-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If I Could Lose My Salvation, I Would...
- Thread starter TCGreek
- Start date
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Deborah, you wrote:
Unfortunately, this is very bad misrepresentation of the predestinarian and once-saved-always-saved positions. Now, I don’t think you are intending to misrepresent us, but allow me to explain some things about these two positions.
First, these positions are not mutually exclusive. Many who do not believe in predestination (at least the Calvinist/Doctrines of Grace understanding of predestination) still believe in once-saved-always-saved (OSAS).
No good Calvinist would ever say that nothing is required on the part of man for salvation. A good Calvinist will affirm what the Bible affirms: 1. Man is sinful and unable to respond to God (Romans 3: 9-20); 2. Man is commanded to repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15; Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:1-5, etc.); 3. Man must be enabled by God to respond (John 3:3)
Calvinists certainly believe a redeemed life must bear the fruit of repentance. Here is a good and biblical example of what and how the Calvinist believes:
Look at Old Testament Israel. While in Egypt they were not required to “clean up their act” or follow God’s law before God would redeem them from slavery. Rather we see the biblical order expressed perfectly. God redeems His people (because of His promise to do so) and leads them into Sinai to give them the law. So, God redeems first and then, as an act of life-long worship, the redeemed person or persons (in the case of Israel) dedicate themselves to living by God’s law, in repentance and faith.
Never, however, would we say that we do not have to do anything. We must show the fruit of repentance and faith and if that fruit is not in evidence, it is possible and likely the person is not saved and never was.
As far as the OSAS argument is concerned, a similar argument applies. Anyone who would argue that you can come to Christ and then live like the world and still be saved is fooling themselves and anyone they teach this false “doctrine” to. Coming to Christ, by definition, means that you will live differently from the world. He is Lord and Savior; He cannot be one and not the other.
Please do not misrepresent our positions. I would encourage to study your opponent’s position more closely so you may make a better case for your own position.
Many blessings,
The Archangel
Unfortunately, this is very bad misrepresentation of the predestinarian and once-saved-always-saved positions. Now, I don’t think you are intending to misrepresent us, but allow me to explain some things about these two positions.
First, these positions are not mutually exclusive. Many who do not believe in predestination (at least the Calvinist/Doctrines of Grace understanding of predestination) still believe in once-saved-always-saved (OSAS).
No good Calvinist would ever say that nothing is required on the part of man for salvation. A good Calvinist will affirm what the Bible affirms: 1. Man is sinful and unable to respond to God (Romans 3: 9-20); 2. Man is commanded to repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15; Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:1-5, etc.); 3. Man must be enabled by God to respond (John 3:3)
Calvinists certainly believe a redeemed life must bear the fruit of repentance. Here is a good and biblical example of what and how the Calvinist believes:
Look at Old Testament Israel. While in Egypt they were not required to “clean up their act” or follow God’s law before God would redeem them from slavery. Rather we see the biblical order expressed perfectly. God redeems His people (because of His promise to do so) and leads them into Sinai to give them the law. So, God redeems first and then, as an act of life-long worship, the redeemed person or persons (in the case of Israel) dedicate themselves to living by God’s law, in repentance and faith.
Never, however, would we say that we do not have to do anything. We must show the fruit of repentance and faith and if that fruit is not in evidence, it is possible and likely the person is not saved and never was.
As far as the OSAS argument is concerned, a similar argument applies. Anyone who would argue that you can come to Christ and then live like the world and still be saved is fooling themselves and anyone they teach this false “doctrine” to. Coming to Christ, by definition, means that you will live differently from the world. He is Lord and Savior; He cannot be one and not the other.
Please do not misrepresent our positions. I would encourage to study your opponent’s position more closely so you may make a better case for your own position.
Many blessings,
The Archangel
Pilgrimer
Member
Hello Archangel,
>Unfortunately, this is very bad misrepresentation of the predestinarian and once-saved-always-saved positions.
Unfortunately, those are the arguments that have been put forth on these boards.
> . . .these positions are not mutually exclusive
No, they are mutually inclusive. Think about it: according to Eternal Security doctrine we can't do anything to lose our salvation. Right? Once saved, always saved. Why? Because our salvation does not depend on our own actions, but on God’s abilities. Right? Predestination is the flip side of that same idea.
1. Man is sinful and unable to respond to God (Romans 3: 9-20)
Perhaps that is where the Predestination and Eternal Security doctrines first stumble. That verse says there is no one who is righteous, no one who understands, no one who seeks God (quoting Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3). What those passages do not say is that no one can respond when God calls. In fact, salvation is predicated on each of us responding to the Gospel call to repentance, is it not?
2. Man is commanded to repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15; Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:1-5, etc.);
Agreed, repentance and faith are the “responses” to the Gospel that God requires for salvation.
3. Man must be enabled by God to respond (John 3:3 “Verily, verily, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”)
That verse in no way implies that man is incapable of responding to the Gospel. If anything, it underscores what I have been arguing, that those who of their own free will respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith are washed of their sins and made a fit dwelling place for the Spirit of God to enter in and raise them up from death to life that they might walk in the Kingdom of Heaven.
>Look at Old Testament Israel. While in Egypt they were not required to “clean up their act” or follow God’s law before God would redeem them from slavery.
I think you may need to tweak you view on that. God most certainly did require them to do something before he delivered them . . . to kill a lamb, spread it’s blood on the doorposts of their dwellings, to roast that lamb and prepare a meal, to gird themselves and put on their sandals and take their staff in hand in preparation for leaving, and sit down and partake of that Passover Lamb and Unleavened Bread.
In the same way, we must partake of the body of Christ to be delivered from our slavery to sin and raised to life in the spirit. (John 6:48-58)
In Christ,
Deborah
P.S. My apologies for the scrambled fonts.
