Greek Tenses and OSAS

You gotta keep these posts small for Lloyd.

The post from John 6:29 shows that while fiath IS a work - it is not a works-based salvation. For BY GRACE are you saved THROUGH FAITH.

Though faith is an ACTIVE part for the sinner it is not the kind of works-based salvation that legalism would have.

It does nothing to PROMOTE justification by faith - to start insisting that faith is a PASSIVE ACT of the saint or is not required in salvation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quoting Charles Meadows (Sept.15), "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."

If a Participle, then the reverse is true. Then, the Perfect Participle carries two kinds of information - verbal aspect and adjectival aspect. E.g., in Mk.16:9 'anastas de ephaneh' describes what Jesus was like when He appeared: "Risen / as the Risen One He appeared".(Mk.16:9) 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.

 

Sorry, I per accident clicked on 'Add Reply' - so please here's the last part corrected:
The STATE (Participle) is an action been done. The permanence, present relevance, past condition etc all can be inferred from context or verbal lexis as well as from Tense and Mood, for, says Dana and Manty, In the expression of the verbal idea it is necessary to define its relation to reality ...". Mk.16:9 offers a perfect case in hand.

 

Relevance?
Christ will always remain "The Risen"; and if ever He might "appear" "after He had risen-anastas", it will be He shall appear "the Risen"! So in redemption: If anyone "is saved", he is saved for ever.

 

Now Lloyd,
It's exiting to differ in our agreement!
I believe one is first sanctified before he is justified, because one is first of all elected in and by the will of God - which means he is put apart for God's purpose with him; he is 'sanctified' - 'made holy'. Sanctification begins in and with God - not in or with man. And what does it end in? Sanctification - thus - ends in justification! For justification is God's very purpose for and with the man He chooses for His purpose of justification and sanctification. So justification is the 'second part'.
Have you read John Owen on these things? He is masterly!

 

Hi Gerhard Ebersoehn,


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

Look how you contradict yourself, 1jim, "The language says that renewing such a person to repentance is impossible in 3:14. That’s what it says. Everything that the writer warns is possible."


Jim:

The warning is that unbelief keeps one from entering into His rest and from inheriting the promise; therefore, the believer must not allow himself to fall away into unbelief. This is possible and true according to the author.

The fact that RENEWING TO REPENTANCE someone who has abandoned the faith is IMPOSSIBLE is likewise possible and true according to the author.

It’s all stated by the author to be possible and true.

You’re just looking for a way out of what the author wrote, because you don’t like what he wrote. The author is simply saying that unbelievers don’t inherit. Everything that that Bible says confirms this. If you want to believe that unbelievers, whether they never believed at all or whether they became unbelievers by walking away from the faith, will inherit right along side believers, go ahead. However, the Bible teaches no such thing. The Bible teaches that believers inherit and that unbelievers do not inherit. It isn’t any more complicated than that.


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

I had a quick look at your insistence on the Accusatives of the Participles, and can't see that it makes any difference to the writer's supposition it is impossible to renew again the once enlightened at all as it is impossible to enlighten at all the ones by nature ("unto themselves") crucifying the Son.


Jim:

I’m not insisting on the participles being accusative. That’s what they are. There’s nothing unclear about that.

The seven accusative participles all modify the same people, which people are represented by the accusative article “touV” (the ones).

Five of the accusative participles are aorist tense (expressing an antecedent [relatively preceding] action): fwtisqentaV (having been enlightened), geusamenouV (having tasted), genhqentaV (having become), geusamenouV (having tasted), parapesontaV (having fallen away).

The other two participles are present tense (expressing a contemporaneous [relatively present] action): anastaurountaV (crucifying), paradeigmatizontaV (disgracing).

The adverb "apax" (once) modifies the five aorist-tense (expressing antecedent time) participles.

