|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/4/2008 3:24:49 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
The word hoti has much less force than the English "because".
The word translated "because" in John 10:26 is gar - not hoti. In over 1,000 uses it is translated as "for" which is a conjunction that explains the preceding phrase. This word “for” is a conjunction which is used to connect or link sentences, clauses or phrases. The word gar is followed by an explanation or reason for what precedes it. IOW, they do not hear for/because they are not his sheep.
Hi kelman,
Wow, was I puzzled for awhile, staring at the hoti in two Greek editions. Finally I grabbed an old King James interlinear, and saw the gar. Of course, it's based on the Textus Receptus. It had hoti in a footnote, though.
Are you a King James proponent?
Anyway, gar is probably a weaker word than hoti for strict causality. Like you said, it can have more of an "explanatory" sense, but you have to think loosely about the word "explain". For one example, see Rom 1:9, "martus gar mou estin ho theos . . ." I don't think you can talk about causality between Rom 1:8 and 1:9 in the same way you are suggesting exists in John 10:26.
But, unless you are a strict "King James only" guy, you'll probably want to go with the hoti.
quote:
quote:
Look at the word aiwnios. It is an adjective related to aiwn, which means "time" or "age". It is where the English "eon" comes from. So aiwnios describes a kind of life that goes out to the ages.
Perhaps you are more knowledgeable than Greek experts; but, I'm certainly not convinced. Therefore, I will accept the word used in the original Greek and the Greek experts' definition of what that word means: Eternal - Aionios - without end, never to cease, everlasting.
I am not disagreeing with the definition of the experts.
You are adding a couple of extra nuances to the definition: 1) that a person actually possesses this life rather than is promised this life; 2) once a person is in the condition of possessing this "eternal life" he/she is guaranteed to always possess it.
In other words, you are assuming that the word "eternal" is describing the absolute and unalterable condition of the person, whereas I am saying that "eternal" is describing the nature of the life.
I'll give you three reasons:
- Grammatically the word "eternal" modifies "life", not the the person.
- The Bible sometimes speaks of "eternal life" as something that will be actually given in the next life, e.g. Mark 10:30.
- The Greek expression in Mark 10:30 is interesting: "en tw aiwni tw erxomenw zwqn aiwnion", which is loosely translated (forgive the strange English): "in the eon that is coming, life eon-ish". You see that in Greek the adjective "eternal" is the same as the noun "age", i.e. different forms of the same word.
To repeat what I've said before, I am not dogmatic that you have to accept this meaning. Jesus just used the word "eternal", and it is presumptuous to think you absolutely understand exactly which shade of meaning He meant. In reality, He likely didn't think about which shade he meant, because it really didn't matter to His point.
quote:
quote:
You seem to think you understand the word thoroughly, down to all its exact nuances. Are you some kind of Greek scholar, with a specialty in the patterns of first century language usage?
Nope, but I can read English well enough, the language in which the lexicons are printed. And, from what I've read there are no "nuances" with Eternal - Aionios - without end, never to cease, everlasting.
Ok, I give up. Let me call in the expert, although he says it more strongly than I would:quote:
"Language, by its nature, is compressed, cryptic, symbolic. We can see this on many levels. Words in isolation mean next to nothing -- simply because they are capable of so many meanings. . . . Without a context, we are at a loss to decide. . . . Even whole sentences, without a context, are filled with ambiguities."
The above is from Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, by Daniel Wallace, p. 7-8.
quote:
quote:
quote:
There is an emphatic double negative used in that phrase - no, not perish. That is why it is translated "never" because that's what it means - never. ou mh is emphatic, but does not mean "never"; it carries no implication of time.
Sorry, but I'd rather accept the translation of over 25 Bible versions which translate the emphatic negative ou mh as never.
Okay, let me show you from the old KJV interlinear how it goes:
kai ---- ou mh --------- apolwntai -------- eis ton aiwna
and - in no wise - shall they perish ----- for ----- ever
The most literal reading of eis ton aiwna is "into the age".
< Message edited by Tychicus -- 6/5/2008 1:23:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/4/2008 4:54:01 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
But I did ask a simple question, re those passages I brought up: Heb 6:4-12, 10:26-31, and also 1 Cor 10:1-13. These are all extended passages, and the context involves people falling away, or leaving the faith, or something like that, however you want to describe it.
Heb 6:4-12 It would appear two different groups are being discussed. The first group found in vv 4-6; and the second group of saved individuals found in vs 9 "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." So, I can't see these being used as anti eternal security verses.