>Unfortunately, this is very bad misrepresentation of the predestinarian and once-saved-always-saved positions.
Unfortunately, those are the arguments that have been put forth on these boards.
> . . .these positions are not mutually exclusive
No, they are mutually inclusive. Think about it: according to Eternal Security doctrine we can't do anything to lose our salvation. Right? Once saved, always saved. Why? Because our salvation does not depend on our own actions, but on God’s abilities. Right? Predestination is the flip side of that same idea.
1. Man is sinful and unable to respond to God (Romans 3: 9-20)
Perhaps that is where the Predestination and Eternal Security doctrines first stumble. That verse says there is no one who is righteous, no one who understands, no one who seeks God (quoting Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3). What those passages do not say is that no one can respond when God calls. In fact, salvation is predicated on each of us responding to the Gospel call to repentance, is it not?
2. Man is commanded to repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15; Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:1-5, etc.);
Agreed, repentance and faith are the “responses” to the Gospel that God requires for salvation.
3. Man must be enabled by God to respond (John 3:3 “Verily, verily, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”)
That verse in no way implies that man is incapable of responding to the Gospel. If anything, it underscores what I have been arguing, that those who of their own free will respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith are washed of their sins and made a fit dwelling place for the Spirit of God to enter in and raise them up from death to life that they might walk in the Kingdom of Heaven.
>Look at Old Testament Israel. While in Egypt they were not required to “clean up their act” or follow God’s law before God would redeem them from slavery.
I think you may need to tweak you view on that. God most certainly did require them to do something before he delivered them . . . to kill a lamb, spread it’s blood on the doorposts of their dwellings, to roast that lamb and prepare a meal, to gird themselves and put on their sandals and take their staff in hand in preparation for leaving, and sit down and partake of that Passover Lamb and Unleavened Bread.
In the same way, we must partake of the body of Christ to be delivered from our slavery to sin and raised to life in the spirit. (John 6:48-58)
In Christ,
Deborah
P.S. My apologies for the scrambled fonts.
Last edited by a moderator:
JustChristian
New Member
The Archangel said:
I agree with what you're saying but I don't see it represented very often on this board.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Deborah,
Not to worry about the fonts and stuff. On the previous post I had a devil of a time trying to get the stupid thing to quote your post correctly—it would separate parts, that I didn’t want separated, into different quotes. VERY FRUSTRATING!!!!! (and it is happening again on this post!--in fact, my computer is about to go through the window because the stupid thing insists on seperating the quotes AGAIN. It is a good thing it is my wife's computer!)
Thanks for your response; let me address some issues:
You wrote
Not necessarily. Your position, that salvation is losable, seems to put the proverbial cart before the horse. Predestinarians do not do this. To us salvation is not a reward for good works or a lifetime of good works. Rather, the salvation that God, through Christ, accomplishes, imparts, and ensures is responded to in good works in response to what God has done. If the evidence of salvation (good works, Christian living, etc.) is not present, it is likely the person is not a true believer and is therefore not destined for salvation anyway.
I think a major problem in Baptist life today is that virtually no one (except for churches that truly follow the so-called “9 Marks model” espoused by Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC.) seeks to ensure new church members, candidates for baptism, etc are actually true believers before they are baptized and/or granted church membership. The common Baptist practices seen in most churches give many lost hell-bound people a false sense of security, which they should not have. However, true believers (and I would add these are believers who seek to rededicate their lives on a daily basis) will be saved regardless of their sins. I would also add, as the reformers did, that true believers may, from time to time, fall into sin and even gross sin, but their lives will be marked with consistent and biblical repentance. To put this another way, they will never completely fall away and that is evidence of a true conversion wrought by God.
You continued:
Predestinarians do not say that man does not need to respond. Certainly man must respond to the gospel—that response is both repentance and faith. In fact, predestinarians say that when God calls His elect, they do respond, we call it “Irresistible Grace.”
The context of the passage, however, is clear. No one does these things, seeking God, understands, etc. because it is an inherent inablility because we are, by nature, sinners and at enmity with God.
Since we agreed on point “2” I won’t address it. You continued:
This passage is much easier to understand in Greek. The verb for “born” is gennao. The form that appears in this verse is gennethe ; it is 3rd person, singular, aorist, passive , subjunctive.
In Greek the passive voice means that the subject cannot, by definition, act upon himself. The action is from outside. So, in essence, Jesus is telling Nicodemus this “Unless you are born-ed again (from above, by God Himself), you cannot see the Kingdom.”
Being born again is a prerequisite, but, as this verse shows, it is not something you can do for yourself. This is why predestinarians commonly say regeneration (which this clearly is) must precede redemption.
You continued:
God promised and began the Exodus before the Passover was instituted. Further, the Passover was the final blow to the Egyptian pantheon, it was not the “cost” of delivery of slavery. The people would have still been delivered, this much God guaranteed. However, those who did not place the blood over the door would have been short one firstborn of everything.
Many Blessings,
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
Not to worry about the fonts and stuff. On the previous post I had a devil of a time trying to get the stupid thing to quote your post correctly—it would separate parts, that I didn’t want separated, into different quotes. VERY FRUSTRATING!!!!! (and it is happening again on this post!--in fact, my computer is about to go through the window because the stupid thing insists on seperating the quotes AGAIN. It is a good thing it is my wife's computer!)
Thanks for your response; let me address some issues:
You wrote
Not necessarily. Your position, that salvation is losable, seems to put the proverbial cart before the horse. Predestinarians do not do this. To us salvation is not a reward for good works or a lifetime of good works. Rather, the salvation that God, through Christ, accomplishes, imparts, and ensures is responded to in good works in response to what God has done. If the evidence of salvation (good works, Christian living, etc.) is not present, it is likely the person is not a true believer and is therefore not destined for salvation anyway.
