Greek Tenses and OSAS

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by 1jim:
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.

first, you have overlooked the lexical implications of the word sanctification (hagiazo). God alone is active in setting aside believers to Himself (the basal definition of sanctification). Humans are active in sanctified purification.

Second, you confuse the differences between justification and sanctification. They are insepable but in a parallel yet distinct relationship.

"Perfected for ever" is justification before God the Judge. sanctification is the continuous aspect. Believers are not continuously being justified.

Once for all time is not in any aspect a reference to continuously being set aside. Once sinners look to Jesus in faith, they are immediately translated in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a done deal.

The Hebrews warning are warning regarding sanctification. Not one of them has implications for losing one's secure position of justification with Christ in heaven.

I would love a series of exchanges on the Book of Hebrews.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

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

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?

The NSNS view consistently errs by merging justification with sanctification. Their bottom line is that we aren’t finally accepted into God’s heaven until we become self-righteous – which means no one gets to heaven.

This verse also uses the general gnomic formula: ho + present participle. The NSNS view greatly errs by forcing every present tense to be a progressive, continuous action when the Present Tense could have several meanings. The NSNS view wrongly holds to only one meaning and forces this faulty Greek understanding upon every possible text. The context dictates a timeless GNOMIC truth for when-ever, where-ever and who-ever will believe in Jesus.

Beginners assume that the unaffected action of a given verb is to be used mindlessly in every context. Second year Greek students know that there is a genuine difference between the aspect (grammar) and aktionsart. Aktionsart begins with the aspect of basic lexical meaning, then considers other grammatical features, and then utilizes contextual keys. So if one merely discusses tenses, then one is locked into the basic idea of aspect. But if one is aware of the aktionsart, then one is able to deal with the categories of usage within the tenses.

I have never read an NSNS Sadvocate article that makes good use of context in theologically important passages. I doubt if I ever will. Context is a great light and heresies flee from the light.

The present tense has three broad categories: narrow, broad, and special uses. The Narrow Band categories are taught in first year Greek with special emphasis upon the progressive present. But even first year Greek grammars teach about the Instantaneous present where action is depicted as a punctiliar event. Machen’s beginning Greek text shows that luo can mean either I loose or I am loosing. The NSNS error always assumes the latter.

The Broad Band category deals with events that occur over a long period of time or sequences. The Gnomic Present is of special interest in this category. It represents a general timeless fact. It does not say that something is happening, but that something does happen. The action continues without time limits. … This usage is common. A key to recognizing the Gnomic Present is a generic subject or object. Furthermore, the general formula is ho + present participle.

The Special Use category has five uses not common to the Narrow or Broad Band categories. The Perfective Present is used to emphasize that the past action result is still continuing in the present. This has almost the same force as a perfect tense.
The continuous progressive present is a good guide for beginning Greek students. It is a lazy and most unreliable guide for serious biblical exegesis.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

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.

Failure to enter in the land of Canaan does not mean that they all went to hell. This is a fear tactic that shouldn’t work with anyone knowledgeable of God’s Word. Did Moses go to hell? Not from biblical testimony.

The NSNS argument regarding the Holy Spirit is also plainly wrong. There is just enough truth in the NSNS twisted saying to make it sound plausible. The work of the Holy Spirit is important for positional forensic justification since He woos sinners, convicts of sin, and immerses the believer into Christ. The work of the Holy Spirit is also important for a life of holiness resulting in rewards at Christ’s Judgment Seat.

The main NSNS error is confusing justification and sanctification. Justification is not dependent upon sanctification; sanctification is not dependent upon justification (other than that these two are both dependent upon faith in Jesus Christ and both begin at that solitary moment of faith and that they are in parallel with each other).

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. The idea is that it is likely that Christians will hold fast firm to the end. There is no room for the NSNS 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. The word for word translation resulted in an unfortunate English conditional allowing the NSNS heresy just enough room to claim this verse as a warning.

