Greek Tenses and OSAS

[BobRyan]

Things that accompany salvation -- means "salvation". Never does Paul mention "the toys in heaven" that you seem to imagine in Heb 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Both sides agree that Paul is not writing to people that have back-slidden from Christianity and no longer read scripture etc.Rather the READER is going to be some Christian with a copy of the letter to the Hebrews - probably one who is faithful. That is not the issue.

Heb 6
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

IN the case of those WHO HAVE once BEEN enlightened!

This is NOT a statement sahing "Those who have had 10 toys but lose 5 of them".

The Toys in heaven idea is totally missing from the text.

(This is the view of the lost - in darkness ACCEPTING light such that they ARE enlightened - at least at one time).

AND have tasted of the heavenly gift

Not the description of the totally depraved lost.


AND have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

This is never the description of the totally depraved lost experience.

"AND THEN HAVE FALLEN AWAY"

clearly FALLING away from being LOST is not a bad thing - it is a GOOD thing.

But here it is falling away from eternal life - from salvation so obviously it is a BAD thing!!

And it is not talking about "falling away from more toys".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[ascund]

Hey Bob

Context rules! You have forgotten to use context - again! But at you consistently refuse to use context.

Context shows that the book was written to Jewish Christians considering leaving Christianity because of intense state persecution. Because the Jewish religion wasn't persecuted this way, they were considering forsaking Jesus. They hoped that God would yet be pleased with their worship in the old Jewish system. The author sought to correct this.

They were truly saved believers. But the author feared that if they would turn their back on Christ then it would be impossible to restore them to the faith.

Context rules Bob! Why do you kick against the pricks?

Even if these Jewish believers returned to the old faith such that it was impossible to restore them to Christianity, where does it say they were eternally damned? Only your denominational creeds demand such a ludicrous view.

The author is convinced of BETTER things for his readers. BETTER is a comparative - not a contrast. The readers get a better reward than the Jewish believers who turned their backs on Christ. Both are saved. You wish to ignore context and redefine the word BETTER.

It is not talking about destiny - it is talking about rewards. Rewards are things that "accompany salvation" (Heb 6:9) Is this verse cut out of your Bible or do you just simply wish not to look at it??

The Jews who turned their back on Christ are like the field that brought forth weeds. God burns the field that they may produce fruit next year. He might feel like cursing (Heb 6:8) but does not sell the field. I bet you cut this verse out of your Bible as well!

Context rules!
Stop your denomination redefinitions.

Lloyd

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey Bob

Context rules! You have forgotten to use context - again! But at you consistently refuse to use context.

Context shows that the book was written to Jewish Christians considering leaving Christianity because of intense state persecution. Because the Jewish religion wasn't persecuted this way, they were considering forsaking Jesus. They hoped that God would yet be pleased with their worship in the old Jewish system. The author sought to correct this.

They were truly saved believers. But the author feared that if they would turn their back on Christ then it would be impossible to restore them to the faith.

Context rules Bob! Why do you kick against the pricks?

Even if these Jewish believers returned to the old faith such that it was impossible to restore them to Christianity, where does it say they were eternally damned? Only your denominational creeds demand such a ludicrous view.

The author is convinced of BETTER things for his readers. BETTER is a comparative - not a contrast. The readers get a better reward than the Jewish believers who turned their backs on Christ. Both are saved. You wish to ignore context and redefine the word BETTER.

It is not talking about destiny - it is talking about rewards. Rewards are things that "accompany salvation" (Heb 6:9) Is this verse cut out of your Bible or do you just simply wish not to look at it??

The Jews who turned their back on Christ are like the field that brought forth weeds. God burns the field that they may produce fruit next year. He might feel like cursing (Heb 6:8) but does not sell the field. I bet you cut this verse out of your Bible as well!

Context rules!
Stop your denomination redefinitions.