I think a major problem in Baptist life today is that virtually no one (except for churches that truly follow the so-called “9 Marks model” espoused by Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC.) seeks to ensure new church members, candidates for baptism, etc are actually true believers before they are baptized and/or granted church membership. The common Baptist practices seen in most churches give many lost hell-bound people a false sense of security, which they should not have. However, true believers (and I would add these are believers who seek to rededicate their lives on a daily basis) will be saved regardless of their sins. I would also add, as the reformers did, that true believers may, from time to time, fall into sin and even gross sin, but their lives will be marked with consistent and biblical repentance. To put this another way, they will never completely fall away and that is evidence of a true conversion wrought by God.
You continued:
Predestinarians do not say that man does not need to respond. Certainly man must respond to the gospel—that response is both repentance and faith. In fact, predestinarians say that when God calls His elect, they do respond, we call it “Irresistible Grace.”
The context of the passage, however, is clear. No one does these things, seeking God, understands, etc. because it is an inherent inablility because we are, by nature, sinners and at enmity with God.
Since we agreed on point “2” I won’t address it. You continued:
Unfortunately, your response shows a basic misunderstanding of the text. Now, you are probably ignorant of the problem, likely by no fault of your own. Let me explain.
This passage is much easier to understand in Greek. The verb for “born” is gennao. The form that appears in this verse is gennethe ; it is 3rd person, singular, aorist, passive , subjunctive.
In Greek the passive voice means that the subject cannot, by definition, act upon himself. The action is from outside. So, in essence, Jesus is telling Nicodemus this “Unless you are born-ed again (from above, by God Himself), you cannot see the Kingdom.”
Being born again is a prerequisite, but, as this verse shows, it is not something you can do for yourself. This is why predestinarians commonly say regeneration (which this clearly is) must precede redemption.
You continued:
No. Their observance of the Passover was not the contingency for their deliverance. Rather, the Passover was the substitution for the first-born. Which foreshadows the necessity, under the Law, to redeem the first born by a sacrifice—a lamb or, for the poor, two turtledoves.
God promised and began the Exodus before the Passover was instituted. Further, the Passover was the final blow to the Egyptian pantheon, it was not the “cost” of delivery of slavery. The people would have still been delivered, this much God guaranteed. However, those who did not place the blood over the door would have been short one firstborn of everything.
Many Blessings,
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
Hi Archangel,
You stated,
This below proves my point.
From Wescot and Hort's greek N.T.
Joh 3:3 απεκριθη611 V-ADI-3S ιησους2424 N-NSM και2532 CONJ ειπεν3004 V-2AAI-3S αυτω846 P-DSM αμην281 HEB αμην281 HEB λεγω3004 V-PAI-1S σοι4771 P-2DS εαν1437 COND μη3361 PRT-N τις5100 X-NSM γεννηθη1080 V-APS-3S ανωθεν509 ADV ου3756 PRT-N δυναται1410 V-PNI-3S ιδειν3708 V-2AAN την3588 T-ASF βασιλειαν932 N-ASF του3588 T-GSM θεου2316 N-GSM
From Byzantine Greek N.T.
Joh 3:3 απεκριθη611 V-ADI-3S ο3588 T-NSM ιησους2424 N-NSM και2532 CONJ ειπεν3004 V-2AAI-3S αυτω846 P-DSM αμην281 HEB αμην281 HEB λεγω3004 V-PAI-1S σοι4771 P-2DS εαν1437 COND μη3361 PRT-N τις5100 X-NSMγεννηθη1080 V-APS-3S ανωθεν509 ADV ου3756 PRT-N δυναται1410 V-PNI-3S ιδειν3708 V-2AAN την3588 T-ASF βασιλειαν932 N-ASF του3588 T-GSM θεου2316 N-GSM
MB
You stated,
I don't have any idea which Greek your speaking of but both the Byzantine and the Alexandrian are in agreement and "gennaō" Is the spelling used in Jn 3:3. Maybe there are other greek text's I'm not aware of but it just seems strange that so many in the translation bussiness have gotten it wrong and you have it right.
This below proves my point.
From Wescot and Hort's greek N.T.
Joh 3:3 απεκριθη611 V-ADI-3S ιησους2424 N-NSM και2532 CONJ ειπεν3004 V-2AAI-3S αυτω846 P-DSM αμην281 HEB αμην281 HEB λεγω3004 V-PAI-1S σοι4771 P-2DS εαν1437 COND μη3361 PRT-N τις5100 X-NSM γεννηθη1080 V-APS-3S ανωθεν509 ADV ου3756 PRT-N δυναται1410 V-PNI-3S ιδειν3708 V-2AAN την3588 T-ASF βασιλειαν932 N-ASF του3588 T-GSM θεου2316 N-GSM
From Byzantine Greek N.T.
Joh 3:3 απεκριθη611 V-ADI-3S ο3588 T-NSM ιησους2424 N-NSM και2532 CONJ ειπεν3004 V-2AAI-3S αυτω846 P-DSM αμην281 HEB αμην281 HEB λεγω3004 V-PAI-1S σοι4771 P-2DS εαν1437 COND μη3361 PRT-N τις5100 X-NSMγεννηθη1080 V-APS-3S ανωθεν509 ADV ου3756 PRT-N δυναται1410 V-PNI-3S ιδειν3708 V-2AAN την3588 T-ASF βασιλειαν932 N-ASF του3588 T-GSM θεου2316 N-GSM
MB
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
MB,
Ok, I can’t believe I’m reading this. You have supported my point—perhaps you didn’t read my post clearly or perhaps you misunderstood me, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been misunderstood and I’m trying to make my language clearer.
My text says exactly what you posted. I can’t figure out how to make my Greek fonts transfer to the BB post, otherwise I’d write the Greek examples in Greek.
