Hebrews 6:1-6

[Elin]

Well, some people would tell you I'm 'pert near good at wiggling out of things, praise Him, just could find no scintilla of reason on earth to wiggle out of Christ!

As to the pressing matters at hand, I'd thought maybe you'd found something that indicates God's will just cannot be resisted with open eyes I'd overlooked, but this bottom line I can't buy,

God glorifies his mercy by saving only some men, because the glory of his justice is more important than the salvation of all men.

And I will by no means try to convince you thereof.

Herein is the Calvinism that's argued over, so I certainly need not go into any details of that debate one can Google or surely find threads here about, but I'm in the camp of "whosover" of John 3:16-17, have always believed we have a job to believe the gospel, as the Bible is clear on. Even the Romans 9 Potter and vessels rhetoric is "What if God?", about God's sovereignty and man's proper perspective to not question God, is a scenario Paul lays out, "what if" not doctrine, some universal principle, that God is making vessels fit for destruction, that masses of people are irreversibly born damned. As to the verses in John, the scenario is some man plucking people out of the hand of Christ, again, this not a scenario of walking away, any trying to morph pluck into unpluckishness irrelevant by the qualifier an external force, some man, is doing the plucking, or let's put it a third party doing the plucking. Also, any assertion we're that man ourselves is an attractive extrapolation, but not warranted, any absolute, in the context of this teaching, is taking liberties the likes of which can lead to exegetical error. At least I've always avoided any doctrinal prejudices like the plague when reading scripture, as it's always His truth, not what we want to make of it. There are a few things I don't like in the Bible too much, but have no right, like the cults, to start fabricating around my prejudices. There is only truth to be grasped, God's truth, what we'd like to believe immaterial.

So, thank you for the studies, and I'd not think any less of you, but, unfortunately, my questions remain,
not being even semi-Calvinist for overwhelming scripture that God would like to save the world and desires none to perish, has always tried to reason with man, throughout the Bible. This would be a rather silly exercise, for those thousands of years, if He were talking to brick walls, without any potential to answer His call righteously. Would the Lord even utter, "Come now, and let us reason together," to those incapable of reason?

Thanks for the clear response. . .I expect no less from your honesty.

However, I must tell you that I don't do "ists" and "isms," I do Bible.

"Those whom he called" is not all (Ro 8:30, 1:6; Heb 9:15).

I understand your position, and share with you my studies simply to show what I see in the Scriptures.

I'm so glad our fellowship does not depend on seeing these things the same (Php 3:15; 2Ti 2:7).

At least we agree on Elduh Floyd and Brother Russell. . .

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Pluck,ed definition

pluck

(plŭk)v. plucked, pluck·ing, plucks
v.tr.1. To remove or detach by grasping and pulling abruptly with the fingers; pick: pluck a flower; pluck feathers from a chicken.
2. To pull out the hair or feathers of: pluck a chicken.
3. To remove abruptly or forcibly: plucked their child from school in midterm.
4. To give an abrupt pull to; tug at: pluck a sleeve.
5. Music To sound (the strings of an instrument) by pulling and releasing them with the fingers or a plectrum.

v.intr. To give an abrupt pull; tug.

Does plucked out by definition mean walk,step,run,jump or leaped out? Do any any of those mean FORCIBLY REMOVED in anyway,shape or form?

why do you people always use websters instead of the actual greek disctionaries. or lexicons?

ἁρπάζω; fut. ἁρπάσω [Veitch s. v.; cf. Rutherford, New Phryn. p. 407]; 1 aor. ἥρπασα; Pass., 1 aor. ἡρπάσθην; 2 aor. ἡρπάγην (2 Co. 12:2, 4; Sap. 6:11; cf. W. 83 (80); [B. 54 (47); WH. App. p. 170]); 2 fut. ἁρπαγήσομαι; [(Lat. rapio; Curtius § 331); fr. Hom. down]; to seize, carry off by force: τί, [Mt. 12:29 not R G, (see διαρπάζω)]; Jn. 10:12; to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly: τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, Mt. 11:12, (Xen. an. 6, 5, 18, etc.); to snatch out or away: τί, Mt. 13:19; τὶ ἐκ χειρός τινος, Jn. 10:28 sq.; τινὰ ἐκ πυρός, proverbial, to rescue from the danger of destruction, Jude 23, (Am. 4:11; Zech. 3:2); τινά, to seize and carry off speedily, Jn. 6:15; Acts 23:10; used of divine power transferring ferring a person marvellously and swiftly from one place to another, to snatch or catch away: Acts 8:39; pass. πρὸς τ. θεόν, Rev. 12:5; foll. by ἕως with gen. of place, 2 Co. 12:2; εἰς τ. παράδεισον, 2 Co. 12:4; εἰς ἀέρα, 1 Th. 4:17. [COMP.: δι-, συν-αρπάζω.]*

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (pp. 74–75). New York: Harper & Brothers.

in The greek, yes it does mean forcibly removed. But you will not listen to that will you? You will find another reason to blow it off and say it does not say what it says

 

[Elin]

Well, some people would tell you I'm 'pert near good at wiggling out of things, praise Him, just
could find no scintilla of reason on earth to wiggle out of Christ!

