Greek Tenses and OSAS

[Charles Meadows]

Lloyd,

Please note that I've never based OSAS strictly and solely on the Greek Perfect Tense. The GPT is but one of many correlating facets of God's eternal provision.

But the point is that the tense form has NOTHING to do with OSAS, pro or con. To see it otherwise involves reading into the text, which I find to be a dangerous precedent.

 

[Chemnitz]

I think you missed the point the focus is on the present. It does not have any force concerning the future. It is merely at this point in time the object is affected by this past action. It does not mean that the object will still be affected by the past action in the future. The perfect tense provides no sense of permenance.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I guess we can frame this whole discussion in these terms:

Many grammarians have espoused Lloyd's position. In general these were good Godly men who knew theology and had learned Greek in terms of Latin-based paradigms.

It is now considered to be a less than proper way to view tenses. There are still some who view the perfect tense as describing the present consequences of a past action - but almost no scholar today would agree that we can deduce permanence of that action.

I prefer the view that sees NO temporal significance to the tense at all. In this context the perfect tense conveys only stative aspect, meaning that a given thing is in a state of having occurred. The use of the perfect participle is often employed to place the action in the contextual foreground, emphasizing it.

Thus we all can quote sources - but there is no question that the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that the perfect tense has NO ROLE in framing an action as having permanence and thus can have NO ROLE in supporting OSAS, other than that which is implicit from context or verbal lexis.

 

[mman]

Wow, I've been away for a few days. It's difficult enough for me to keep up with things when I'm around, but when gone for a few days, so much changes. Discussions are hard to "re-enter" where you left off. This seems to be a new topic based on the old topic.

OSAS is a false doctine not taught in scriptures. While this statemtent may seem bold, I am 100% convinced, it is true. The bottom line, truth does not depend on what I believe or don't believe. Until we have all that God has said on the subject, we don't have the whole truth.

It’s a grave mistake to only focus on the verses that support your position. There are numerous verses that are conditional. Look at that little word “if”, found throughout the NT. (See I Jn 1 for example.

Also we have plain passages. Gal 5:4, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”. The inspired apostle states that those Christians who turn to Moses’ law for salvation (in addition to the gospel, i.e., requires circumcision in addition to the gospel) are “severed from Christ.” Two points should be considered, first, one cannot be severed from that to which he was never joined; hence, we are dealing with apostate children of God. Second, these rebels stand severed from Christ; if one stands separated from the Lord, he certainly is not in a saved position. Reflect upon this thought, if being “in grace” denotes salvation (see Romans 5:2; Acts 13:43), why wouldn’t being “away from grace” signify condemnation?

Gal 5:7, “You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?”. Were they obeying the truth? No. Had they been? Yes. It could be said that they had wandered from the truth. James also addresses this in James 5:19-20, “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

What is the result of wandering from the truth? Death! Rationalize all you want, but this is death that results from sin. This is the death of a soul as clearly pointed out by this passage.
What is the consequence for not continuing to “obey the truth”? Rom 2:6-8, “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

What is the basis for our judgment? Our deeds. That’s clearly what this passage teaches. We also know from other passages, that our deeds do not earn us salvation, so don’t let anyone think I am advocating a “works based” salvation. What is the reward for those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality? The WILL get eternal life. OK, what about those who are not patience, who don’t continue, who wander from the truth? Are they doing well, seeking glory and honor and immortality? No. They are the ones who are not obeying the truth, they are obeying unrighteousness. What is their reward? The same as the former?

The sinner has wrath and fury awaiting him. Can he change is destination, based on his deeds? Only the patient one who continues in doing well has eternal life awaiting him.

While many passages listed in support of OSAS provide great comfort to the faithful, they provide no comfort to those who have wandered from the truth (James 5:19-20), stopped walking in the light (I Jn 1:7), stopped confessing their sins (I Jn 1:9).