Allow me to clarify:
Gennao is the lexical form of the verb it is Present, Active, Indicative, 1st Person Singular. The form appearing in the text of John 3:3 is gennethe , that is gamma, epsilon, nu, nu, eta, theta, eta.
Because of the theta-eta case ending, the verb is Aorist, Passive , Subjunctive,
3rd Person Singular
If memory serves, the morphology goes something like this: the omega has been dropped off of the lexical form to accommodate the Aorist Passive ending. The alpha, originally between the nu and the omega, lengthens to eta to accommodate the addition of the theta-eta ending.
Anyway, my text says what your text says and the form is Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive which means the subject, by definition, cannot act upon himself or herself—the action comes from outside the subject.
I hope that helps to clarify.
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
Ok, I can’t believe I’m reading this. You have supported my point—perhaps you didn’t read my post clearly or perhaps you misunderstood me, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been misunderstood and I’m trying to make my language clearer.
My text says exactly what you posted. I can’t figure out how to make my Greek fonts transfer to the BB post, otherwise I’d write the Greek examples in Greek.
Allow me to clarify:
Gennao is the lexical form of the verb it is Present, Active, Indicative, 1st Person Singular. The form appearing in the text of John 3:3 is gennethe , that is gamma, epsilon, nu, nu, eta, theta, eta.
Because of the theta-eta case ending, the verb is Aorist, Passive , Subjunctive,
3rd Person Singular
If memory serves, the morphology goes something like this: the omega has been dropped off of the lexical form to accommodate the Aorist Passive ending. The alpha, originally between the nu and the omega, lengthens to eta to accommodate the addition of the theta-eta ending.
Anyway, my text says what your text says and the form is Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive which means the subject, by definition, cannot act upon himself or herself—the action comes from outside the subject.
I hope that helps to clarify.
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
Hi Archangel,
This is what you said isn't it?
MB
This is what you said isn't it?
If so you are mistaken "gennaō" is what appears in both Greeks N.T. Gennethe doesn't appear in Jn 3:3 I make no claims of being a Greek expert or, that I even understand that much of it, but I do know that your statement isn't right. Everybody makes mistakes.
Cut and paste it from your Bible program.
MB
Hi Archangel.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
However man is not saved against his own will. Which means man is willing. The man is willing because the man has been convinced of the truth by the Holy spirit. This all happens before regeneration. There is no such thing ever taught in scripture of man being disabled by the sins of Adam. Man is Spiritually dead but spiritual death is not any thing like a physcial death any more than the saved being dead to sin is. The saved can respond to sin even though they are susposed to be dead to it and the sinner certainly can respond to the gospel. No one is left out in our choosing because Christ died for the whole world. If man is lost it's because of His choice to rebel against God. There is no other choice because if we do not rebel we will be saved.
MB
We do not save our selves this is true. Salvation is all of God.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
However man is not saved against his own will. Which means man is willing. The man is willing because the man has been convinced of the truth by the Holy spirit. This all happens before regeneration. There is no such thing ever taught in scripture of man being disabled by the sins of Adam. Man is Spiritually dead but spiritual death is not any thing like a physcial death any more than the saved being dead to sin is. The saved can respond to sin even though they are susposed to be dead to it and the sinner certainly can respond to the gospel. No one is left out in our choosing because Christ died for the whole world. If man is lost it's because of His choice to rebel against God. There is no other choice because if we do not rebel we will be saved.
MB
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
MB,
I have to apologize up front; some of the things I write will sound very derogatory and biting—please believe me, I DO NOT INTEND THEM TO BE SO. However, I can think of no other way to say them, and that is a “Shame on me” moment. Having said that, let me reply to your most recent post:
You said: Cut and paste it from your Bible program.”
Unfortunately, I wasn’t using a Bible program, per se. But, I will try to cut and paste from your previous post, that may work.
You also said: “I make no claims of being a Greek expert or, that I even understand that much of it…. Unfortunately, this is obvious to me. Now, I am not an expert either, but I have taken and passed two seminary Greek classes (and I did quite well, I might add).
Now, word as it appears in both passages that you posted is: [FONT="]γεννηθη[/FONT]. That is gennethe the Aorist, Passive , Subjunctive, 3rd Person Singular form of gennao
I can’t do the font thing…so let me explain in transliteration.
Gennao is the lexical form. It is the Present, Active, Indicative, 1st Person Singular form and by itself it is translated “I Give Birth” This form does not appear in the passage.
Gennethe ([FONT="]γεννηθη[/FONT]), which is the very form that appears in the very text you posted is Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive, 3rd Person Singular and by itself it means something like he/she/it was given birth to.
Again, the Passive voice means the subject does not perform the action but is acted upon. Obviously one does not give birth to themselves. Humans are given birth to by their mothers and the verbal action of birth is passive for the subject, the baby, does not do this for himself or herself. This is what the text is conveying.
Now, you can say I’m wrong until you are blue-in-the-face. But, that will not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
Please do take sometime to understand what you are saying. For anyone who knows Greek, seeing you statement that “gennao” is the form appearing in the verse will be laughable since the inflected form “gennethe” is the form that actually appears. Perhaps it is that you do not read Greek or maybe, in your Bible software, you are seeing “gennao” as the Lexical form and you do not realize a different form, an inflected form, actually appears in the very text you posted. Any good Bible program will list the Lexical form for it is the “base” form where we get the definition. Hebrew, on the other hand is different—the lexical form is the 3rd Person, Common, Masculine. That really breaks your brain trying to do lexical work between the two languages!
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
I have to apologize up front; some of the things I write will sound very derogatory and biting—please believe me, I DO NOT INTEND THEM TO BE SO. However, I can think of no other way to say them, and that is a “Shame on me” moment. Having said that, let me reply to your most recent post:
You said: Cut and paste it from your Bible program.”
Unfortunately, I wasn’t using a Bible program, per se. But, I will try to cut and paste from your previous post, that may work.