Heb 10:26-31 Again, we see two groups of people. Those in 26-31; but, if we continue to the end of the chapter we see in vs 39 true believers "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."
Hi kelman,
Well, I think I can see how you come up with two groups of people, based on your view in post 3415, where you think of Scripture as a puzzle to be pieced together. Finding two groups here fits your puzzle the best, because you have some who are saved and some who are not, and that makes two groups.
But somehow, when I read this I see the writer warning people to not go backwards. He is talking about the very same people, going from a good condition to a bad condition (6:4-5, 10:26-27). If you are not familiar with how the puzzle is supposed to go together, it sure looks like these warnings can apply to anyone. There is nothing said about two distinct groups of people, but two different outcomes. For example, right before the 10:26-27 passage it says "let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering" (10:23). That sure looks like it is addressed to all, not just "one group".
I'm sure you must be aware that just about anyone, besides proponents of Eternal Security, sees the passage like this. They are not trying to "fit the puzzle", but they are reading the passage in context. And one could expect the first readers of the book to be reading the context to see what it says, not studying verses piecemeal to fit some theological system. There was no such theological system like that at the time, and the readers didn't have the rest of the NT there, so how could they try to put the puzzle together?
Can't you imagine the author writing this differently if he really believed in Eternal Security? Or was he just trying to make the puzzle more interesting, more challenging?
quote:
1 Cor 10:1-13 I'm wondering what in particular you think is anti eternal security? Paul is teaching against committing similiar sins as that of Israel in the wilderness. If your concern is vv 2-4, it is not saying the meat and drink was literally Jesus Christ or that these people were ever saved. It was pointing to Christ as the spiritual bread which comes down from heaven.
Can't you see this as a warning given to the church? The OT believers were examples to us, to all of us (10:11-12). There is no indication that this warning was to some and not to others, or that there were two different kinds of people with two different kinds of punishment, or anything like this.
As above, can't you imagine the author writing this differently if he really believed in Eternal Security? Or was he just trying to make the puzzle more interesting, more challenging?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/5/2008 3:22:18 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Are you a King James proponent? Yep, it's the version I use.
quote:
You are adding a couple of extra nuances to the definition: 1) that a person actually possesses this life rather than is promised this life; 2) once a person is in the condition of possessing this "eternal life" he/she is guaranteed to always possess it. The word "give" in "I give unto them eternal life" is in the present tense. Therefore, this "eternal life" Christ is giving is not relegated to something only to be obtained in the future.
quote:
I'll give you three reasons:
Grammatically the word "eternal" modifies "life", not the the person. It is this "eternal” life which Christ gives to the person.
quote:
The Bible sometimes speaks of "eternal life" as something that will be actually given in the next life, e.g. Mark 10:30. What a great verse offering even further evidence for eternal security! Here Christ is speaking to His Apostles about how all believers receive certain rewards now; and will live eternally in heaven.
quote:
The Greek expression in Mark 10:30 is interesting: "en tw aiwni tw erxomenw zwqn aiwnion", which is loosely translated (forgive the strange English): "in the eon that is coming, life eon-ish". You see that in Greek the adjective "eternal" is the same as the noun "age", i.e. different forms of the same word. It is interesting but not in the way you suggest. You consistently imply that the ONLY definition of aion is "period of time, age"; yet, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it also means: "for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity". It is tranlated as such especially as it modifies aionios which is always translated:
1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2. without beginning
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting
quote:
To repeat what I've said before, I am not dogmatic that you have to accept this meaning. Jesus just used the word "eternal", and it is presumptuous to think you absolutely understand exactly which shade of meaning He meant. In reality, He likely didn't think about which shade he meant, because it really didn't matter to His point. I absolutely disagree with what you’ve said here. To claim that Jesus didn't think much about the words He used, frankly, I consider that to be presumptuous. God is very specific about the words He uses. He neither uses them carelessly or promiscuously. Instead of claiming Christ didn't know what words He used, why not just accept the words He does use?
quote:
Ok, I give up. Let me call in the expert, although he says it more strongly than I would:
"Language, by its nature, is compressed, cryptic, symbolic. We can see this on many levels. Words in isolation mean next to nothing -- simply because they are capable of so many meanings. . . . Without a context, we are at a loss to decide. . . . Even whole sentences, without a context, are filled with ambiguities." The problem is you called in the "wrong" expert. Better to call God as the expert on the way in which He wrote the Bible – the way in which He uses words. Another excellent reason why we need to compare what He wrote - by comparing scripture with scripture.