While it is true that “no one can snatch them out of my hand”, that promise is only for His sheep who hear and follow (John 10:27). Can we stop hearing? Can we stop following? Man does not lose his free will when he becomes a Christian.

It is possible to deny the Master who bought you and so be destroyed (2 Pet. 2:1). Thus, we must keep ourselves in God’s love (Jude 21), and give diligence to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10), lest our reception of divine grace be in vain (2 Cor. 6:1).

If OSAS were true, it would be impossible to be better off never having known the way of righteousness than to know it and turn from it (II Pet 2:20).

Jesus announced that some branches – disciples – would be pruned from Him – as the vine – and burned (Jn. 15:1-6).

Jesus is the source of eternal life. We must stay connected to the source. It’s not God who moves away, but our choice. Isaiah 59:1-2 “Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”

Sure, people will rationalize, perform mental gymnastics and sometimes resort to belittling, to attempt to strengthen their positions or win an argument. I’m not here to argue.

Read God’s word for what it says. It is plain and simple. You don’t need a degree in Greek to understand the bible. You do need help to misunderstand the plain teaching of God’s word.

 

[steaver]

Conversations such as these is one of the very reasons I stand firm in OSAS. So many opinions about so many circumstances. I will just simply trust in Jesus Christ for my child-like faith to endure until I see Him face to face! I trust Jesus for my eternal destiney. I will keep my unworthy self out of the justifying business!

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

What is the result of wandering from the truth? Death! Rationalize all you want, but this is death that results from sin. This is the death of a soul as clearly pointed out by this passage.

I sure hope you are not right brother. I sin every day and many days forget to ask God to forgive me of those trespasses. If you are right, I am going to be in hell.

God Bless!

 

[ascund]

Hey Charles

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Lloyd,

Please note that I've never based OSAS strictly and solely on the Greek Perfect Tense. The GPT is but one of many correlating facets of God's eternal provision.

But the point is that the tense form has NOTHING to do with OSAS, pro or con. To see it otherwise involves reading into the text, which I find to be a dangerous precedent.

Nonsense! Scripture is an integrated whole. To willfully ignore one analytical aspect is the equivalent of taking a Sharpie to God's Word.

In every discussion, context rules supreme! Your text book restricted definitions fail the test of context. Text books are great as long as you keep them in proper perspective.

That the authors of restricted Greek text book descriptions fail to use context is no sufficient endorsement for continued abuse of context.

Theology uses every conceivable tool of the trade. Linguistics is but one important piece. It is a great error to make linguistics the final say in any exegetical commentary.

Context rules!
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by mman:
OSAS is a false doctrine not taught in scriptures. While this statement may seem bold, I am 100% convinced, it is true. The bottom line, truth does not depend on what I believe or don't believe. Until we have all that God has said on the subject, we don't have the whole truth.

There is so much error in this one post that it is hard to know where to begin. Let me start with John 10:27-28 since it is one of my favorite passages. Hope I haven’t duplicated this elsewhere. But then again, so what if I have??

In John 10:27-29, God uses the most powerful Greek constructs to emphasize the impossibility of about getting out (or even thinking about getting out) of His hands. Let’s consider the double negative with subjunctive.

The NSNS view shows a blatant disregard for proper Greek exegesis. This is due, in part, from using scripture to support preset dogmatic views rather than using scripture to shape dogmatic views. The Arminian view fails to mention ou me apoloontai (they shall never perish). This phrase uses a double negative and the aorist subjunctive which means that when they are used together it is the most emphatic denial that the Greek can use.

First, the double negative ou me is used to highlight or underscore the impossibility of the stated action occurring.

“The combination of the double negative occurs 96 times. With the light that the papyri have thrown upon this doubling of the negatives we can now say unreservedly that the negatives were doubled for the purpose of stating denials or prohibitions emphatically. … people used the doubling of negatives for making categorical and emphatic denials,” Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, 266-7.