These same people who “once” (apax) “were enlightened” (fwtisqentaV) and “tasted” (geusamenouV) the heavenly gift and “became” (genhqentaV) partakers of the Holy Spirit and “tasted” (geusamenouV) the beautiful word of God and the powers of the coming age and then “fell away” (parapesontaV), as expressed by the five aorist participles, are now “crucifying” (anastaurountaV) to themselves the Son of God and “disgracing” (paradeigmatizontaV) Him, as expressed by the two present participles.

These people are the direct object of the infinitive “to renew / renewing” (anakainizein), which is modified by the adverb “again” (palin) and by the prepositional phrase “to repentance” (eiV metanoian).

The nominative predicate adjective that describes the infinitive subject “renewing” (anakainizein) in this passage is the adjective “impossible” (adunaton).

The verb “it is” (estin), which links the infinitive subject “renewing” (anakainizein) to the nominative predicate adjective “impossible” (adunaton) is not explicitly expressed in the text, but is implicit.

Thus, renewing (infinitive subject) these people (the direct object of the infinitive) again to repentance, who have done these five things described by the five aorist participles and who are doing these two things described by the two present participles, is (implied verb) impossible (nominative predicate adjective).

The adjective “impossible” describes the “renewing again to repentance,” not the people who are described by the seven participles. Such people are possible.

What is possible is the impossibility of renewing again to repentance such people.

What is possible is that a believer can walk away from the Faith, and throw away Christ, coming to regard Him as nothing more than a myth or an impostor, and thus forfeit entering into His rest and inheriting the promise.

That’s what the author explicitly, literally says, whether anyone likes it or not.


Jim

 

Hi Gerhard Ebersoehn,


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

In fact THE WRITER ENCOURAGES HIS READERS TO DO THE THINGS ABOUT WHICH HE IS WARNING THEM, NAMELY, "LEAVING THE FIRST THINGS OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST (LIKE REPENTANCE FROM DEAD WORKS), let us accept responsibility to press on to the perfection." Exactly his warning is his reason for 'warning': 'Look, it's impossible an enlightened person .... can be enlightened again, seeing "if he shall fall (away), TO RENEW (HIM) AGAIN", WILL BE LIKE LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AGAIN - which a total absurdity it could be done!


The author of Hebrews:

(ASV) Hebrews 5:12 For WHEN BY REASON OF THE TIME YE OUGHT TO BE TEACHERS, YE HAVE NEED AGAIN THAT SOME ONE TEACH YOU THE RUDIMENTS OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THE ORACLES OF GOD; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. 13 For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is A BABE. 14 But solid food is for FULLGROWN MEN, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. 6:1 Wherefore LEAVING THE DOCTRINE OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF CHRIST, let us press on unto perfection; NOT LAYING AGAIN A FOUNDATION OF REPENTANCE FROM DEAD WORKS, AND OF FAITH TOWARD GOD, 2 OF THE TEACHING OF BAPTISMS, AND OF LAYING ON OF HANDS, AND OF RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND OF ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.

(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.

(ASV) Hebrews 6:9 But, beloved, WE ARE PERSUADED BETTER THINGS OF YOU, and things that accompany salvation, 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:

The author is clearly dissatisfied with the progress of the people to whom he is writing. The problem isn’t that they no longer believe but that they haven’t matured. They’re still just “babies” in Christ when they should be “men.” This is certainly not the same thing as “falling away” from their “repentance” and “crucifying” and “disgracing” Christ (by demoting Him to ordinary human status). In their “baby”-like state, they’re still focusing on the most elementary aspects of Christian “doctrine” when they should be progressing beyond that. In this context, the author warns them of the possibility of “falling away” from their “repentance” and “crucifying” and “disgracing” Christ by turning into unbelievers. They’re not that bad off: “we are persuaded better things of you.” However, the possibility is there, hence the warning: “though we thus speak.”

All of this is clear enough. However, in an attempt to dismiss what the author plainly says in Hebrews 6:4-6 about “FALLING AWAY,” you appear to have rationalized that “the DOCTRINE of the first principles of Christ,” which is “a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment,” beyond which the author encourages the people to whom he is writing to “PRESS ON UNTO PERFECTION,” IS the “renewing again unto repentance” of those who “fell away” and who “crucify to themselves the Son of God” and “disgrace” Him, against which the author warns the people to whom he is writing as being possible fate, which it ISN'T.