Lloyd

I am a FIRM believer in OSAS - the Election of Free Grace, like you, Lloyd, but I really am disappointed with this defense of yours.
I have said it before on this thread - which unfortunately I did not follow closely - and will say it again, Hebrews 6 does not deal with possibility, but with impossibility. And the IM-possibility for the writer is that one once (truly) "enlightened" and, who has "received" the "first principles" of Faith of Christ, could fall away - completely (as BR argues) - and then could be enlightened a second time as if the things of salvation must be repeated - it CANNOT, because if is the unrepentable gift of God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by ascund:
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

Mind if I post this on the thread 'Seventh Day Adventist Question'?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by ascund:

Context rules! You have forgotten to use context - again! But at you consistently refuse to use context.

Context shows that the book was written to Jewish Christians considering leaving Christianity because of intense state persecution.

Wrong "again".

Hebrews was NOT written to any one local congregation!

You are also "Wrong" to ignore the text of Heb 6 in your text-devoid post.

Neither of the methods you used is actually "exegesis" of any kind.

HAD you bothered to READ the text of Heb 6 you would see that the chapter STARTS with the same concept developed at the end of chapter 5 regarding MEAT vs MILK and the fact that THEY ARE STILL CHRISTIAN but are not GOING ON to the more weighty doctrinal topics.

SO in Heb 6 the CONTEXT is identifying the MILK and then pointing forward to the MEAT-ier doctrinal topics -- topics to be covered in FACT in Heb 7-12.

Your ignorance of Hebrews is understandable at this point based on the text-devoid way you have treated so many other texts that "displeased you".

So lets turn to the "actual text" of Heb 6 rather than your text-devoid spin cycles.

Heb 6
1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
3 And this we will do, if God permits.

Paul shows clearly that this is a continuation of the Chapter 5 subject of “Milk vs Meat” doctrines. The fact that although they eagerly embraced the Gospel and the Christian faith – they failed to move on into maturity. “By now you should be teachers, but instead you are in need of …” Heb 5

This is not a case of the Hebrews in all NT churches rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Christ – for as Paul says in Heb 4 “The Gospel was preached TO US just as it was to them ALSO” Heb 4:1-2 and the identification of the “Milk” which Paul says they DO ACCEPT involves “Teaching about the Christ” – the Messiah – “Repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction in washing, laying on of hands and resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment” all valid Bible – Gospel topics that are valid NT instruction and worthy of repeating and this “We will do if God permits” – but it is the milk of the Gospel.

The MEAT will be presented in Heb 7-12.

===================================

Both sides agree that Paul is not writing to people that have backslidden from Christianity and no longer read scripture etc.Rather the READER is going to be some Christian with a copy of the letter to the Hebrews - probably one who is faithful. That is not the issue.

Lloyd
Even if these Jewish believers returned to the old faith such that it was impossible to restore them to Christianity,

Wrong "Again" Lloyd.

The text does NOT SAY ANYTHING about "the OLD Faith" or "TWO GOSPELS".

Rather in Heb 4:1-2 the CONTEXT leading into HEB 6 is that "THE gospel was preached TO US JUST as it was TO THEM ALSO" speaking of OT Israel vs the NT church!

You seem to get "everything wrong" Lloyd! That can't possibly be an accident!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
ENDS up being BURNED is not spinnable to "ends up with fewer toys in heaven".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lloyd - spins the text "again" --
Ask farmers with weeds in their fields what they do. They will say, burn the field
..

The point Christ makes is not "The weeds are good for nothing" ...

Rather His argument is that the AFTER trying repeatedly to grow GOOD crops in the ground and meeting with continual failure - the attemtps STOP "The GROUND is good for nothing -- only to be burned" HE SAYS Nothing about "The Ground is ideal for a clean sweep and a health crop to follow".

Your "spin" of the text only works in the format that ALL your spin cycles are posted - WITHOUT THE DETAILS of the text itself that so debunk your spin-doctrines!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Heb 6
7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

This is NOT the story of "being saved and going on to even MORE wonderful salvation Gospel experiences" as Lloyd would spin it.

