ denys those in heaven"

NO text says those in heaven are denied by Christ.

One has to "imagine" such a Gospel for there is no such Gospel presented in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And there's no such thing as "PARTIAL SALVATION" brought to MATURITY" by your "FAITHFULNESS",

That is "WORKS" for "RIGHTOUSNESS".

Ro 9:16 So then..IT..(righteousness) is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Righteousness comes through "FAITH", and the "MERCY" (Jesus) of God, it is a "GIFT" which "CAN NOT" be "EARNED".

Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. (or earned)

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

And once saved, there's "NO LAW" to condemn you.

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Ro 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver..ME.. (Soul) from the body of this death? (Flesh)

As I said, one sin charged against the person make them "guilty of all", we have to be "SEALED" to be "SAVED".

 

There IS conditional salvation and HERE ARE THE TEXTS that SHOW it.

Is this where you respond "Oh no Lord! We would be saved EVEN IF WE DON't endure because otherwise it is partial salvation"??!!

Is this where you respond "Oh no Lord! We would still be of the house of Christ EVEN if we do not hold fast because otherwise it is partial salvation"??!!

Is this where you respond "Oh no Lord! We would be saved EVEN IF WE DON't endure because otherwise it is partial salvation"??!!

Is this where you respond "Oh no Lord! We would recieve what was promised in salvation EVEN IF WE DO shrink back from our confession and endurance because otherwise it is partial salvation"??!!

Is this where you respond "Oh no Lord! SAVED has nothing to do with saved in 1Cor 15 otherwise it is partial salvation"??!!

Is this where you respond "Oh no Lord! We would not be cut off EVEN IF WE DON't endure in faith because otherwise it is partial salvation"??!!


Too many more examples to list here.

In Christ,

Bob