You seem to be arguing that the “LEAVING BEHIND and PRESSING ON to perfection” in Hebrews 5:12 – 6:3, which the author encourages, IS the “FALLING AWAY” in Hebrews 6:4-6, against which the author warns, which it ISN’T.


Jim

 

This is classic "ranting" and not "exegesis" in the "Remote".

Being vaccuous - it deserves no argument in response.

Any child can rant against a sound Bible argument as you have done Lloyd.

But then - every now and then - you will actually add a point from the Bible to support your OSAS argument. AND THEN we have something to discuss.

I am only posting this to ask the question - why is this so confusing for you?

Why do you struggle with concept that vaccuous ranting is really pointless.

I mean "thank you for sharing your accusations" -- but when done - that is all they are, pointless factless accusations.

Why waste the space here with such things?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The post from John 6:29 shows that while fiath IS a work - it is not a works-based salvation. For BY GRACE are you saved THROUGH FAITH.

Though faith is an ACTIVE part for the sinner it is not the kind of works-based salvation that legalism would have.

It does nothing to PROMOTE justification by faith - to start insisting that faith is a PASSIVE ACT of the saint or is not required in salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 5 says "HAVING BEEN JUSTIFIED BY FAITH we HAVE peace with God".

ONCE you ADMIT that FAITH is ACTIVE participation on the part of the sinner - then you entire line of conjecture AGAINST this Bible doctrine ends Lloyd.

This has been pointed out repeatedly.

Good!

Now we are getting some place!

A small kernel of truth in your belief system!

So "HAving been JUSTIFIED by/in/via the ACTIVE act of FAITH" we CAN NOT insist that we were justified and REMAIN saved in a PASSIVE INACTIVE - NEUTRAL or INDIFFERENT response to God's DRAWING.

Your idea of passive faith or justified-in-neutrality or justified-via-passive-faith - has failed.

It is that SAME ACTIVE Faith that was essential to ROmans 5:1 JUSTIFICATION that we see CONTINUING in perseverance of the BELIEVER!

Col 2:2-4 "AS you have RECEIVED Christ Jesus SO WALK in Him"

FAITH is NOT a PAST EVENT - FAITH is an ONGOING WALK of the SAVED.

Justification is a PAST EVENT. FAITH IS NOT!

You keep wanting to "Fire the faith BULLET" which then kicks off the Justification event - and once fired who knows if one will ever ACT in faith again.

But God defines faith as the NEW BIRTH RELATIONSHIP and ACTIVE participation that the sinner has with God IN the Gospel model of salvation.

Your "faith bullet fired and long gone" idea is epxressed as

Semantics - you say "THE BELIEVER" showing that the sinner STILL must be ACTIVELY participating in faith.

OR Do you now say "THE UNBELIEVER does nothing"?

ONLY if BELIEVING IS NOT an ACT.

ONLY IF FAITH is not ACTIVE or NOT a part of actively BELIEVING.

Notice that James 2 argues that BELIEF that is not ACTIVE - is not belief AT ALL!

When you make a point - I am usually pretty good about responding to it.

Did you MAKE a concise - DIRECT point -- OR did you simply ramble about Justification being a PAST EVENT?

Post the link and I will take a look at it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul shows that the “SAVING’ them is the whole point of this Gospel preaching. He preaches the Gospel to others in order to SAVE them. He mentions nothing about those saved getting big houses in heaven nor does he mention what great honor and room-size reward he is seeking in heaven. His entire focus is not on “What perk do I get” but on the great value/reward of SALVATION itself as the goal and objective of the Gospel received when preached “to others”.

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

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

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

How instructive!

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

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

Or do you read vs 23-27 and respond with

And so when Paul says

Do you respond with

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

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


When Paul says

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

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

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

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

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

 

Is this YOU quoting NO TEXT and then whining that I DO QUOTE it?