Wrong! The underlying Greek speaks of the certainty of our position in Christ and the likelihood of walking by the Spirit. It assumes the fact of becoming made partakers in Christ continues in the present walk of sanctification.

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.

Heb 2:3 declares 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.

These features combine to show both the justified (positional) and sanctified (experiential) aspects of salvation in the same verse. The NSNS 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. 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 NSNS view would like to twist the Greek into saying 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.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Hey mman:

There are so many other passages that refute OSAS.

I submit that you merely take sanctification verses encouraging works leading to rewards and redefine them as justification verses leading to destiny.

Justification is in parallel with yet distinct from sanctification.

Destiny and rewards are like parallel yet distinct topics.

One should not confuse either of these.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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."</font>[/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 [/QUOTE]

Is that really the best you can do with this clear passage, say it doesn't apply because it uses a dog and pig.

What happens to the pig? It is washed. Before I was washed in the blood, I was unrighteous. I was a dog, so to speak. Any washed christian could return to their former state.

Deal with the plain teaching.

What is the result of them knowing the way of righteousness? The text plainly says "they have escaped the defilements of the world". How, by "the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus".

II Pet 2:21 For 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.

This could never be true if OSAS were true!

I'm sorry, but the mental gymnastics are too great for me. The same goes for your other posts. I do not have time to deal with them now, but just look at all the words it took for you to basically say the verses don't really mean what they say. Sad. I am glad that God didn't write like you do, because everyone would have a hard time understanding scripture.

Peace, out.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I thought this thread was about Greek...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey Gerhard

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
But please forgive me for asking (I won't again refer to it again unless you wish), Go and apply that post JUST SO to the word 'synehgmenohn' in Acts 20:7, and see what is the implication!

Thanks for the kind comment. I've taken a lot of heat from the back rows recently. I even appreciate the way you frame your challenge to my interpretation of the perfect tense!

Ok. Here is my try. The perfect tense indicates continuance of action. Technically, one must automatically assume an eternal state. The perfect tense just notes that the results of a past action are in continued force in the present.

However, functionally it can mean eternal. If the ongoing state is not countermanded, then the reader is left with an historic book that is applicable for all time with the recorded state of a continued effect of a past action.

Acts 20:7 follows this idea. The verb synegmenon is a perfect passive participle. The results of a past act continue with force. The disciples met on the first day of the week for normal preaching and worship. Because Paul was there, they continued. Context supplies the countermand "and continued his speech until midnight." Hence, the continuing effects of perfect passive past action cease.

1jim is wrong. Technically, he is right because his analysis comes from a study of language limited to conversations between finite individuals. He fails to grasp the force of the perfect tense given by God Himself in an Historic Document that speaks unendingly throughout all eternity.

Context rules!
Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]I realise you must be in a constant hurry, all the posts you write!
No Lloyd, I do not "challenge" your "interpretation of the Perfect" - I fully underwrite it.
You should be consistent though!
Look at how you immediately go astray as you say, "The verb synegmenon is a perfect passive participle. The results of a past act continue with force. The disciples met ..."! "Met" is an Indicative, Finite Verb! Luke tells what the resultant still continuing circumstance was "on the First Day" - he does NOT mention the original act that introduced the circumstance of "BEING TOGETHER STILL on the First Day"! The rest you may guess!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I want to go silently here - I mean no bad criticism, But this is not a true statement: "The verb synegmenohn ...". Synegmenohn is NOT a Verb - it's a Participle of Adjectival force!

 

[ascund]

Hey Charlie

Well, it started out as such. But the human-centered self-righteous urge wants to bend everything towards an unwitting denial of Christ.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Here is some articles I found of interest.

The perfect tense of the verb tetelestai could be translated, “it stands finished,” meaning the work is forever finished and the finished results remain. Paul Enns, “Atonement,” Moody Handbook of Theology, 76.