quote:
Okay, let me show you from the old KJV interlinear how it goes:
kai ---- ou mh --------- apolwntai -------- eis ton aiwna
and - in no wise - shall they perish ----- for ----- ever I'm sorry but ou mh is "no not" which is indicative of the absolute negative. According to the lexicon - a primary word, the absolute negative. In any event, what you've presented doesn't change that at all.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/5/2008 3:35:20 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Well, I think I can see how you come up with two groups of people, based on your view in post 3415, where you think of Scripture as a puzzle to be pieced together. LOL....not exactly. I "see" two groups because the context speaks of two groups....doesn't get much easier than that.
quote:
Finding two groups here fits your puzzle the best, because you have some who are saved and some who are not, and that makes two groups. What a puzzle! A group of believers and a group of non-believers equaling two groups - who would'a thunk it?
quote:
There is nothing said about two distinct groups of people, but two different outcomes. Sure there is in vs 9 where the comparison is made: "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." No puzzles here, just pretty simple phrases "better things of you, and things that accompany salvation,"
quote:
I'm sure you must be aware that just about anyone, besides proponents of Eternal Security, sees the passage like this. Just as I am sure you must be aware that only those with an anti-eternal security preconceived theology would fail to see two groups.
quote:
They are not trying to "fit the puzzle", but they are reading the passage in context. And one could expect the first readers of the book to be reading the context to see what it says, not studying verses piecemeal to fit some theological system. What are you talking about? I didn't "piece" anything together in the Hebrew chapter. In fact, I used only passages in the same chapter which helps us to understand the context.
quote:
There was no such theological system like that at the time, and the readers didn't have the rest of the NT there, so how could they try to put the puzzle together? Since I only used Hebrews, what’s the problem? They did have the rest of Hebrews, didn’t they?
quote:
Can't you imagine the author writing this differently if he really believed in Eternal Security? Or was he just trying to make the puzzle more interesting, more challenging? I have to ask again -"what are you talking about"? These verses were offered by you to support your anti-eternal security theology –not by me.
quote:
quote:
1 Cor 10:1-13 I'm wondering what in particular you think is anti eternal security? Paul is teaching against committing similiar sins as that of Israel in the wilderness. If your concern is vv 2-4, it is not saying the meat and drink was literally Jesus Christ or that these people were ever saved. It was pointing to Christ as the spiritual bread which comes down from heaven. Can't you see this as a warning given to the church? The OT believers were examples to us, to all of us (10:11-12). There is no indication that this warning was to some and not to others, or that there were two different kinds of people with two different kinds of punishment, or anything like this. I never said there were two different groups in the Cor vv so why imply that I did? I clearly said Paul is teaching against committing similar sin. Obviously you missed what I said above so I’ll bold it for you.
quote:
As above, can't you imagine the author writing this differently if he really believed in Eternal Security? Or was he just trying to make the puzzle more interesting, more challenging? Since you repeat the same error, I'll repeat the same answer - these were your verses which you offered to disprove eternal security.
I did not offer these verses to prove eternal security. I was responding to the verses you thought disproved eternal security. So why continue to say otherwise?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/5/2008 5:40:15 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
Hi kelman,
quote:
quote:
Are you a King James proponent? Yep, it's the version I use.
Ok, fair enough. I have been using it more lately, but certainly not exclusively. Do you think the more modern versions are inferior?
quote:
quote:
You are adding a couple of extra nuances to the definition: 1) that a person actually possesses this life rather than is promised this life; 2) once a person is in the condition of possessing this "eternal life" he/she is guaranteed to always possess it.
The word "give" in "I give unto them eternal life" is in the present tense. Therefore, this "eternal life" Christ is giving is not relegated to something only to be obtained in the future.
I am sorry if I confused you. I did not say "eternal life" is "relegated to something only in the future." I may have suggested that the "eternal" aspect of it was focused on the future, but that is not quite the same thing.
Regarding the use of the present tense, the Greek present is not the same as the English present. It does not always relate to time; actually neither does the English present, but the Greek more so. I can refer you to a 26 page section of Wallace's book, if you'd like. However, from what you said below, I gather you would not be interested.
But I think you are hitting on a basic issue of disagreement between us:
quote:
quote:
Ok, I give up. Let me call in the expert, although he says it more strongly than I would:
quote:
"Language, by its nature, is compressed, cryptic, symbolic. We can see this on many levels. Words in isolation mean next to nothing -- simply because they are capable of so many meanings. . . . Without a context, we are at a loss to decide. . . . Even whole sentences, without a context, are filled with ambiguities." [from Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, by Daniel Wallace, p. 7-8.]