Is this YOU avoiding ALL forms of exegesis and complaining that I HIGHLIGHT the DETAIL IN the text showing BELIEF to be active WORK the ACTIVE part of the sinner?

Is this YOU avoiding the POINT raised?

Well - "yes" I guess it is!

Why do you keep doing that Lloyd?

Surely you can do better than that in supporting your position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jim,
The posts are streaming in and I can't possibly keep up! Very quickly glancing over, I noticed the 'baby'-stuff association is of more than petit importance. The believers are seen as babies - not the 'articles' of Christian Faith! As I've said before, the 'principles' are 'principles', not of lesser significance, exactly for being the 'basics' of Christian Faith, and THEREFORE cannot be repeated. So, if an enlightened should fall, it remains he cannot be enlightened again. But the writer is sure of better things about such a person who has fallen: that he will bear fruit under the blessed rains (of the Holy Spirit) - he is not for ever lost now, but now is (again) for ever assured of God's faithfulness the same as when at first he was 'enlightened' etc.

 

To understand the OSAS doctrine, you'll have to understand that:

GOD NEVER FORGIVE SIN

Not even "ONE".

The wages of sin is "DEATH" according to "GOD'S LAW" and it's a "DEATH" that only Jesus can "REDEEM" anyone from paying themselves.

Asking "forgiveness", "Repenting" won't fulfil the "requirements of the law" to "REMIT SIN".

Heb 9:22 and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Every "JOT/TITLE" the law requires will be "PAID", not forgive.

If God "FORGIVES ONE SIN", then Jesus died for "NOTHING".

Are you save today, is Jesus dying again??

 

Quoting 1jim, "The fact that RENEWING TO REPENTANCE someone who has abandoned the faith is IMPOSSIBLE is likewise possible and true according to the author."
This mos is as crooked a lie as the devil couldn't fabricate!
There is ONLY ONE 'if'-clause, and that is 6a, "If they fall". So, if they who had been 'renewed' (when 'born again' by the Holy Spirit) should fall (in sin somehow), they cannot be renewed. It is impossible because they ARE born again - ARE 'renewed' persons already and once for all. This is really word-for-word what the passage states: They CANNOT, "It is impossible". Why impossible? "For that would mean / "SEEING" / because / explained: They would to themselves crucify the Son of God again" It of course is an absolute absurdity -an absolute "impossibility"- He could be crucified again! Consequently then and inevitably, the implication is impossible! It is impossible the foundation could be laid again, or the man be renewed again. As if - as Nicodemus said - a man could enter the womb of his mother again!

 

Hi Gerhard Ebersoehn,


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

As I've said before, the 'principles' are 'principles', not of lesser significance, exactly for being the 'basics' of Christian Faith, and THEREFORE cannot be repeated. So, if an enlightened should fall, it remains he cannot be enlightened again.


Jim:

I think the author’s point is that the person he is describing has already known the experience of salvation and has then just walked away from it, regarding it as worthless and false; he “fell away.” Renewing such a person again to repentance would be impossible for the simple reason that he’s already been there (the experience) and then decided (1) that he didn’t want it anymore and (2) that it wasn’t actually real. What could one possibly say to such a person or show him to cause him to change his mind and to return to that from he walked away. The answer is: nothing, hence the adjective “impossible.”

However, I think that you’re incorrectly equating what the author says the people to whom he is writing ARE DOING, which is that they are failing to progress beyond the most basic principles of Christian doctrine, and what the author says they HAVE NOT YET DONE, which is that they have not yet fallen away. Although they are not progressing and are still babies in Christ even after a long time in the Faith, they are nevertheless still in Christ; they have not forsaken the Faith. The author’s concern seems to be that if the believers are not moving forward, which he is encouraging them to do, then there is a risk of them moving backward, the most extreme consequence of which is the possibility of actually “falling away” from the Faith itself.


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

But the writer is sure of better things about such a person who has fallen ...


Jim:

I disagree. The author is not saying that the people to whom he is writing the epistle have fallen away. He is saying that whereas they have failed to progress, they have not yet fallen away. He describes the “falling-away” experience as a danger, not as something that has occurred to the people to whom he is writing, hence the statement, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak (Hebrews 6:9, ASV).”