Depending on the verb and the context, the emphasis may be on the accomplished action, the consummative perfect. Or, the emphasis may be on the existing state, the results without any thought or emphasis on the past, the intensive perfect. And of course, if the context suggests, the emphasis can be on both the completion and results. J. Hampton Keathley, Revelation – Appendix 6: The Book of Life, Biblical Studies Foundation.

The use of the perfect tense in a number of New Testament passages would further point to the believer’s security. The meaning of the perfect tense in Greek combined with the context and the analogy of Scripture forms another argument for the security of the believer. J. Hampton Keathley, Assurance of Eternal Security.


The future aspect of salvation is not only found in the perfect tense which signifies ongoing results or consequences, but in the references to being seated in the heavenly places with Christ and the expression of Christ's rich kindness and grace in the ages to come. Terri Darby Moore, “Lexical/Syntactical Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Biblical Studies Foundation.


The Word of God declares that every believer has a perfect standing before God forever (dienekes – uninterrupted time) which is a permanent (perfect tense) reality (indicative mood).” Dennis Rosker, Eternal Security: Provided by the Son (Pt. 1), The Doctrine of Eternal Security, pt 7. Grace Family Journal (May/June 2000).


Eph 2:5. "Now comes the interjection... ["by grace you have been saved:]

We have here in the Greek what is called a periphrastic construction.

[Paul deliberately uses a periphrastic construction, lit. in English: you are saved having been completely saved in the past with ongoing results in the present. Paul uses an auxiliary verb = "este" = "you are saved, 2nd pers., plur., pres. active voice, indicative mood, (statement of fact) along with "sesosmenoi" = saved, participle, perfect tense passive voice rather than the normative inflected form of the verb to be saved in the past tense in order to stress the point of permanency]

..This [periphrastic construction] is used when the writer cannot get all of the details of action from one verbal form. So he uses two, a finite verb ("este" are saved) and a participle. The participle here is in the perfect tense, which tense speaks of an action that took place in past time and was completed in past time, having results existent in present time.

The translation reads [more accurately] 'By grace have you been completely saved, with the present result that you are in a saved state of being'. The perfect tense speaks of the existence of finished results in present time. But Paul is not satisfied with showing the existence of finished results in present time. He wants to show the persistence of results through present time. So he uses the verb 'to be' in the present tense ["este"] which gives durative force to the finished results. Thus, the full translation is, "By grace you have been saved in past time completely, with the result that you are in a state of salvation which persists through present time.' The unending state of the believer in salvation could not have been put in stronger or clearer language. The finished results of the past act of salvation are always present with the reader. His present state of salvation is dependent upon one thing and one thing only, his past appropriation of the Lord Jesus as Saviour. His initial act of faith brought him salvation in its three aspects, justification, the removal of the guilt and penalty of sin and the impartation of a positive righteousness, Jesus Christ Himself, an act which occurs at the moment of believing, and a position that remains static for time and eternity [cp. Ro 3:21-28]; sanctification, positional, the act of the Holy Spirit taking the believing sinner out of the first Adam with his (Adam's) sin and death, and placing him in the Last Adam (Jesus Christ) with His righteousness and life, an act that occurs at the moment of believing [cp. Ro 5:15-19]; [and sanctification] progressive, the process by which the Holy Spirit eliminates sin from the experience of the believer and produces His fruit, gradually conforming him into the image of the Lord Jesus [cp. Ro 8:29], a process that goes on all through the life of a Christian and continues all through eternity, and which never is completed, for a finite creature can never equal an infinite one in any quality; and glorification, the act of the Holy Spirit, transforming the mortal bodies of believers into glorified, perfect bodies at the Rapture of the Church [cp. 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:52-53]. The believer has had his justification, he is having his sanctification, and he is yet to have his glorification. The earnest of the Spirit guarantees to him his glorification [cp. Eph 1:13-14]."
[Kenneth S. Wuest, “Ephesians and Colossians in the Greek New Testament,” Word Studies in the Greek NT, Vol 1, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Mich, 1963, 66-67]:

Hebrews 10:10. The words “we are sanctified” are in the Greek text a perfect participle and a finite verb, showing in the strongest way the permanent and continuous state of salvation into which the believer is brought and in which he lives. [Kenneth S. Wuest, “Hebrews in the Greek New Testament,” Word Studies in the Greek NT, Vol 2, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Mich, 1963, 175]

Lloyd

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Somewhere it says something like, How good if brothers live together in harmony. How nice if they converse in agreement! One of the strangest things I have found is how difficult or at all possible professing believers find it to "talk Bible" (as Jannie Smuts an erstwhile Prime Minister of SA has said!).
In any case, I especially like what you have stress, Keith, "Context!" I would l;ike to add, Context and Content or Subject! There - e.g., is a difference between the meaning of the Perfect (Participle) as emphasised on this thread in an 'eternal' context and - e.g., in merely a temporary situation like in Acts 20:7.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Here's an article by an author with whom I agree.

web page

 

[1jim]

Hi ascund,


The author of Hebrews:

(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] (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] (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] (efapax).

(ASV) Hebrews 10:12 but he, when he had offered ONE (THUS, ONCE) sacrifice for sins [CONTINOUSLY] (eiV to dihnekeV), sat down on the right hand of God;

(ASV) Hebrews 10:14 For by ONE (THUS, ONCE) offering he hath perfected [CONTINOUSLY] (eiV to dihnekeV) them that are sanctified (articular present passive participle, thus, the sanctified ones).


ascund (09/15/05, 03:56pm):

You have overlooked the lexical implications of the word sanctification (hagiazo). GOD ALONE IS ACTIVE IN SETTING ASIDE BELIEVERS TO HIMSELF (the basal definition of sanctification). HUMANS ARE ACTIVE IN SANCTIFIED PURIFICATION. "Perfected for ever" is justification before God the Judge. SANCTIFICATION IS THE CONTINUOUS ASPECT. BELIEVERS ARE NOT CONTINUOUSLY BEING JUSTIFIED. ONCE FOR ALL TIME IS NOT IN ANY ASPECT A REFERENCE TO CONTINUOUSLY BEING SET ASIDE. Once sinners look to Jesus in faith, they are immediately translated in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a done deal.


Jim:

My point is that in all of the Hebrews passages quoted above (7:27, 9:12, 10:1, 10:10, 10:12, 10:14), there is only one thing that occurs “once” (efapax), which is the offering of Christ as the sacrifice. Out of that “one” offering comes a “continuous” (eiV to dihnekeV) “perfecting” (10:14) and “sanctifying” (10:10). In 10:10, the author says that we “are” (esmen, present tense) “sanctified” (hgiasmenoi), thus emphasizing the present result, as a result of the one offering of Christ in the past, which took place “once” (efapax). Thus, out of the “one” sacrifice that took place “once” (efapax) in the past comes a “continuous” (eiV to dihnekeV) “perfecting” (10:14) and “sanctifying” (10:10) as people come to believe in Christ over the course of time, who are not “perfected” or “sanctified” until they believe, even though the sacrifice that enables this “perfecting” and “sanctifying” to occur was already accomplished on the cross. That’s why, in 10:12, the author says that this “one” sacrifice, which he says in 7:27 and 10:10 occurred only “once” (efapax), is “continuous” (eiV to dihnekeV / for the continuance). At first glance, this (10:12) may look self-contradictory, but all it means, as far as I can see, is that the grace that was created by that “one” sacrifice is distributed “continuously” to many people over the course of time as they come to believe in Christ.