IF in fact it WERE to be stood on its head to mean such an absurd thing - then "IMPOSSIBLE to renew them again" would be to LEAVE Them in such a wonderful state as "about to go on to more wonderful fruitfull Gospel living" - when left in the spin-doctrine word-wrenched format that Lloyd has proposed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[ascund]

Hey Gerhard Ebersoehn

You wrote:

I am a FIRM believer in OSAS - the Election of Free Grace, like you, Lloyd, but I really am disappointed with this defense of yours.
I have said it before on this thread - which unfortunately I did not follow closely - and will say it again, Hebrews 6 does not deal with possibility, but with impossibility. And the IM-possibility for the writer is that one once (truly) "enlightened" and, who has "received" the "first principles" of Faith of Christ, could fall away - completely (as BR argues) - and then could be enlightened a second time as if the things of salvation must be repeated - it CANNOT, because if is the unrepentable gift of God.

Sorry I disappointed you! Let me explain the logic again.
.
.
First, as you will agree, the book of Hebrews as a whole is such a firm defender of OSAS in the following areas:
_1. Jesus is the High Priest Who so completely atoned for sin and redeemed fallen humanity that He SAT DOWN (Heb 1:3, 10:12) no more to rise to work on these tasks.
_2. Jesus is our Mediator (Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24) Who is able to ensure a Win-Win contractual settlement.
_3. Jesus is our Surety (Heb 7:22) Who makes sure that the contract will never be defaulted.
_4. Jesus is the Finisher (Heb 12:1-2) of the Faith. He - not us - is the guarantee of eternal life.
_5. Jesus will NEVER EVER forsake His own (Heb 13:5). The double negative highlight the impossiblity of the stated action occurring.
_6. Jesus the great Shepherd (Heb 13:20), He tends for His flock like no earthly shepherd can. If one of the sheep drift away, rebel or apostatize in some other way, Jesus goes after that sheep and brings it home (Luke 15:4-6)!
_7. Hence, Jesus can save to the UTTERMOST (Heb 7:25).
.
.
Second, Hebrews 6 is clearly dealing with sanctification - an issue of rewards. This is not associated with justification and eternal destiny.
.
.
Third, we pitiful humans do things that aren't good reflections of Christ all the time. However, even while we commit sin and do sinful acts, we are eternally secure.
.
.
Fourth, Heb 6 shows that even when it is impossible to restore a fallen Christ, there is no language used that implies any withdrawal of justification and eternal destiny. The only negative that the author can drum up is an illustration of thorns in a farmer's field.

The author can only use the word BETTER as a comparison (not a contrast) to his more faithful readers.

The entire book of Hebrews is dealing with sanctification. None of the dire warnings ever uses one word associated with forensic justification.

While I am sorry that you are so disappointed, I know that your emotions stem only from some lack of proper understanding of justification and knowing the author's intent of the book of Hebrews.

May the LORD use these posts to show you the riches of Jesus Christ and His ministries on our behalf!

Lloyd

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ah yes, this looks like we agree on the important things, to be grateful for. Nevertheless, you saying things like Hebrews says nothing about forensic justification? Maybe it's our different understanding of this concept that may cause you to so think. But I don't, because the book says a lot of Jesus' work of atonement on our behalf - which to me is simple forensic justification. An Anchor for the soul, e.g., although it's seeming subjectivity is an objective application by Christ for us. Etc., but as I say, I think this shows unimportant difference.
Main thing is - as far as Bob Ryan is concerned, Jesus made full atonement once for all and for eternity while being Saviour here below and High Priest here below. It's the same disagreement we are dialoguing at the moment on the thread 'Seventh Day Adventist Question' - the SDA 'doctrine' of an 'investigative judgement'.

 

[BobRyan]

Heb 9 "Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins" -- this is forensic justification.

Heb 10 "Christs ONCE for ALL sacrifice" provides real forgiveness of sins where the blood of animals forgives NO sins!

This is again forensic justification.

Heb 6:1-2 the MILK of the Gospel contains the subject of the Messiah - the Christ - and the topic of how HE accomplishes forgiveness -- again - forensic justification.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3394/17.html#000247

Impossible to miss in the book of Hebrews.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Heb 9 "Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins" -- this is forensic justification.