The double negative stresses the total absence of what it negates.


Second, while the simple present mood denotes reality the simple subjunctive mood denotes a step away from reality into probability. While the negative of the present denies reality, the negative of the subjunctive denies even a step away from reality. Together, the double negative with the aorist subjunctive has the force of a categorical and emphatic denial. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Selected Studies from 2 Peter — Part 1: The Necessary Growth in the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:5-11,” BSac 141:561 (Jan 1984): 43.

Wallace says that ou me with the subjunctive “rules out even the idea as being a possibility.” Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 468.

The Greek language is doing everything possible to make a categorical timeless denial that one can get out of Jesus’ hand. Not only can one never again perish, you can’t even think about it! How much clearer does it have to be!!

If you look at the total context, you’ll not be deceived by partial explanations. Greek knowledge can really help differentiate between right and wrong – if one’s personal dogma does not interfere.

Here is yet another Greek construction that (like the perfect tense) when used in CONTEXT properly affirms OSAS.
Lloyd

 

[Charles Meadows]

Lloyd,

I'll agree completely that context rules. No problem there.

Theology uses every conceivable tool of the trade. Linguistics is but one important piece. It is a great error to make linguistics the final say in any exegetical commentary.

There is a severe problem with this philosophy however. The NT was written in a language, using that language and its mechanics. You cannot interpret the verb forms based on what you conceive to be correct theology. I agree with you that it all fits together and that to ignore any part is a mistake. But you are crossing that line, insisting that syntactical constructions convey information that they do not convey. That is a fatal flaw in exegesis - in fact that IS eisegesis.

I am just asking...

Do you subscribe to the theory that NT Greek is a particular dialect in and of itself, having been particularly inspired as a separate language exclusively for the NT (the stance of Rothe)?

 

[ascund]

Hey Charlies

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The NT was written in a language, using that language and its mechanics. You cannot interpret the verb forms based on what you conceive to be correct theology. I agree with you that it all fits together and that to ignore any part is a mistake. But you are crossing that line, insisting that syntactical constructions convey information that they do not convey. That is a fatal flaw in exegesis - in fact that IS eisegesis.

First, OSAS does not have to depend on the GPT. People without any Greek knowledge are well able to re-derive OSAS in any honest investigation of Holy Writ.

Second, I'm not forcing my view upon the Greek constructs. I'm well schooled in Greek but only with the basic first year sequences in Hebrew and Latin. I'm familiar with the arguments about which languages are "superior."

Third, I don't think that the syntactical constructs carry misinformation. I don't think they lack the ability either. The aspect of this discussion that you keep omitting is CONTEXT.

While it would be questionable to base a theology on any one part of God's Word to the disdain of the integrated whole, one must be able to fit all the pieces together.

This is my rub with your excellent text book quotations. In ordinary conversation, it is not at all clear whether the GPT can be construed to refer to eternity. The native speaker has to understand the construct IN CONTEXT.

We, as Christians, have the delight to examine God's Word from the perspective both of now and for eternity. God's Word is eternal. This super context assists us in understanding particular passages.

It is like Osborne's Hermeneutical Spiral. We start with an overview which helps us with particulars. Our advanced knowledge of particulars helps our overview. It spirals ever upward.

This is my charge. I don't say that you are wrong per se. I say that you are not using all the data available. Theology is not a terrible thing if it is properly constructed.

I am just asking...
Do you subscribe to the theory that NT Greek is a particular dialect in and of itself, having been particularly inspired as a separate language exclusively for the NT (the stance of Rothe)?

First, NT Greek is a particular dialect different from Attica.

Second, it was embraced by the common world as a trade language so that many of the subleties of the dative for example were lost.

Third, even as a trade language, the existing constructs are sufficient for God to convey the Gospel Message.

Fourth, any language in the world is sufficient to convey the Gospel Message.