When the author of Hebrews means “forever,” as in eternally or perpetually, he uses the standard form “eiV ton aiwna” (for the age, 1:8, 5:6, 6:20, 7:17, 7:21, 7:24) or “eiV touV aiwnaV” (for the ages, 13:8, 13:21). When he means “continuously,” he uses the form “eiV to dihnekeV” (for the continuance, 7:3, 10:1, 10:12, 10:14).

Justification is something that occurs continuously to many people over the course of time as they come to believe in Christ as a result of that one sacrifice. As Paul says in Romans 3:28 and 3:30 (ASV), “We reckon therefore that A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH apart from the works of the law. ... if so be that God is one, and HE SHALL JUSTIFY THE CIRCUMCISION BY FAITH, AND THE UNCIRCUMCISION THROUGH FAITH.” So justification is something is continuously ongoing as people come to believe in Christ. It did not occur “once” at the cross but occurs many times (distributively) as people come to believe in Christ. The basis for this continuous justification is what Christ did “once” on the cross. However, God justifies people by faith. People are not justified until they believe.


ascund:

The Hebrews warning are warning regarding sanctification. Not one of them has implications for losing one's secure position of justification with Christ in heaven.


The author of Hebrews:

(ASV) Hebrews 3:6 but Christ as a son, over his house; whose house are we, if we hold fast our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto THE END.

(ASV) Hebrews 3:11 As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into MY REST. 12 Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of UNBELIEF, in falling away from the living God: 13 but exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called To-day; lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin: 14 for we are become partakers of Christ, IF we hold fast THE BEGINNING OF OUR CONFIDENCE firm unto THE END: ... 19 And we see that they were not able to enter in because of UNBELIEF. 4:1 Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into HIS REST, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but THE WORD OF HEARING DID NOT PROFIT THEM, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT UNITED BY FAITH WITH THEM THAT HEARD. 3 For we who have BELIEVED do enter into THAT REST; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into MY REST: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

(ASV) Hebrews 6:4 For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, 5 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, 6 and [then] FELL AWAY, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. ... 9 But, beloved, WE ARE PERSUADED BETTER THINGS OF YOU, and things that accompany SALVATION--[He] shall APPEAR A SECOND TIME, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, UNTO SALVATION (Hebrews 9:28)—THOUGH WE THUS SPEAK: 10 for God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love which ye showed toward his name, in that ye ministered unto the saints, and still do minister. 11 And we desire that each one of you may show the same diligence unto the fulness of hope even to THE END: 12 that ye be not sluggish, but imitators of them who THROUGH FAITH AND PATIENCE INHERIT THE PROMISES.


Jim:

Not being sanctified is how you’re interpreting the “not entering into His rest.” However, the author says that the believer will not “inherit the promise” unless he continues to “the end.” Likewise, one must continue to “the end” in order to enter His rest. So the author of Hebrews is not talking about sanctification when he refers to entering into His rest or inheriting the promise but about the “salvation” that awaits to be revealed at the second coming of the Lord at “the end.” As the author says in Hebrews 9:28, “--[He] shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.” That’s “the end.” As Jesus says in Matthew 24:13, “But he that endureth to THE END, the same shall be SAVED.”

The author of Hebrews compares the New Covenant faith to the Old Covenant faith. Israel (compared to New Covenant believers) had faith in Moses (compared to Christ), who led them out of Egypt (compared to the unbeliever’s unsaved state) toward the promised land (God’s rest) (compared to the inheritance which the believer receives at the second coming of the Lord) at “the end” of the journey. Some Israelites never made it to the promised land because they lost faith in Moses; they did not continue to “the end.” Likewise, some New Covenant believers, according to the author of Hebrews, will not receive the “salvation” that awaits them at the second coming of the Lord if they do not continue to “the end.” The author says that we must “hold fast THE BEGINNING OF OUR CONFIDENCE firm unto THE END.” This is not sanctification but endurance in the very faith in which we began when first came to believe in Christ. If we do not continue in that faith until “the end,” we shall lose that to which we have been called, His rest, the inheritance of the promise, which is received at “the end.”