Heb 10 "Christs ONCE for ALL sacrifice" provides real forgiveness of sins where the blood of animals forgives NO sins!

This is again forensic justification.

Heb 6:1-2 the MILK of the Gospel contains the subject of the Messiah - the Christ - and the topic of how HE accomplishes forgiveness -- again - forensic justification.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3394/17.html#000247

Impossible to miss in the book of Hebrews.

In Christ,

Bob

Despite our seemingly insurmountable differences otherwise, dear Bob, I heartily in this matter agree with you!

Just remember, this is forensic justification fully and finally and irrevocably through and in and by the High Priestly Atonement "wrought" by God in Christ "when he raised Him from the dead"!

 

[BobRyan]

GE - you are prone to "make stuff up" and to "quote you" more than scripture. Those methods are not sound or Biblical or compelling.

Notice that in MY post I make the DIRECT connection between forensic justification and the pure text of God's word.

You on the other hand are taking a flying leap into a quote that can not be found in all of scripture - because it is just you quoting "you" as the source.

GE quotes GE for his point "finally and irrevocably through and in and by the High Priestly Atonement "wrought" by God in Christ "when he raised Him from the dead

So having no text that says
""finally and irrevocably through and in and by the High Priestly Atonement "wrought" by God in Christ "when he raised Him from the dead -- you just "insert it".

That is a poor way to make a case.

use the method I have shown above - state the direct point and then SHOW IT in text after text as the TEXT MAKES THE POINT.

For your point we would need an entire rewrite of scripture!

Don't do that.

In Christ,


Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sometimes, says the Scriptures, one should answer the fool in his foolishness; sometimes, the Scriptures says, one should not answer the fool in his foolishness.

I think that when the fool doesn't think anything about his foolishness, one could answer him. But when the fool thinks his foolishness is wisdom, then keep your mouth!

 

[BobRyan]

Anyway -----

Back to the last actual point --

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Heb 9 "Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins" -- this is forensic justification.

Heb 10 "Christs ONCE for ALL sacrifice" provides real forgiveness of sins where the blood of animals forgives NO sins!

This is again forensic justification.

Heb 6:1-2 the MILK of the Gospel contains the subject of the Messiah - the Christ - and the topic of how HE accomplishes forgiveness -- again - forensic justification.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3394/17.html#000247

Impossible to miss in the book of Hebrews.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of the last actual point -- how about going all the way back to the OSAS topic?!!

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Both sides agree that Paul is not writing to people that have back-slidden from Christianity and no longer read scripture etc.Rather the READER is going to be some Christian with a copy of the letter to the Hebrews - probably one who is faithful. That is not the issue.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Heb 6
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

IN the case of those WHO HAVE once BEEN enlightened!

This is NOT a statement sahing "Those who have had 10 toys but lose 5 of them".

The Toys in heaven idea is totally missing from the text.

(This is the view of the lost - in darkness ACCEPTING light such that they ARE enlightened - at least at one time).

AND have tasted of the heavenly gift

Not the description of the totally depraved lost.


AND have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

This is never the description of the totally depraved lost experience.

"AND THEN HAVE FALLEN AWAY"

clearly FALLING away from being LOST is not a bad thing - it is a GOOD thing.

But here it is falling away from eternal life - from salvation so obviously it is a BAD thing!!

And it is not talking about "falling away from more toys".

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Faith alone]

Right... how about Greek tenses & their application to OSAS?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes that would be interesting as well -- Lloyd had hoped that "greek" would get him out of the trouble that ignoring exegesis put him in.

It didn't work.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Janosik]

OSAS - If one is saved then one is always saved. This is man made statement that can not be proven that it's a true statement.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Janosik:
OSAS - If one is saved then one is always saved. This is man made statement that can not be proven that it's a true statement.

Jesus is the one who used the phrases "eternal life" and "everlasting life". Hardly man made. It's amazing how two simple phrases can be yanked and twisted to not mean eternal and everlasting. It's proven. It's true.