Last, history is HIS STORY. God, as sovereign, does as He wishes with respect to the currents of history. I have no final answer. To me, it is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

That was a good dance!
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What is the result of wandering from the truth? Death! Rationalize all you want, but this is death that results from sin. This is the death of a soul as clearly pointed out by this passage.

I sure hope you are not right brother. I sin every day and many days forget to ask God to forgive me of those trespasses. If you are right, I am going to be in hell.

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]Is this sarcastic or sincere? Sometimes it is hard to tell without hearing the inflection of the voice.

No, there is clearly a difference in sinning and "wandering from the truth".

People walking in the light still sin (I Jn 1:7). Jesus' blood keeps on cleaning. What is the sinner's (who is walking in the light) attitude toward sin? Obviously, we don't sin that grace may abound (Rom 6:1), but we confess and he is just and faithful to forgive our sins (I John 1:9).

Does I John 1:9 mean what it says, or does it mean something else?

 

[ascund]

Hey mman

I John 1:9 relates to sanctification - not justification. Note that righteousness is a function of cleansing. Cleansing is an issue of sanctification. Justification is an act of God alone. He imputes righteousness to filthy sinners (II Cor 5:19-21).

After justification, God's indwelling Spirit leads, guides and directs the saint to conformity with Jesus' image. This is the cleansing of purification.

Lloyd

 

[Charles Meadows]

Lloyd,

I agree with the context thing.

But the tense question seems to be a yes or no issue.

Either Greek tenses convey types of temporal information or they do not.

My assertion is that they do not. Temporal situation in a passage is determined by verbal lexis, adverbs, place deixis and so forth.

As such the use of the perfect tense means that the verb has stative aspect - something is being presented in a state of "having been done".

I agree that context here all comes together to suggest that salvation is an eternal thing.

But my strong contention is that the perfect tense carries only one kind of information - verbal aspect. The action is a state of having been done. The permanence, present relevance, past condition etc all can be inferred from context or verbal lexis - but NOT FROM THE TENSE.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by mman:
OSAS is a false doctrine not taught in scriptures. While this statement may seem bold, I am 100% convinced, it is true. The bottom line, truth does not depend on what I believe or don't believe. Until we have all that God has said on the subject, we don't have the whole truth.

There is so much error in this one post that it is hard to know where to begin. Let me start with John 10:27-28 since it is one of my favorite passages. Hope I haven’t duplicated this elsewhere. But then again, so what if I have??

In John 10:27-29, God uses the most powerful Greek constructs to emphasize the impossibility of about getting out (or even thinking about getting out) of His hands. Let’s consider the double negative with subjunctive.

The NSNS view shows a blatant disregard for proper Greek exegesis. This is due, in part, from using scripture to support preset dogmatic views rather than using scripture to shape dogmatic views. The Arminian view fails to mention ou me apoloontai (they shall never perish). This phrase uses a double negative and the aorist subjunctive which means that when they are used together it is the most emphatic denial that the Greek can use.

First, the double negative ou me is used to highlight or underscore the impossibility of the stated action occurring.

“The combination of the double negative occurs 96 times. With the light that the papyri have thrown upon this doubling of the negatives we can now say unreservedly that the negatives were doubled for the purpose of stating denials or prohibitions emphatically. … people used the doubling of negatives for making categorical and emphatic denials,” Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, 266-7.

The double negative stresses the total absence of what it negates.


Second, while the simple present mood denotes reality the simple subjunctive mood denotes a step away from reality into probability. While the negative of the present denies reality, the negative of the subjunctive denies even a step away from reality. Together, the double negative with the aorist subjunctive has the force of a categorical and emphatic denial. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Selected Studies from 2 Peter — Part 1: The Necessary Growth in the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:5-11,” BSac 141:561 (Jan 1984): 43.

Wallace says that ou me with the subjunctive “rules out even the idea as being a possibility.” Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 468.