Jim

 

[ascund]

Hey Charles

Excellent Article! The introduction lays out three ways to view tenses: (1) time based, (2) Aktionsart (action viewed by user is prime; time relegated to a subordinate position), and (3) Verbal Aspect.

The Verbal Aspect view itself has subtle nuances wrp the Greek Perfect Tense exhibited by Porter (stative, no temporal action, time given by deixis) and Fanning (dual time reference, meaning is a combination of Aktionsart, anteriority and aspect).

Hatina provides commentary on every GPT used in Galatians. His choice throughout is Porter. While he has put together a significant scholarly work, I still side with Fanning. I read through the article in detail through page 13 with my Greek Bible open. At that point I got mentally worn out and now craft this response.

Perhaps the best comparison is in Paul’s use of gegraptai (it is written). Porter uses it statively as a timeless reference since “the relevance of scripture is always assumed” (12). The deictic markers point to Paul's use ofthe present tense in reference to the content of scripture in 3:16 and 4:30. Fanning’s dual reference seems awkward and has the nuance “"as it was written and continues to be in effect."

The 3:16 verse says: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (aorist passive of lego).” If I were Paul, I would have considered using the Perfect here to show the continuation of those promises. 3:16 continues: “he saith (pres act) not, and to seeds…” The 4:30 verse says: “Nevertheless what saith (present act) the scripture?” To me, these are not significant evidences to deny Fanning’s inherent duality.


Is the Porter/Fanning = stative/duality a proper dipole? I submit that Hatina needed to include one more level/dimension; namely, CONTEXT. Wallace’s text, Beyond the Basics, gives examples of the perfect tense with many uses: emphasis on the past act, emphasis on the present force, emphasis on the future, and emphasis as a timeless (gnomic) concept.

While I like Fanning’s dual view with gegraptai, I seek to use the deictic markers that are usually present and sufficient to guide us between Wallace’s different uses of the perfect. Before reading Hatina's article, I customarily considered Wallace’s text to be a proponent of the Aktionsart view. However, Wallace also carefully considers context. Perhaps, unwittingly, he endorses the aspect view.

I hold to a position that generalizes (and includes) both Porter and Fanning. This is what I was trying to put before you with my poorly chosen words of context.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings 1jim

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.

Failure to enter in the land of Canaan does not mean that they all went to hell. This is a fear tactic that shouldn’t work with anyone knowledgeable of God’s Word. Did Moses go to hell? Not from biblical testimony.

The Never Saved Never Sure (NSNS) argument regarding the Holy Spirit is also plainly wrong. There is just enough truth in the NSNS twisted saying to make it sound plausible. The work of the Holy Spirit is important for positional forensic justification since He woos sinners, convicts of sin, and immerses the believer into Christ. The work of the Holy Spirit is also important for a life of holiness resulting in rewards at Christ’s Judgment Seat.

The main NSNS error is confusing justification and sanctification. Justification IS NOT dependent upon sanctification; sanctification IS TOTALLY dependent upon justification (these two are both dependent upon faith in Jesus Christ and both begin at that solitary moment of faith. They are in a parallel, one way dependent yet distinct relationship).

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. The idea is that it is likely that Christians will hold fast firm to the end. There is no room for the NSNS 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. The word for word translation resulted in an unfortunate English conditional allowing the NSNS heresy just enough room to claim this verse as a warning.

Wrong! The underlying Greek speaks of the certainty of our position in Christ and the likelihood of walking by the Spirit. It assumes the fact of becoming made partakers in Christ continues in the present walk of sanctification.

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.

Heb 2:3 declares 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.

These features combine to show both the justified (positional) and sanctified (experiential) aspects of salvation in the same verse. The NSNS 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. 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 NSNS view would like to twist the Greek into saying 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.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings 1jim

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 Never Saved Never Sure (NSNS) view. The Bible testifies to abundant forgiveness.