The problem is you called in the "wrong" expert. Better to call God as the expert on the way in which He wrote the Bible – the way in which He uses words. Another excellent reason why we need to compare what He wrote - by comparing scripture with scripture.
I am no means an expert on Greek, but I get my understanding from reading the Greek text and the regular grammars and lexicons they use in seminaries. Apparently you get your understanding directly from God.
So I don't think anything I say here has any chance of adding to your knowledge.
< Message edited by Tychicus -- 6/5/2008 5:48:47 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/6/2008 2:00:47 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Ok, fair enough. I have been using it more lately, but certainly not exclusively. Do you think the more modern versions are inferior? I don't know about "inferior"; but, I know there are a few important differences. But, mostly, it's simply that the KJV was my first experience with a Bible so I’ve grown accustomed to it. And, I do like it very much.
quote:
Regarding the use of the present tense, the Greek present is not the same as the English present. It does not always relate to time; actually neither does the English present, but the Greek more so. I can refer you to a 26 page section of Wallace's book, if you'd like. I agree with you that the Greek tense is often more concerned with the "action". But, in the case of John 10:28 the word "give" is in the indicative mood; and, according to the "experts" - "the only place in which 'time' comes to bear directly upon the tense of a verb is when the verb is in the indicative mood."
What we have in the John 10:28 "give" is the kind of action which is Progressive (or 'Continuous') . And the time element (in indicative mood) is, in fact, very much the present.
quote:
However, from what you said below, I gather you would not be interested. So, as you can see I am not averse to "experts"; but, they too must be used properly and judged. Your "expert" basically said, among other things, that words in isolation cannot be understood. I rather think my "expert" proved him wrong - at least with regard to "give".
quote:
quote:
The problem is you called in the "wrong" expert. Better to call God as the expert on the way in which He wrote the Bible – the way in which He uses words. Another excellent reason why we need to compare what He wrote - by comparing scripture with scripture.
I am no means an expert on Greek, but I get my understanding from reading the Greek text and the regular grammars and lexicons they use in seminaries. Apparently you get your understanding directly from God. Actually, I do hope I get my understanding of Scripture from God. Without the Holy Spirit enlightening us how can we ever hope to come to truth? I'll tell you one thing, though, a good beginning would be to never suggest Jesus "...likely didn't think about which shade he meant".
quote:
So I don't think anything I say here has any chance of adding to your knowledge. Actually, you did help add to my knowledge concerning Greek tenses. I looked into it further and found it complements what I understood John 10:28 to be teaching - eternal security.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/6/2008 4:57:27 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
(re Heb 6:4-12) There is nothing said about two distinct groups of people, but two different outcomes. Sure there is in vs 9 where the comparison is made: "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." No puzzles here, just pretty simple phrases "better things of you, and things that accompany salvation,"
Hi kelman,
Well, I don't see a second group here. I suspect you see a contrast between the "those" in 6:4 with the "you" in 6:9, but maybe you are seeing something else.
Now, there are passages in scripture where two groups are distinguished, e.g Rom 11:13 ("I am speaking to you Gentiles"), or 1 Cor 7:8,10 ("to the married" . . . "to the unmarried"). But normally, when you write a letter, you expect it to apply to all the readers.
Of course, in any letter like this, you can always say there are two groups: those who listened, and those who didn't. But still, the same instructions applied to all the readers the same way, so I wouldn't call that "two groups".
But I get the idea that you think there really are two groups in Hebrews, and that the warning passages don't apply to one of the groups (which you might call the "saved" group). At least, I think that is what you are saying. So, for example Heb 3:12-19 would not apply to the "saved" group, nor would 6:4-8,11-12. Just verses 6:9-10 are slipped in there, and the "saved" group will read those verses, but know not to read the others, or at least not be concerned at what they say.
And the writer of Hebrews knew that there were two groups there, and he just kind of mixed up the verses meant for each group, and felt they would easily figure out which passages applied to each.
Is that what you are saying? I am really trying to understand how you believe this letter was put together, and how the first century readers were going to understand it.
quote:
quote:
I'm sure you must be aware that just about anyone, besides proponents of Eternal Security, sees the passage like this. Just as I am sure you must be aware that only those with an anti-eternal security preconceived theology would fail to see two groups.
Hey, this sounds kind of tit-for-tat. 
Actually I am not sure I had heard this "two group" idea, at least in the same way you put it. I have talked with some proponents of Eternal Security, and they either recognized this passage as a difficulty, or found some other way to explain it. Actually, I even read a whole book where the author was a very strong proponent of Eternal Security, but clearly recognized that this passage was problemmatic. He did not believe there were "two groups", but had a very creative way of putting the pieces together. You may have heard of the book: The Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow.