The Greek language is doing everything possible to make a categorical timeless denial that one can get out of Jesus’ hand. Not only can one never again perish, you can’t even think about it! How much clearer does it have to be!!

If you look at the total context, you’ll not be deceived by partial explanations. Greek knowledge can really help differentiate between right and wrong – if one’s personal dogma does not interfere.

Here is yet another Greek construction that (like the perfect tense) when used in CONTEXT properly affirms OSAS.
Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]No, there is no error taught in my previous post. None whatsoever.

It would take too much effort and time for you to lead others through the mental gymnastics required to attempt and explain away the clear passages that I presented. There are many other passages that I could have alluded to.

Your counter statements did nothing to disprove what I stated earlier. They did not explain away or nullify the clear passages.

Jesus' sheep shall never perish. No arguement from me. Yet your thesis does nothing to disprove what I stated.

Jesus' sheep "hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." - John 10:27

What are the characteristics of Jesus sheep? They hear and follow him. What will he give to His sheep? Eternal life.

Are you saying it is impossible to stop hearing and following Jesus? It is either possible or impossible.

1) Impossible? Man has no free will.
2) Possible? They no longer fit the description of Jesus' sheep. Surely you are not saying some of Jesus' sheep don't hear and follow him, are you? That would be a direct contradiction with what Jesus said.

Again, you don't have to understand Greek to understand the bible. The bible is plain and can be understood. Read it for what it says.

I understand your reluctance to tackle the other passages. I let them stand on their own. I don't need to explain them.

Rom 2:6-8 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

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."

James 5:19-20, My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Can one stop obeying? Can one "receive it (the word of God) with joy, ... endures for a while... (and) fall away (Matt 13:20-21)? Luke 14:25-33, can one start something and not finish? Why would anyone have to count the cost, if finishing was guaranteed?

Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 15As it is said,

"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."

16For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Can't you see that when one becomes disobedient is the same as unbelief. How else could a brother end up with an unbelieving heart. His example clearly shows how, they stop obeying.

Do you really think the brother who rebels and becomes disobedient (unbelieving) will be all right?

There are so many other passages that refute OSAS. All one has to do is read God's word for what it says. Remove prior teaching and bias, and read it to gain understanding. Words have meaning. It is a copout to always claim that anyone you disagree with is taking the passage out of context. Read it for what is says.

[ September 15, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: mman ]

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

I John 1:9 relates to sanctification - not justification. Note that righteousness is a function of cleansing. Cleansing is an issue of sanctification. Justification is an act of God alone. He imputes righteousness to filthy sinners (II Cor 5:19-21).

After justification, God's indwelling Spirit leads, guides and directs the saint to conformity with Jesus' image. This is the cleansing of purification.

Lloyd

I John 1:9 relates to the forgiveness of sins. It says so in the text!!!!

Here, I'll post it for you, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

 

[ascund]

Hey mman:

Yes it does! The whole epistle is writing to already saved believers (I John 2:12). They don't need forgiveness of sins for justification before God the Judge. Those books are closed.

Already saved believers need forgiveness before God our Father. While we are the very righteousness of Jesus Christ (II Cor 5:19-21), our continuous sins are still displeasing to our heavenly Father. We need forgiveness to maintain fellowship - the thrust of John's introduction (I John 1:3-5).

Context rules!
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Hey mman:

Originally posted by mman:
Are you saying it is impossible to stop hearing and following Jesus? It is either possible or impossible.

Not at all. Sheep customarily wander away. Jesus the Good Shepherd brings them back. No one can get away from Him. The thrust of the underlying Greek emphasizes Jesus' abilities all the more. One cannot even consider gettting out of His hand.

How much clearer does it have to be?
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by mman:
I understand your reluctance to tackle the other passages. I let them stand on their own. I don't need to explain them.

Rom 2:6-8 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

This passage falls in Paul’s first unit (1:18-3:19). The greater context demonstrates God’s judgment upon self-righteousness in every form. This includes perverts, chosen Israelites, moral Gentiles, and all humans in general. God’s judgment will be so conclusive that every mouth will be stopped (3:19).