You also said: “I make no claims of being a Greek expert or, that I even understand that much of it…. Unfortunately, this is obvious to me. Now, I am not an expert either, but I have taken and passed two seminary Greek classes (and I did quite well, I might add).
I am not mistaken; my statement is absolutely correct; and everyone does make mistakes, but in this case, I have not. Also, why do you assume I’ve made the mistake, why do you not seek out someone who knows more Greek than you to verify my claim? That sounds rather un-intellectual to me.
Now, word as it appears in both passages that you posted is: [FONT="]γεννηθη[/FONT]. That is gennethe the Aorist, Passive , Subjunctive, 3rd Person Singular form of gennao
I can’t do the font thing…so let me explain in transliteration.
Gennao is the lexical form. It is the Present, Active, Indicative, 1st Person Singular form and by itself it is translated “I Give Birth” This form does not appear in the passage.
Gennethe ([FONT="]γεννηθη[/FONT]), which is the very form that appears in the very text you posted is Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive, 3rd Person Singular and by itself it means something like he/she/it was given birth to.
Again, the Passive voice means the subject does not perform the action but is acted upon. Obviously one does not give birth to themselves. Humans are given birth to by their mothers and the verbal action of birth is passive for the subject, the baby, does not do this for himself or herself. This is what the text is conveying.
Now, you can say I’m wrong until you are blue-in-the-face. But, that will not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
Please do take sometime to understand what you are saying. For anyone who knows Greek, seeing you statement that “gennao” is the form appearing in the verse will be laughable since the inflected form “gennethe” is the form that actually appears. Perhaps it is that you do not read Greek or maybe, in your Bible software, you are seeing “gennao” as the Lexical form and you do not realize a different form, an inflected form, actually appears in the very text you posted. Any good Bible program will list the Lexical form for it is the “base” form where we get the definition. Hebrew, on the other hand is different—the lexical form is the 3rd Person, Common, Masculine. That really breaks your brain trying to do lexical work between the two languages!
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
MB said:
MB,
1. You claim that you're not a Greek expert, but you continue to ignore a basic fact. What Greek NT are you looking at?
2. There are no variant readings of γεννηθη and this is what appears in John 3:3.
3. I know a little Greek and γεννηθη is what appears in John 3:3.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
MB.
You wrote:
Regeneration precedes redemption (again, John 3:3 shows this). And if you don’t think this is the case, explain Abraham. While he was Abram and living in Ur, he was an idol worshiper. God called to him and called him out of his idolatry. Also, explain the Nation of Israel. It is not like God went to the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Philistines, or the Egyptians and offered them His promises of redemption and they rejected Him so that left Him to choose Israel. No, God chose Israel, through Abraham, they were willing but it was clearly God’s sovereign choice—before they did anything to demonstrate faith in Him.
Certainly man is disabled by the sin of Adam. In fact, Adam’s sin killed us all, physically and spiritually.
Romans 5:12-21 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
[15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. [17] If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. [20] Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, [21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now this is a long passage and time does not afford me the opportunity to get heavily into it. But there are some clear things:
1. Adam’s sin infects us all and because of it we all die. In short we are held guilty, in a legal sense, for Adam’s sin.
Adam Sinned and passed death (both physical and spiritual) to us all. Now, some will say (perhaps you will also say) that only physical death passed and/or the propensity to sin was passed, but not actual guilt. Here is why those two things are not right: People died between Adam and the Law. This could not have been due to sin, since knowledge of sin comes through the law (Romans 3:20) and until Sinai there was no law.
So, with no law, there was no sin and yet people were still dying. Why? Because they were held guilty for Adam’s sin (after all, the wages of sin is death) and this is evidenced by the many deaths that occurred between Adam and Sinai.
2. If Adam is a type of Christ, which the text clearly says he is, and if Christ took our sin and imputed his righteousness to us, which the Bible clearly states He did, then it must be the case that Adam’s sin was imputed to all humans just as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to Christians. (This is what is known as “Federal Headship”—Adam acted as our representative just as Christ acted as our representative.)
That should provide us plenty to talk about for the next few posts.
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
You wrote:
I agree, man is not saved against his will. God must change the man (that’s the point of John 3:3). It is a heart issue. The heart of stone must be replaced (by God) by a heart of flesh (see Ezek 36).
Regeneration precedes redemption (again, John 3:3 shows this). And if you don’t think this is the case, explain Abraham. While he was Abram and living in Ur, he was an idol worshiper. God called to him and called him out of his idolatry. Also, explain the Nation of Israel. It is not like God went to the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Philistines, or the Egyptians and offered them His promises of redemption and they rejected Him so that left Him to choose Israel. No, God chose Israel, through Abraham, they were willing but it was clearly God’s sovereign choice—before they did anything to demonstrate faith in Him.
Certainly man is disabled by the sin of Adam. In fact, Adam’s sin killed us all, physically and spiritually.
Romans 5:12-21 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
[15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. [17] If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. [20] Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, [21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now this is a long passage and time does not afford me the opportunity to get heavily into it. But there are some clear things:
1. Adam’s sin infects us all and because of it we all die. In short we are held guilty, in a legal sense, for Adam’s sin.
Adam Sinned and passed death (both physical and spiritual) to us all. Now, some will say (perhaps you will also say) that only physical death passed and/or the propensity to sin was passed, but not actual guilt. Here is why those two things are not right: People died between Adam and the Law. This could not have been due to sin, since knowledge of sin comes through the law (Romans 3:20) and until Sinai there was no law.
So, with no law, there was no sin and yet people were still dying. Why? Because they were held guilty for Adam’s sin (after all, the wages of sin is death) and this is evidenced by the many deaths that occurred between Adam and Sinai.