So, I don't think the "two group" idea is obvious even to Eternal Security proponents.
quote:
quote:
quote:
1 Cor 10:1-13 I'm wondering what in particular you think is anti eternal security? Paul is teaching against committing similiar sins as that of Israel in the wilderness. If your concern is vv 2-4, it is not saying the meat and drink was literally Jesus Christ or that these people were ever saved. It was pointing to Christ as the spiritual bread which comes down from heaven.
Can't you see this as a warning given to the church? The OT believers were examples to us, to all of us (10:11-12). There is no indication that this warning was to some and not to others, or that there were two different kinds of people with two different kinds of punishment, or anything like this. I never said there were two different groups in the Cor vv so why imply that I did? I clearly said Paul is teaching against committing similar sin. Obviously you missed what I said above so I’ll bold it for you.
So, what lesson were the Corinthian believers supposed to get from this example? What would happen to them if they did fall back into idolatry?
Also, you just said there weren't two groups here. (And I agree with that.) But why is it that you think there is one group here, but two groups in the Hebrews church?
quote:
quote:
As above, can't you imagine the author writing this differently if he really believed in Eternal Security? Or was he just trying to make the puzzle more interesting, more challenging? Since you repeat the same error, I'll repeat the same answer - these were your verses which you offered to disprove eternal security.
Well, I didn't offer these verses to disprove Eternal Security. I think I indicated before my doubts that Paul had ever heard of Eternal Security, so there was no reason to disprove that doctrine.
My point is: if Eternal Security were a doctrine of the early church, you might expect it to be taught somewhere, in context. These passages clearly provide the context where Eternal Security might be taught. And yet the writers didn't take that opportunity, here or anywhere else. This doesn't prove anything; it just gives you something to think about. That's all I meant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/6/2008 5:13:32 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Regarding the use of the present tense, the Greek present is not the same as the English present. It does not always relate to time; actually neither does the English present, but the Greek more so. I can refer you to a 26 page section of Wallace's book, if you'd like.
I agree with you that the Greek tense is often more concerned with the "action". But, in the case of John 10:28 the word "give" is in the indicative mood; and, according to the "experts" - "the only place in which 'time' comes to bear directly upon the tense of a verb is when the verb is in the indicative mood."
What we have in the John 10:28 "give" is the kind of action which is Progressive (or 'Continuous') . And the time element (in indicative mood) is, in fact, very much the present.
quote:
However, from what you said below, I gather you would not be interested. So, as you can see I am not averse to "experts"; but, they too must be used properly and judged. Your "expert" basically said, among other things, that words in isolation cannot be understood. I rather think my "expert" proved him wrong - at least with regard to "give"
Hi kelman,
I see you didn't name your expert. I wonder who it is?
Actually I saw this same quote on the internet at www.ntgreek.org, by a fellow named Corey Keating. I am not sure if you got it from there, or perhaps he quoted it from somewhere else.
The interesting thing is that when you look at his recommended readings you see:quote:
** Of all the intermediate Grammars available, the one I feel that is by far the best is "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament" by Daniel B. Wallace
So these "experts" might really agree with each other more than you think.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/7/2008 2:48:57 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Well, I don't see a second group here. I suspect you see a contrast between the "those" in 6:4 with the "you" in 6:9, but maybe you are seeing something else. There's an obvious "contrast" between those in 6:4 and 6:9. This contrast is again picked up in vv 7-8 between the ground which is blessed of God and that which is not.
quote:
But I get the idea that you think there really are two groups in Hebrews, and that the warning passages don't apply to one of the groups (which you might call the "saved" group). No, he is writing to the entire church warning them of apostasy as related in vv 4-6. Should they ultimately apostatize there is no further repentance. BUT, he is persuaded(vs 9) they will not become as the first "group" he described - those who apostatize(vv 4-7).