Neither is the author saying that there are yet good things in store for the person that he describes in Hebrews 6:4-8 as having “fallen away.” According to the author, there is nothing good in store for such a person, “whose end is to be burned (6:8).”


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

Quoting 1jim, "The fact that RENEWING TO REPENTANCE someone who has abandoned the faith is IMPOSSIBLE is likewise possible and true according to the author." This ... is as crooked a lie as the devil couldn't fabricate!


Jim:

It’s what the author of Hebrews says. If it’s a lie, then the author of Hebrews is the liar. I’m not misunderstanding what he wrote. You’re doing your best to twist what he wrote beyond any resemblance to the actual text in your effort to force it into conformity with what you prefer to believe.


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

There is ONLY ONE 'if'-clause, and that is 6a, "If they fall". So, if they who had been 'renewed' (when 'born again' by the Holy Spirit) should fall (in sin somehow), they cannot be renewed. It is impossible because they ARE born again - ARE 'renewed' persons already and once for all.


Jim:

There is no conditional sentence in Hebrews 6:4-6; there is no “if” (either “ei” or “ean” or “eanper”). There is only the statement that “it is impossible to renew again to repentance the ones” who do the seven actions described by the seven participles, one of these seven actions being to “have fallen away:”

Hebrews 6:4 For impossible (it is) the ones once having been enlightened, both having tasted the heavenly gift and having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and having tasted the beautiful word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 and having fallen away, again to renew to repentance, (the ones) crucifying to themselves the Son of God and disgracing

Neither is the author talking about falling into a particular sin in Hebrews 6:4-6. He is describing a person who literally abandons the Faith, who no longer believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is unbelief against which the author is warning the people to whom he is writing in Hebrews 3-6.


Gerhard Ebersoehn:

This is really word-for-word what the passage states: They CANNOT, "It is impossible". Why impossible? "For that would mean / "SEEING" / because / explained: They would to themselves crucify the Son of God again" It of course is an absolute absurdity -an absolute "impossibility"- He could be crucified again! Consequently then and inevitably, the implication is impossible! It is impossible the foundation could be laid again, or the man be renewed again. As if - as Nicodemus said - a man could enter the womb of his mother again!


Jim:

The author is not saying that the seven actions described by the seven participles in Hebrews 6:4-6 are what is impossible. He is saying that what is impossible is to renew again to repentance those who are described by those seven actions.

Neither is the author saying in Hebrews 6:1-3 that the laying again of the foundation is impossible. This is not an experiential foundation but a doctrinal foundation, which is comprised of the following doctrinal teachings: of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, of the teaching of baptisms, of both the laying of hands and the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. The author says that these same elementary doctrines of Christianity should not be rehashed again but that there should be forward progress to more advanced doctrinal issues. He says that he and his fellow workers in the Gospel will help the people to whom he is writing do this if the Lord allows (them to go there and do this).

Hebrews 5:12 For even owing to be teachers because of the time, again you have the need of someone to teach you the first principles of the word of God, and you have become having need of milk and not of solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes of milk (is) without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a child. 14 But solid food is of adults, who, because of use have the faculties exercised to a discerning both of good and of bad. 6:1 Therefore, having left the word of the first of Christ, we should be led to perfection, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, 2 of the teaching of baptisms, of both the laying of hands and the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we shall do if God allows. 4 For impossible (it is) the ones once having been enlightened, both having tasted the heavenly gift and having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and having tasted the beautiful word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 and having fallen away, again to renew to repentance, (the ones) crucifying to themselves the Son of God and disgracing

As I said earlier, the author encourages the people to whom he is writing to move forward from childhood to adulthood in the Faith (Hebrews 5:12 – 6:3), because he seems to be concerned that if they are not moving forward, then there is a risk of them moving backward, the most extreme consequence of which being to actually fall way from the Faith itself (Hebrews 6:4-6).


Jim