2. If Adam is a type of Christ, which the text clearly says he is, and if Christ took our sin and imputed his righteousness to us, which the Bible clearly states He did, then it must be the case that Adam’s sin was imputed to all humans just as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to Christians. (This is what is known as “Federal Headship”—Adam acted as our representative just as Christ acted as our representative.)
That should provide us plenty to talk about for the next few posts.
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
Pilgrimer
Member
>Not necessarily. Your position, that salvation is losable, seems to put the proverbial cart before the horse. Predestinarians do not do this. To us salvation is not a reward for good works or a lifetime of good works.
Salvation is not a reward for good works in my view either, and I never said they were, nor is that even at issue. But you seem to jump to the conclusion that since salvation is not a reward for good works that it’s not a reward at all. I disagree. Salvation is the reward for faith. Look up all the verses just in the New Testament about all the “rewards” that the righteous receive.
>If the evidence of salvation (good works, Christian living, etc.) is not present, it is likely the person is not a true believer and is therefore not destined for salvation anyway.
. . . you’ll know them by their fruits . . . I agree
But why are we talking about works since we agree that works have nothing to do with salvation in the first place? None of this addresses the question . . . can we lose our salvation by forsaking Christ?
>I think a major problem in Baptist life today is that virtually no one (except for churches that truly follow the so-called “9 Marks model” espoused by Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC.) seeks to ensure new church members, candidates for baptism, etc are actually true believers before they are baptized and/or granted church membership.
Are you serious? And who will sit on this council and what measure will they use to judge a man’s heart? Perhaps we should leave that work to the Holy Ghost to decide who is and who is not a “true believer.” Unless of course you are only suggesting that we should insist a new candidate for baptism receive some training in the basics of the Gospel, now that I certainly agree with, and I received just such training in my little Baptist church 27 years ago, but it is not for us to decide who “truly believes” before they can receive baptism. It’s the Spirit that places a person in the body of Christ, not us. We can not know someone’s heart.
>The common Baptist practices seen in most churches give many lost hell-bound people a false sense of security, which they should not have.
I don’t think it’s the common Baptist practice in churches that gives lost hell-bound people a false sense of security, it’s their own sin that does that. If they can sit in church and hear the Word and attend Sunday school and hear the Word and sit in Bible study and hear the Word and not be convicted, what “practice” can the church come up with that will open their eyes? Provided of course that the poor lost hell-bound sinner is attending a church where the Word is preached and taught and studied! And if they are . . . maybe there is something going on their heart that you are simply not privy to that has them going to church?
>However, true believers (and I would add these are believers who seek to rededicate their lives on a daily basis) will be saved regardless of their sins.
Where did that come from? Nothing you said lead up to or made a case for your conclusion that a true believer will be saved no matter what.
>I would also add, as the reformers did, that true believers may, from time to time, fall into sin and even gross sin, but their lives will be marked with consistent and biblical repentance. To put this another way, they will never completely fall away and that is evidence of a true conversion wrought by God.
Hm, and I thought we would know them by their fruit. Don’t get me wrong, I know all too well how easily we can fall into sin, but at the same time the Christian life is a progressive walk in which the presence of the Spirit will manifest in the spiritual growth and maturity of the believer as we are gradually conformed to the image of Christ, and that is the evidence of a true conversion, not crocodile tears. I know I’m being a little facetious there, but jeesh.
But maybe I’m nit-picking here, because again, none of this answers or even applies to whether or not a true believer can forsake Christ.
>Predestinarians do not say that man does not need to respond. Certainly man must respond to the gospel
That’s what I said and you countered with “1. Man is sinful and unable to respond to God.”
>that response is both repentance and faith. In fact, predestinarians say that when God calls His elect, they do respond, we call it “Irresistible Grace.”
God doesn’t just call the elect. The Gospel is for all men and God calls all men to repentance and faith. The Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t good news just for a privileged few, it is good news for ordinary old sinners just like me, and in God’s plan of salvation, as I understand it, anyone can be saved!
You said:
>3. Man must be enabled by God to respond (John 3:3)
You will have a really hard row to hoe if you are going to convince me that it is the new birth that “enables” a sinner to respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith. That is getting the cart before the horse. All men are able to respond to the Gospel. The problem is that most men do not respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith but rather with shame and fear and a myriad of other feelings that run through them and they run from the light cause they don’t want to have to confront and deal with their sins, they enjoy them and would just rather God leave them to enjoy them in peace. Some people actually become angry! But everyone responds to the Gospel, one way or the other.
>Unfortunately, your response shows a basic misunderstanding of the text. Now, you are probably ignorant of the problem, likely by no fault of your own. Let me explain.
No comment.
>This passage is much easier to understand in Greek
Greek or English, the meaning is the same and it doesn’t mean that one must be born again before he can respond to the Gospel. Indeed, a man must first respond to the Gospel in repentance and faith before he can be born again. And I would love to get into the mechanics of salvation, it is the area of doctrine that I am most at home.
>Being born again is a prerequisite, but, as this verse shows, it is not something you can do for yourself. This is why predestinarians commonly say regeneration (which this clearly is) must precede redemption.
Then I have another problem with predestination, because my understanding of the Gospel is that one must first repent and receive the atoning power of the blood of Christ which cleanses us from sin before we are fit for the Spirit of God to indwell us (the baptism of the Holy Ghost or new birth). God does not come down to dwell in his tabernacle until it is first cleansed by the blood of atonement. That’s why under the former covenant the holy house had to first be cleansed with the sprinkling of blood before the Presence of God came down.
My deepest apologies for splitting this but it was too long for one post.
Continued . . .
Salvation is not a reward for good works in my view either, and I never said they were, nor is that even at issue. But you seem to jump to the conclusion that since salvation is not a reward for good works that it’s not a reward at all. I disagree. Salvation is the reward for faith. Look up all the verses just in the New Testament about all the “rewards” that the righteous receive.