I am not saying that the author is writing to a "group" of apostates and to a "group" of believers in that church. He is simply describing the deadly condition of those who are guilty of apostasy; and to warn them against such apostasy. He then goes on to tell them he has confidence in them and commends their fruit - that which accompanies salvation.
quote:
Actually I am not sure I had heard this "two group" idea, at least in the same way you put it. I have talked with some proponents of Eternal Security, and they either recognized this passage as a difficulty, or found some other way to explain it. I can't imagine what the problem could be since clearly the author speaks of those who apostasize and those who don't. I will admit, though, there are definitely some difficulties with those passages.
quote:
So, what lesson were the Corinthian believers supposed to get from this example? What would happen to them if they did fall back into idolatry? Paul is warning them, and us, not to take for granted their status as believers(vs 12) as did their ancestors who also enjoyed great privileges from God. Precisely why elsewhere we are told to examine ourselves to make sure we are in the faith(2Cor 13:5); and to make sure of our calling and election(2Pet 1:10).
quote:
Also, you just said there weren't two groups here. (And I agree with that.) But why is it that you think there is one group here, but two groups in the Hebrews church? Because in Hebrews two groups are mentioned - those who apostasize and those of whom the author is "persuaded of better things which accompany salvation". We don't see that in 1Cor.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/7/2008 2:51:12 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
I see you didn't name your expert. I wonder who it is?
Actually I saw this same quote on the internet at www.ntgreek.org, by a fellow named Corey Keating. I am not sure if you got it from there, or perhaps he quoted it from somewhere else. Actually, I didn't notice his name at the time; but, it was from that site.
quote:
The interesting thing is that when you look at his recommended readings you see:
quote:
** Of all the intermediate Grammars available, the one I feel that is by far the best is "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament" by Daniel B. Wallace So these "experts" might really agree with each other more than you think. On some things perhaps; but, Keating obviously thinks we can know what a word means....and, for what it's worth, I agree with him.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/7/2008 4:09:04 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
[Daniel Wallace and Corey Keating agree] On some things perhaps; but, Keating obviously thinks we can know what a word means....and, for what it's worth, I agree with him.
Well, of course we can know what a word means; even Wallace would agree with that.
But let's take your example of the word "give". Consider the two sentences:
1) Last night I gave the cat some tuna.
2) Last night I gave the cat her medicine.
Now if you ever tried to give a cat medicine you might see that the word "give" does not have the same exact meaning in these sentences. It is the same word. It "sort of" has the same meaning in that something you have possession of is going to be eaten by the cat. Yet in one case the cat freely walks over and eats the tuna with pleasure. In the other case you have to firmly secure all of her paws and pry open her mouth if you want to get it in.
So, is it possible to know the meaning of "give"? Sure, you know something. But to say that "give" has only one exact meaning, without nuances: no, I do not believe that is correct.
It is not always easy to see all the nuances of a word, even in your own language. How much more so in a language you don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/7/2008 5:16:08 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
But I get the idea that you think there really are two groups in Hebrews, and that the warning passages don't apply to one of the groups (which you might call the "saved" group).
No, he is writing to the entire church warning them of apostasy as related in vv 4-6. Should they ultimately apostatize there is no further repentance. BUT, he is persuaded(vs 9) they will not become as the first "group" he described - those who apostatize(vv 4-7).
I am not saying that the author is writing to a "group" of apostates and to a "group" of believers in that church. He is simply describing the deadly condition of those who are guilty of apostasy; and to warn them against such apostasy. He then goes on to tell them he has confidence in them and commends their fruit - that which accompanies salvation.
Hi kelman,
Well, I hate to quibble about terminology, but it looks to me that you are talking about one group. As you say, he is "writing to the entire church" -- that's one group. He is saying the same thing to everyone in this one group. The only difference is that some chose to listen and some don't.
Do you think the author is referring to a definite set of people in 6:4, say Joe, John and Mary, who just left the church? Or are there no particular individuals in mind, but just a general warning to everyone: if you apostasize, this is what will happen? You do see an "if" in 6:6.
The same for 6:9. Is there a specific set of people: Josh, Ruth, and Sarah, who have the writer's confidence. Or is the encouraging remark meant for the whole church?
And if the warnings and encouragements are given to everyone, then there seems a possibility for anyone to fall. The writer's confidence in 6:9 is not the same thing as absolute security. As he says in 6:11-12, "and we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises."
This does not sound like the doctrine of Eternal Security to me.
quote:
quote:
So, what lesson were the Corinthian believers supposed to get from this example? What would happen to them if they did fall back into idolatry? Paul is warning them, and us, not to take for granted their status as believers(vs 12) as did their ancestors who also enjoyed great privileges from God. Precisely why elsewhere we are told to examine ourselves to make sure we are in the faith(2Cor 13:5); and to make sure of our calling and election(2Pet 1:10).
So, they are "not to take for granted their status as believers". That seems to be the same thing as "they ought not to think they have Eternal Security".
Whether you call this "losing your salvation" or "making sure you were really saved in the first place", practically speaking it means the same thing. You move from one condition to another.