Unsaved Gentiles will receive a reward for their good deeds as some form of lesser eternal punishment.

Context rules!
Lloyd

 

[1jim]

Hi ascund,


The Bible:

(ASV) Hebrews 10:10 By which [decision] we [are] sanctified (perfect passive participle) through THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL (efapax).


ascund:

“By that will WE HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED through THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL” Hebrews 10:10. This verse has two ways of emphasizing eternal security. First, the Greek perfect affirms that our sanctification is an eternal process. Second, the author ends the verse with a “once for all” phrase to further underscore the certainty of the statement.


Jim:

This is another example of a perfect passive participle: “HGIASMENOI esmen (CONSECRATED we are). The phrase “once for all” applies to the offering of the body of Christ, not to the consecration.


ascund:

Your reference to the perfect passive ptcp is excellent. Your analysis of context suffers a bit. The phrase “once for all” does apply to Jesus’ offering. However, the definition of hagiazo has 3 definitions that depend on CONTEXT. It is God’s activity in setting believers aside onto Himself. It is a consecration. It is also a purification into the image of Jesus Christ. I disagree with your selection of “consecration” in this verse. To me it is God’s activity of setting believers aside unto Himself via Jesus. This is an eternal one-time event. The perfect tense conveys this idea rather nicely. This is reflected just a few verses later. “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Here, we see the adverbial qualifier “for ever.”


The Bible:

(ASV) Romans 6:10 For the death that he died, HE DIED UNTO SIN ONCE (efapax): but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

(ASV) 1 Corinthians 15:6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren AT ONCE (efapax), of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep;

(ASV) Hebrews 7:27 who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the [sins] of the people: for THIS HE DID ONCE FOR ALL (efapax), WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF.

(ASV) Hebrews 9:12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in ONCE FOR ALL (efapax) into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

(ASV) Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of the good [things] to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer CONTINUALLY (eiV to dihnekeV), make perfect them that draw nigh.

(ASV) Hebrews 10:10 By which [decision] we [are] sanctified (perfect passive participle) through THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL (efapax).

(ASV) Hebrews 10:12 but he, when HE HAD OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE for sins FOR EVER (eiV to dihnekeV), sat down on the right hand of God;

(ASV) Hebrews 10:14 For BY ONE OFFERING he hath perfected For Ever (eiV to dihnekeV) them that are sanctified (articular present passive participle).


Jim:

I think that it’s clear from the passages quoted above that the “once” (efapax) refers to Christ’s sacrifice. I think that the “by one (as in “once” [efapax]) offering He has perfected continuously (eiV to dihnekeV) the sanctified ones” in Hebrews 10:14 must be understood in the same context as the “He had offered one (as in “once” [efapax]) sacrifice for sins continuously (eiV to dihnekeV)” is understood in Hebrews 10:12. That is, whereas it is true that the taking away of sins occurred on the cross at “once” (efapax), the application of this occurs “continuously” (eiV to dihnekeV) over the course of time as people come to faith in Christ. It’s true that my sins were taken away at the cross; but this was not applied to me until I believed. Likewise, whereas the basis for my sanctification is what Christ did on the cross, my sanctification was not applied to me until I believed. So I don’t think that Hebrews 10:14 can be used as a valid argument for eternal security. Remember, the same author who wrote Hebrews 10:14 also wrote Hebrews 3-6, in which no one with an objective eye can deny that the author plainly and repeatedly, in speaking to believers in Christ, says that the believer must continue to the end; otherwise, he will not enter the rest and inherit the promise.


Jim

 

[ascund]

Greetings:

Originally posted by mman:
I understand your reluctance to tackle the other passages. I let them stand on their own. I don't need to explain them.

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 NSNS 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!

Lloyd