>If the evidence of salvation (good works, Christian living, etc.) is not present, it is likely the person is not a true believer and is therefore not destined for salvation anyway.
. . . you’ll know them by their fruits . . . I agree
But why are we talking about works since we agree that works have nothing to do with salvation in the first place? None of this addresses the question . . . can we lose our salvation by forsaking Christ?
>I think a major problem in Baptist life today is that virtually no one (except for churches that truly follow the so-called “9 Marks model” espoused by Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC.) seeks to ensure new church members, candidates for baptism, etc are actually true believers before they are baptized and/or granted church membership.
Are you serious? And who will sit on this council and what measure will they use to judge a man’s heart? Perhaps we should leave that work to the Holy Ghost to decide who is and who is not a “true believer.” Unless of course you are only suggesting that we should insist a new candidate for baptism receive some training in the basics of the Gospel, now that I certainly agree with, and I received just such training in my little Baptist church 27 years ago, but it is not for us to decide who “truly believes” before they can receive baptism. It’s the Spirit that places a person in the body of Christ, not us. We can not know someone’s heart.
>The common Baptist practices seen in most churches give many lost hell-bound people a false sense of security, which they should not have.
I don’t think it’s the common Baptist practice in churches that gives lost hell-bound people a false sense of security, it’s their own sin that does that. If they can sit in church and hear the Word and attend Sunday school and hear the Word and sit in Bible study and hear the Word and not be convicted, what “practice” can the church come up with that will open their eyes? Provided of course that the poor lost hell-bound sinner is attending a church where the Word is preached and taught and studied! And if they are . . . maybe there is something going on their heart that you are simply not privy to that has them going to church?
>However, true believers (and I would add these are believers who seek to rededicate their lives on a daily basis) will be saved regardless of their sins.
Where did that come from? Nothing you said lead up to or made a case for your conclusion that a true believer will be saved no matter what.
>I would also add, as the reformers did, that true believers may, from time to time, fall into sin and even gross sin, but their lives will be marked with consistent and biblical repentance. To put this another way, they will never completely fall away and that is evidence of a true conversion wrought by God.
Hm, and I thought we would know them by their fruit. Don’t get me wrong, I know all too well how easily we can fall into sin, but at the same time the Christian life is a progressive walk in which the presence of the Spirit will manifest in the spiritual growth and maturity of the believer as we are gradually conformed to the image of Christ, and that is the evidence of a true conversion, not crocodile tears. I know I’m being a little facetious there, but jeesh.
But maybe I’m nit-picking here, because again, none of this answers or even applies to whether or not a true believer can forsake Christ.
>Predestinarians do not say that man does not need to respond. Certainly man must respond to the gospel
That’s what I said and you countered with “1. Man is sinful and unable to respond to God.”
>that response is both repentance and faith. In fact, predestinarians say that when God calls His elect, they do respond, we call it “Irresistible Grace.”
God doesn’t just call the elect. The Gospel is for all men and God calls all men to repentance and faith. The Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t good news just for a privileged few, it is good news for ordinary old sinners just like me, and in God’s plan of salvation, as I understand it, anyone can be saved!
You said:
>3. Man must be enabled by God to respond (John 3:3)
You will have a really hard row to hoe if you are going to convince me that it is the new birth that “enables” a sinner to respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith. That is getting the cart before the horse. All men are able to respond to the Gospel. The problem is that most men do not respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith but rather with shame and fear and a myriad of other feelings that run through them and they run from the light cause they don’t want to have to confront and deal with their sins, they enjoy them and would just rather God leave them to enjoy them in peace. Some people actually become angry! But everyone responds to the Gospel, one way or the other.
>Unfortunately, your response shows a basic misunderstanding of the text. Now, you are probably ignorant of the problem, likely by no fault of your own. Let me explain.
No comment.
>This passage is much easier to understand in Greek
Greek or English, the meaning is the same and it doesn’t mean that one must be born again before he can respond to the Gospel. Indeed, a man must first respond to the Gospel in repentance and faith before he can be born again. And I would love to get into the mechanics of salvation, it is the area of doctrine that I am most at home.
>Being born again is a prerequisite, but, as this verse shows, it is not something you can do for yourself. This is why predestinarians commonly say regeneration (which this clearly is) must precede redemption.
Then I have another problem with predestination, because my understanding of the Gospel is that one must first repent and receive the atoning power of the blood of Christ which cleanses us from sin before we are fit for the Spirit of God to indwell us (the baptism of the Holy Ghost or new birth). God does not come down to dwell in his tabernacle until it is first cleansed by the blood of atonement. That’s why under the former covenant the holy house had to first be cleansed with the sprinkling of blood before the Presence of God came down.
My deepest apologies for splitting this but it was too long for one post.
Continued . . .
Last edited by a moderator:
...but Christ's righteousness is not imputed to man automatically as Adam's is claimed. I agree it is in like manner...Christ's righteousness is imputed to us through participating in His death, burial and resurrection, while sin is imputed to us in the same manner Adam's was...through disobedience to God's Law (sinning). I believe the sin nature is automatically passed on to all, but not the guilt.
Pilgrimer
Member
Continued from previous
>No. Their observance of the Passover was not the contingency for their deliverance.
Never said it was, but it was certainly the contingency for escaping the judgment and living to take part in the deliverance.
>God promised and began the Exodus before the Passover was instituted.
Your point is . . . ?
>Further, the Passover was . . . not the “cost” of delivery of slavery.
You want to think about that some more? The “Lamb” was not the “cost” for the “deliverance”?
>However, those who did not place the blood over the door would have been short one firstborn of everything.
Let me see if I can put this together . . . under the Old Covenant, the firstborn was the heir . . . but if the heir of the promise was not covered by the blood . . . he would die and never see God’s deliverance. And even those who were covered by the blood and were delivered from slavery, if they did not continue in faith to follow God, perished in the wilderness and never saw the land God also “guaranteed” to give to them.