If there is some deeper theology behind all this, the Corinthians probably didn't understand it. Neither did Paul make any attempt to explain it, although this would be an ideal context to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/9/2008 2:29:38 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
[Daniel Wallace and Corey Keating agree] On some things perhaps; but, Keating obviously thinks we can know what a word means....and, for what it's worth, I agree with him.
Well, of course we can know what a word means; even Wallace would agree with that.
But let's take your example of the word "give". Consider the two sentences:
1) Last night I gave the cat some tuna.
2) Last night I gave the cat her medicine.
Now if you ever tried to give a cat medicine you might see that the word "give" does not have the same exact meaning in these sentences. It is the same word. It "sort of" has the same meaning in that something you have possession of is going to be eaten by the cat. Yet in one case the cat freely walks over and eats the tuna with pleasure. In the other case you have to firmly secure all of her paws and pry open her mouth if you want to get it in.
So, is it possible to know the meaning of "give"? Sure, you know something. But to say that "give" has only one exact meaning, without nuances: no, I do not believe that is correct.
It is not always easy to see all the nuances of a word, even in your own language. How much more so in a language you don't know.
I see what you mean....sort of. Don't forget, though, we have the rest of the sentence and we also have the context in addition to comparable passages to help understand what Christ means when He says "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/9/2008 2:31:42 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Well, I hate to quibble about terminology, but it looks to me that you are talking about one group. As you say, he is "writing to the entire church" -- that's one group. He is saying the same thing to everyone in this one group. The only difference is that some chose to listen and some don't. Yes, the author is writing to one group - the church. There's no indication that some are choosing to listen and some are not. In fact, the opposite is true. He commends them for the evidence of their salvation.
quote:
Do you think the author is referring to a definite set of people in 6:4, say Joe, John and Mary, who just left the church? Or are there no particular individuals in mind, but just a general warning to everyone: if you apostasize, this is what will happen? You do see an "if" in 6:6. I don't see any indication of particular people being referenced. I actually think the warning is against remaining static in their faith. They were not growing in knowledge as they should. He admonishes them to become of "full age" in 5:14. Those who do remain static are in danger of total apostasy. If we show no interest in the "meat" of the Word, can we claim to be a child of God? As we see in Mat 13:12, even that which we had will be taken away.
quote:
The same for 6:9. Is there a specific set of people: Josh, Ruth, and Sarah, who have the writer's confidence. Or is the encouraging remark meant for the whole church? It is meant for the entire church. He starts vs 9 with "beloved". Though he gives these dire warnings, he doesn't believe the church guilty of such things. Rather, he is convinced of "better things" of them - things that "accompany salvation".
quote:
And if the warnings and encouragements are given to everyone, then there seems a possibility for anyone to fall. We're given warnings throughout the Bible. Here the warning is to not remain static in one's faith but to go on to "completion". Iow, if we don't continue to "feed" we'll grow feeble and die - apostatize. There's no reason to assume that just because warnings and instructions are given that a saved individual can ultimately perish.
quote:
The writer's confidence in 6:9 is not the same thing as absolute security. I agree, it is not the author's intention to teach eternal security in that passage.
quote:
quote:
Paul is warning them, and us, not to take for granted their status as believers(vs 12) as did their ancestors who also enjoyed great privileges from God. Precisely why elsewhere we are told to examine ourselves to make sure we are in the faith(2Cor 13:5); and to make sure of our calling and election(2Pet 1:10).
So, they are "not to take for granted their status as believers". That seems to be the same thing as "they ought not to think they have Eternal Security". No, because we see evidence in Scripture of those who think they are saved but are not. Therefore, we are admonished to "make sure of our calling and election".
quote:
Whether you call this "losing your salvation" or "making sure you were really saved in the first place", practically speaking it means the same thing. You move from one condition to another. I don't think it means the same thing at all. Although, I do think the greater problem is "making sure you were really saved in the first place". With all the aberrant theology that remains the greatest problem in the Christian church today.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/9/2008 4:17:22 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Don't forget, though, we have the rest of the sentence and we also have the context in addition to comparable passages to help understand what Christ means when He says "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
Hi kelman,
Well, I'm also going to be agreeable. As you say, the rest of the sentence is there; and especially the combination of "I give them eternal life" and "they shall never perish" is forceful. We, as his sheep, ought to feel secure.
Would it surprise you if I said I believed in Eternal Security? In all that I said here in the last few weeks, did I ever say I did not believe it?
