Lloyd:
This article is from Winford Claiborne a Christian brother of mine. He is well versed in Greek. I do not know if he would consider himself a scholar. Personally, I believe humility would prevent him from making such a claim. His contention is the Osas doctrine is false. He uses the Greek to make his argument. While I admit the original languages can shed some light on passages. They also contain language we can not easily accomodate or understand. ie. middle passive voice.
Many of the translations in the King James Version and in other versions introduce Calvinism into the Bible. I could give you many examples, but one will have to suffice today. Luke records Peter's command to the Jewish people he addressed on Solomon's porch of the Jewish temple. "Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19). The Calvinists who translated the King James Version used the expression, "be converted" when it should be rendered "turn." That may not seem important, but I assure you it is very important. The Calvinists wanted people to believe that God does the turning for us. So they used the passive voice—"be converted." They should have used the active voice—"repent and turn." Most of the other versions I have in my study translate the Greek either "turn," "return" or "turn again." In his great set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Seminary, 1930), Dr. A.T. Robertson, a professor in a Calvinist theological seminary, translates the Greek "turn again"—not "be converted" (volume 3, p. 45). The King James Version makes the same mistake every time the expression appears in the New Testament. I urge you to study carefully Matthew 13:15; Mark 4:12: Luke 22:32; John 12:40 and Acts 28:27. In every one of these verses the verb should be rendered "turn" or "turn again"—not "be converted."
I use the Greek because it helps me to understand many passages that have been misused to teach false doctrine. One of the most misunderstood and misused verses in the Bible is Matthew 16:19. Our Lord said to Peter: "And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Some religions interpret-.that verse somewhat as follows: Peter had the authority to bind and to loose. God was sitting up in heaven, figuratively speaking, and what he saw Peter bind and loose, he bound and loosed. That is close to what the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard Version and some other versions teach. There are two notable exceptions to that—Charles Williams' translation and Dr. Hugo McCord's translation. Charles Williams renders the Greek: "Whatever you forbid on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven." Dr. McCord translates the verse: "What you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and what you release on earth will have been released in heaven." Dr. A. T. Robertson says the verbs—bind and loose—are future perfect indicatives. That means the verbs outline a state of completion—"shall have been bound" and "shall have been loosed." Is our understanding of what Jesus said in this verse important? It shows that no one— absolutely no one—has a right to bind or to loose what God has not already bound and loosed. When I took Greek in college, this one example convinced me of the great importance of knowing the Greek of the New Testament.
In his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter used the expression, "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Hundreds of debates have been conducted on the meaning of the term. The Greek of the verse should end the debate once for all. Why would I make such an observation? The exact same expression appears in Matthew's account of Christ's institution of the Lord's supper. Jesus informed his disciples: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt. 26:28). Did Jesus shed his blood in order that our sins may be forgiven or because they were already forgiven? If our sins were already forgiven, it was cruel for Christ to have to shed his blood. So what does "for the remission of sins" mean in reference to baptism? It means we must be baptized in order to have our sins remitted. Does one have to know the Greek in order to come to that conclusion? No, but knowing that the Greek is the same in both passages reinforces the significance of the English translation.
The apostle John wrote -five New Testament books—John, 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation. The tenses of the verbs are very significant in all of John's writings. The word "tense" refers to the time element in a verb. We speak of past, present and future tenses. The tenses of verbs are important in any language, but they are especially significant in the .Greek. I shall use a number of examples from 1 John. The following verse is a very comforting and inspiring message to Christians. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). All the verbs in this sentence are in the present tense. Present tense in the Greek involves continuous action. With that simple explanation, please listen to a literal translation of the Greek. "If we continually walk in the light, as he is in the light, we continually have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son continually cleanses us from all sin." The literal translation may seem a little awkward, but it shows conclusively that no one is saved by grace alone. If we have to continually walk in the light as Christ is in the light in order to receive the continual cleansing of our sins, we are not saved by grace alone. Charles Williams renders the verse: "But if we continue to walk in the light, just as he is in the light, we have an unbroken fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son continues to cleanse us from all sin."
The apostle John emphasizes the absolute necessity of keeping God's commandments. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, I know him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keeps his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him" (1 John 2:3-5). According to Dr. A. T. Robertson's scholarly set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1933), every one of the verbs in these verses, except the verb "perfected," is in the present tense (volume 6, pp. 210-211). That means all of the present tense verbs involve continuous action. -Charles Williams translates those verses as follows: "By this we can be sure that we know Him—if we practice obedience to His commandments. Whoever says, 'I know him,' but does not practice obedience to His commands is a liar, and there is no truth in his heart; but whoever practices obedience to His message really has a perfect love of God in his heart." These verses are absolutely devastating to the Calvinistic doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Anyone who thinks he can prove otherwise is hereby challenged to do so.
For years our Calvinist friends have attempted to prove from 1 John 3:6-10 that a child of God cannot fall from grace. Please listen to these verses. "Whosoever abides in him sins not: whosoever sins has not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he who does not do righteousness is not righteous, even as he is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil: for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin: for the seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not do righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not love his brother."
The present tense verbs in this passage make it impossible for the Calvinists to use this passage to prove the doctrine of "once in grace, always in grace." So I shall read the passage with due recognition of the tenses of the verbs. "Whosoever keeps on abiding in him does not practice sin: whosoever keeps on sinning has not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man keep on deceiving you: he who practices righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who keeps on committing sin is of the devil: for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God does not practice sinning; for his seed remains in him, and he cannot practice sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifested, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not continually love his brother."
While it is vital to study the tenses of the verbs in this passage, the purpose of the passage is not to refute the Calvinistic doctrine of "once saved, always saved." The Holy Spirit wanted Christians to know that they must continually practice God's will. We are saved from our alien sins when we believe the gospel and obey it from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18), but we must continue to practice righteousness. Surely no one believes God will save us eternally if we do not practice righteousness or maintain holiness, or do they? The inexplicable answer is "Yes." Ron Rhodes's book, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), includes the heading, "Maintaining Holiness Is Not a Condition of Salvation" (pp. 274-275). These are Dr. Rhodes' exact words: "The view that one must maintain holiness to sustain one's salvation goes against God's gospel of grace as clearly delineated in scripture, for example Eph. 2:8-9" (pp. 274-275). Dr. Rhodes argues that "a life of holiness is important, but it follows salvation; it does not cause it" (p. 275).
I wonder if Dr. Rhodes has ever read Hebrews 12:14. The author of Hebrews demands of his readers: "Seek peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." Charles Williams takes the tenses of the verbs into consideration in his translation of that verse. "Continue to live in peace with everybody and strive for that consecration without which no man can see the Lord." How can a scholar, such as Dr. Ron Rhodes, overlook the tense of the verb in Hebrews 12:14? Is it because he has committed himself to a defense of Calvinism, even if it means twisting scripture to do it? But one does not have to know the tense of the verb to understand that Dr. Rhodes has missed the teaching of this and similar verses.