The lesson from all this to my mind is that being chosen by God does not guarantee deliverance from judgment or inheritance of the promises.
In Christ,
Deborah
>No. Their observance of the Passover was not the contingency for their deliverance.
Never said it was, but it was certainly the contingency for escaping the judgment and living to take part in the deliverance.
>God promised and began the Exodus before the Passover was instituted.
Your point is . . . ?
>Further, the Passover was . . . not the “cost” of delivery of slavery.
You want to think about that some more? The “Lamb” was not the “cost” for the “deliverance”?
>However, those who did not place the blood over the door would have been short one firstborn of everything.
Let me see if I can put this together . . . under the Old Covenant, the firstborn was the heir . . . but if the heir of the promise was not covered by the blood . . . he would die and never see God’s deliverance. And even those who were covered by the blood and were delivered from slavery, if they did not continue in faith to follow God, perished in the wilderness and never saw the land God also “guaranteed” to give to them.
The lesson from all this to my mind is that being chosen by God does not guarantee deliverance from judgment or inheritance of the promises.
In Christ,
Deborah
Pilgrimer
Member
P. S.
I realized that all my previous comments rather begged the question . . . if we cannot count on being "the chosen" to guarantee our deliverance from judgment and inheritance of the promises, then what does guarantee our salvation?
And an old hymn I learned in the Baptist Church when I was a little girl came to my mind, and it answers that most ultimtely important question far better than I can so I put together a video clip just in case anyone might be interested in what a true free willer counts on for salvation . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtmuAtQmyuEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRJHKzU_t1M
The grace, mercy and peace of God be with you all . . .
. . . In Christ,
Deborah ~
I realized that all my previous comments rather begged the question . . . if we cannot count on being "the chosen" to guarantee our deliverance from judgment and inheritance of the promises, then what does guarantee our salvation?
And an old hymn I learned in the Baptist Church when I was a little girl came to my mind, and it answers that most ultimtely important question far better than I can so I put together a video clip just in case anyone might be interested in what a true free willer counts on for salvation . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtmuAtQmyuEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRJHKzU_t1M
The grace, mercy and peace of God be with you all . . .
. . . In Christ,
Deborah ~
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Archangel,
Take a good look at the Strong's reference numbers and look up what is referenced. This is what I'm saying they say the Greek lexicons says this word is "gennaō". You say it isn't.
In your next post you said,
Reformers want to claim that man cannot understand or believe with out regeneration when we were never disabled to begin with. IOW's total depravity as reformers understand it is never taught in scripture either. Man doesn't come to God on his own because man doesn't know God. Man needs to be told about God before he can have any desire to come to God. When man hears the gospel he either listens to it or not. There is no such thing as can't. It's a matter of whether or not the man is willing to come to the light. Man doesn't choose God we both agree on that. God chose us. Jn 15:16.
The argument you put forth because of the word "born" is the bases of your claim. Changing it's meaning to make it fit theology is what I see here. Even if what you have to say about it was true, it still would not disprove the rest of the gospel which would disagree with being made new first in order to understand.
You said,
None of this proves that man is unable to respond to the gospel or the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Man comes to God because He is drawn to Christ. Man receives Salvation as a gift. Man receives faith as a gift. man is convinced, man is convicted and it's all because of God. All men are dealt a measure of faith and this faith can get man this far. However it isn't mans faith that saves the man. We believe,,,, that we "might", be saved, by the Faith of Jesus Christ. Gal 2:16. The fact that we believe isn't because it's something we've done but because it's something God has done. Our choice isn't to choose God or His Son but, to choose to rebel.
MB
I hope you'll excuse my ignorance. My concern is that what you say doesn't agree with Thayer's or Strong's definitions and reading of the same word.
Take a good look at the Strong's reference numbers and look up what is referenced. This is what I'm saying they say the Greek lexicons says this word is "gennaō". You say it isn't.
Then your saying that both Thayers and Strongs got it wrong. They said the word is just as I've said as"gennaoThayer'sStrong's̄"
In your next post you said,
I agree that God does in deed change the man but not by the means in which you believe. Regeneration for all intents and purposes is being made new or, being saved. We are not saved before we believe. No such doctrine is with in scripture.
Reformers want to claim that man cannot understand or believe with out regeneration when we were never disabled to begin with. IOW's total depravity as reformers understand it is never taught in scripture either. Man doesn't come to God on his own because man doesn't know God. Man needs to be told about God before he can have any desire to come to God. When man hears the gospel he either listens to it or not. There is no such thing as can't. It's a matter of whether or not the man is willing to come to the light. Man doesn't choose God we both agree on that. God chose us. Jn 15:16.
The argument you put forth because of the word "born" is the bases of your claim. Changing it's meaning to make it fit theology is what I see here. Even if what you have to say about it was true, it still would not disprove the rest of the gospel which would disagree with being made new first in order to understand.
You said,
We are all born in sin and we all suffer for it because just as the knowledge of Good and evil was passed down so was the sin of it. We are all guilty and therefore born separated from God. This separation is our spiritual death. There was no Law before Moses at Sinai. There was only a warning from God not to touch or eat of the tree of Knowledge while Adam was in the Garden. All you have proved here is that man is a sinner and most would agree.
None of this proves that man is unable to respond to the gospel or the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Man comes to God because He is drawn to Christ. Man receives Salvation as a gift. Man receives faith as a gift. man is convinced, man is convicted and it's all because of God. All men are dealt a measure of faith and this faith can get man this far. However it isn't mans faith that saves the man. We believe,,,, that we "might", be saved, by the Faith of Jesus Christ. Gal 2:16. The fact that we believe isn't because it's something we've done but because it's something God has done. Our choice isn't to choose God or His Son but, to choose to rebel.
MB