Eternal Security is a wonderful teaching. It gets the focus off yourself, and puts all the trust in God to carry you through. He will do it; you can't do it yourself, and all your human efforts just lead to nothing. As the scripture says, "being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil 1:6) You don't need to worry about your ups and downs, your successes and failures day after day. He is faithful, and he is the good shepherd.
So, why the fuss? Because, in reality, I do not think there is any evidence that there was a doctrine of Eternal Security in the first century. The apostles did not teach directly on the subject. At least we see no evidence in scripture that it was taught (in context), nor any evidence from early church history. So the effort to spell out Eternal Security completely and systematically as a church Doctrine is only a human effort, and bound to be imperfect.
A helpful teaching; not a Doctrine. If applied correctly, a great benefit and source of encouragement to the church. But if applied incorrectly, or in the wrong situations, it will only be a source of trouble.
And how to apply it correctly? Study the scriptures as best we can. We might not agree on everything; but as the scripture says, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Don't judge your fellow believer if he/she understands this teaching in a different way. We all need to keep a dose of humility at our sides.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/9/2008 4:56:19 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, the author is writing to one group - the church. There's no indication that some are choosing to listen and some are not. In fact, the opposite is true. He commends them for the evidence of their salvation.
Hi kelman,
I think you are referring to 6:9 here. I see signs of confidence (peithw = persuaded) here, of "things that accompany salvation". I am not sure that is exactly the same as "evidence of their salvation".
But, yes, it may well be that all of the believers are standing firm. I would like to hope so (if it makes sense to "hope" about something that happened in the past).
But there are enough warnings throughout the whole book of Hebrews that it seems likely that there was at least a serious possibility that some would fall away.
quote:
quote:
Whether you call this "losing your salvation" or "making sure you were really saved in the first place", practically speaking it means the same thing. You move from one condition to another. I don't think it means the same thing at all. Although, I do think the greater problem is "making sure you were really saved in the first place". With all the aberrant theology that remains the greatest problem in the Christian church today.
I agree that "losing your salvation" is not the same thing as "making sure you were really saved in the first place". And FWIW I agree with you that the second way of saying it is better than the first, although I don't think scripture specifically uses either one of these terminologies.
My point here, though, is that I don't think the Corinthians were taught the difference between these two theological views. To them the message was simple: If you fall into idolatry, you are going to suffer the same fate as the Israelites of Moses's time. And to them that most likely meant that they would not be saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 11:58:44 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Well, I'm also going to be agreeable. As you say, the rest of the sentence is there; and especially the combination of "I give them eternal life" and "they shall never perish" is forceful. We, as his sheep, ought to feel secure.
Would it surprise you if I said I believed in Eternal Security? In all that I said here in the last few weeks, did I ever say I did not believe it? What's the world coming to?...miss one day and everything gets turned upside down. After I picked my jaw up from the keyboard, I quickly scanned the rest of this post, and the next, to see if there was a punchline :)
quote:
So, why the fuss? Because, in reality, I do not think there is any evidence that there was a doctrine of Eternal Security in the first century. The apostles did not teach directly on the subject. Did the Apostles teach directly on the Trinity?
quote:
At least we see no evidence in scripture that it was taught (in context), nor any evidence from early church history. So the effort to spell out Eternal Security completely and systematically as a church Doctrine is only a human effort, and bound to be imperfect. Obviously, I disagree that it is not solidly taught in Scripture. With your view, we would have to abandon the doctrines of the Trinity, most of evidence for the deity of Christ, whatever view of end-time prophecy we hold, and a lot of other things.
Besides, isn't the effort to spell out any biblical doctrine completely and systematically a human effort? Still, I think it is perfectly legitimate to draw conclusions from the available evidence. Views even not directly stated can be valid doctrine, assuming of course, that they incorporate all of the available evidence.
quote:
A helpful teaching; not a Doctrine. If applied correctly, a great benefit and source of encouragement to the church. But if applied incorrectly, or in the wrong situations, it will only be a source of trouble.
Teaching..Doctrine...semantics, no?
Isn't that the same for any doctrine? If applied correctly, great spiritual benefits accrue; but a great source of spiritual trouble if applied incorrectly. Granted there is always the possibility of self-deception, we humans are good at that. Assurance of salvation must be based on a right understanding of what God’s Word teaches concerning eternal security.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 12:01:30 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3894
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
I think you are referring to 6:9 here. I see signs of confidence (peithw = persuaded) here, of "things that accompany salvation". I am not sure that is exactly the same as "evidence of their salvation". Well, I don't know..."things that accompany salvation" sure sounds like - things/evidence ...that...accompany/go along with....salvation. He does, after all, go on to | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