The word “impossible” is the death knell for NSNS. 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 NSNS Sadvocates have no proper explanation and quickly avoid any further discussions on that avenue. Why? In the NSNS 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 NSNS 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 NSNS 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: artavtos 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 Corner was 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.

Lloyd

 

[Charles Meadows]

Lloyd,

Yes Hatina's article is quite good. It seems like most people tend to follow either Porter or Fanning. I favor Porter. Wallace's book is good - and he tends to follow Fanning to a tee.

In his book Fanning describes the perfect tense as conveying temporal significance of a past action, summary aspect, and aktionsart as well - a tripartite tense value!

Obviously if you understand the Porter/Fanning debate you have a fairly good idea of tense theory.

I agree that the context suggests that salvation is a permanent thing. But I do object to the idea that the tense has anything to do with it. The tense factors into context but, in my mind, conveys nothing of the time or permanence of an action. While Fanning agrees that the perfect tense conveys some time information even he would also agree that permanence is yet one step removed from "time", with permanence being a lexical and not a tense nuance.

I am at once wary of the idea od seeing theological significance to syntactical constructions. Much improper exegesis came from this view, particularly in the late 1800s and early 1900s - particularly in terms of "once and for all" aorists and the like.

Suffice it to say I am in agreement with Stanley Porter on this subject.

 

[1jim]

Hi ascund,


ascund:

The main NSNS error is confusing justification and sanctification. Justification IS NOT dependent upon sanctification; sanctification IS TOTALLY dependent upon justification (these two are both dependent upon faith in Jesus Christ and both begin at that solitary moment of faith. They are in a parallel, one way dependent yet distinct relationship).


Jim:

I’m not suggesting that sanctification isn’t based on faith. The issue isn’t whether one is a good believer—if one had to be a good believer to be saved, most of the believers described in the New Testament wouldn’t make it—but whether one continues to believe to the end.


ascund:

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.


Jim:

I agree that the author is talking to believers. That’s the point. It’s these believers that he is warning not to fall away from their faith in Christ lest they fail to enter into His rest and inherit the promise at the end. Your statement that their destinies are secure is your position, not the author’s.


ascund:

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. The idea is that it is likely that Christians will hold fast firm to the end. There is no room for the NSNS twisting of the contingency into a warning of losing one’s eternal life. It is a general indication of the expected holding fast.


Jim:

The fact that they’re likely to fulfill the condition doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a conditional statement with the possibility of not fulfilling the condition. That’s what all the warnings are about. Your view that believer is still in good shape even if he doesn’t continue to the end is your view, not the view expressed by the author. You are contradicting the author.


ascund:

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!


Jim:

That isn’t what the author says. Your conclusion does not fit the author’s analogy. You’re altering the analogy to suit yourself.


ascund:

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.


Jim:

The undoing is the failure to fulfill the condition. “You have become” appears to be a proleptic (futuristic) perfect in the apodosis of the conditional as dictated by the futuristic reference to “the end” in the protasis. (See Wallace’s definition on page 581 of his book.)

More later. Got to go.


Jim

 

[ascund]

Hey 1jim

Originally posted by 1jim:
I’m not suggesting that sanctification isn’t based on faith. The issue isn’t whether one is a good believer—if one had to be a good believer to be saved, most of the believers described in the New Testament wouldn’t make it—but whether one continues to believe to the end.

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

I work in the Army in a project office devoted to supported various missile programs (ITAS, Javelin, TOW, LOSAT). Everything we do is based upon firm contracts. We have many contract line item numbers (CLINs) to monitor and enforce.

Likewise God Himself has given us (seven?) such CLINs. Which of these supports your claim? If you have no contractual basis for such a statement, then your proposition must be summarily rejected.

Waiting!

I bet you can't find one!

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by 1jim:
The fact that they’re likely to fulfill the condition doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a conditional statement with the possibility of not fulfilling the condition. That’s what all the warnings are about. Your view that believer is still in good shape even if he doesn’t continue to the end is your view, not the view expressed by the author. You are contradicting the author

Yes! The warnings could be taken out of context and twisted into an unholy support of losing one’s eternal life. Where does the author of Hebrews say this?

I go so far as to say that you have grossly overlooked critical teachings in Hebrews the far outweigh any petty twistings of warning passages. Consider the following ministries of Jesus that you unwittingly deny through your faulty interpretation of the warnings:

Jesus is our High Priest. He paid for all sins and then sat down (Heb 1:3, 10:12). This includes future sins as well for He will never again rise to offer another sacrifice.

Jesus is our Mediator. God’s New Covenant; namely, that it is a one-sided disposition of God toward humanity in which the responsibility for fulfilling ALL of the clauses lies with God. A mediator is also used in contract disputes to help all the parties involved work out their differences and reach an EVERY BODY-WINS AGREEMENT.

Jesus is our Surety. A surety is one who stands in place of another guaranteeing that a certain engagement will be faithfully performed. This happens all the time in the financial world. If my son wants to buy a car in his own name but doesn’t have sufficient funds, then he needs help. When I step forward and agree to co-sign his bank note, the bank changes its view towards my son. When he drives off with his new car everyone is happy. But let’s say that some months down the road that my son can’t pay his monthly bill. Does he lose his car? Not as long as I’m the co-signer of his bank note. When he can’t pay, the bank comes after me. It is my first responsibility to pay the bank and only then do I have the responsibility to help my son avoid this sort of thing in the future. Of course, even if he flatly refuses to pay the bank note, I will do it out of legal covenantal obligation (at the minimum) and (at the maximum) I will do it out of family love. This pauper is my son! My son’s bank note is as sure as my ability to back him up. This is a very close picture of God’s dealings with us pitiful humans.

The same scenario happens for believers. Jesus is the surety (co-signer) of God’s new covenant. Since believers’ credit has been irreparably damaged we all need help. When Jesus stepped forward as the co-signer of the new contract, God changed His view towards those who believe in Jesus. But let’s say that some time down the road these believers can’t fulfill their responsibilities to God. They stop reading their Bibles, stop witnessing, stop praying, stop confessing their sins, fall into various besetting sins, lose heart, drift away, and even apostatize. Do they lose their salvation? Not as long as Jesus is the co-signer of the new covenant. When believers can’t fulfill their responsibilities towards God, Jesus fulfills the requirements for them. Of course, future rewards will be adjusted for present failures at Jesus’ Bema Seat.

Jesus is the Finisher of the Faith (Heb 12:1-2). Not only did Jesus provide the perfect example of obedience but He completes the faith of all those who trust Him.

Jesus will Never Never forsake His own (Heb 13:5). This verse uses the double negative to emphasize Jesus’ faithfulness to His own. Grammatically, the double negative ou me is used to highlight or underscore the impossibility of the stated action occurring.

Jesus is 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)!

Either the author of Hebrews was terribly incompetent in fulfilling his responsibilities or the warnings meant something else. The first option must be discounted for although a human hand held the pen that wrote the words, God’s Spirit superintended the writing of those words. The real Author of Hebrews is God Himself. He certainly is not incompetent or irresponsible. Hence, something else must be the focus of the warnings - something other than loss of salvation.

So when the total book of Hebrews presents such a lopsided, one-sided (for humanity), emphatic view of the believer’s security in Jesus, how do you suppose that we should approach five questionable and highly debated warnings? Is it right for the Never Saved; Never Sure (NSNS) view to ignore the general teaching of the book? Can the NSNS view force conditional security on these five warnings when the tenor of the entire book is UNconditional security? Is it right to have two systems that pit the Author against Himself? Can we slice up the book of Hebrews and pick and choose what we like? The answers to these rhetorical questions should be an easy “NO.”

Lloyd