As to the pressing matters at hand, I'd thought maybe you'd found something that indicates God's will just cannot be resisted with open eyes I'd overlooked,

Well, Scripture doesn't present God's will as something he coerces man to do which man cannot resist.

Scripture presents God's will as something in agreement with one's disposition which one freely chooses to do.
And Scripture also presents God working in the dispositions of men to bring them into line with his will,
so that they can find "no scintilla of reason on earth" not to do it.
I presented many such Scriptures in my study.

So God's will is done, not by coercion but by uncoerced personal choice.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You do not understand,all those warnings,all the places where we are told to HOLD ONTO the faith,to abide in Him,to continue in the faith,and to endure to the end SHOULD be a stern REMINDER that APART from Him we CAN NOT BE SAVED. And apart from Him we CAN'T do those things He told us do. It should be a stern reminder that WE NEED TO UTTERLY,TOTALLY,and completely hold onto to Him and the faith we have in Him and Him alone. If we don't hold fast to our faith in HIM WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAVE US,who else can us? There is NO ONE AND NOTHING ELSE APART FROM HIM that can. Not even faith in ONES FAITH can save them.

And in all those warning, we are told to make sure our faith is real. Not fake. (Which would be the context)

It is in Christ, you claim it is in Christ, and his power. but you deny his power. and claim yuo can just walk away, he has no power over you, or has failed you in such a way you lost faith.

Sorry, I am not buying it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Doesn't "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" include us, ourselves? Not to mention dunamai (dunamai) -- "able" -- implies that one has power by virtue of one's own ability, or through a state of mind, or even by permission of the Law to do something. Who in their right mind would want to act on such power if they were in Christ's hand? The thought is ludicrous.

I keep asking the same question. Who would want to leave the one who created us, has the power to save us, died for us, and never lets us down?

It is not like having faith in a parent, or loved one, or pastor who lets yuo down, causing you to lose faith, this is GOD we are talking about!

 

[JesusIsAll]

Well, Scripture doesn't present God's will as something he coerces man to do which man cannot resist.

Scripture presents God's will as something in agreement with one's disposition which one freely chooses to do.
And Scripture also presents God working in the dispositions of men to bring them into line with his will,
so that they can find "no scintilla of reason on earth" not to do it.

So God's will is done, not by coercion but by uncoerced personal choice.

Be buyin that thar in the 'ol famlee size!

 

[Elin]

I keep asking the same question. Who would want to leave the one who created us, has the power to save us, died for us, and never lets us down?

It is not like having faith in a parent, or loved one, or pastor who lets yuo down, causing you to lose faith, this is GOD we are talking about!

Only those who are not born again. . .which means their faith was counterfeit in the first place, not having the root (Lk 8:13) of rebirth.

 

[Elin]

Be buyin that thar in the 'ol famlee size!

I love the way God transforms a heart from his enemy to his son!

 

[JesusIsAll]

And I will by no means try to convince you thereof.


Thanks for the clear response. . .I expect no less from your honesty.

However, I must tell you that I don't do "ists" and "isms," I do Bible.

"Those whom he called" is not all (Ro 8:30, 1:6; Heb 9:15).

I understand your position, and share with you my studies simply to show what I see in the Scriptures.

I'm so glad our fellowship does not depend on seeing these things the same (Php 3:15; 2Ti 2:7).

At least we agree on Elduh Floyd and Brother Russell. . .

We are all wrong about some things, and, as stated, I don't know the answers to some of these things I wish I did. If, in being Christians, there was a requirement we all have all things right, that we all agree, faith would be futile, as the Bible remains very complex on some issues, issues which have never been resolved in the history of Christendom. But we will know, starting when we see Him as He really is, myself of the mind some of these things interesting to talk about here won't even matter in eternity.

 

[Jimbone]

I keep asking the same question. Who would want to leave the one who created us, has the power to save us, died for us, and never lets us down?

It is not like having faith in a parent, or loved one, or pastor who lets yuo down, causing you to lose faith, this is GOD we are talking about!

This is the same way I have thought of it too, kind of like in a technical sense we could lose our salvation if we sincerely wanted too, and took measures to turn away from Him. However personally after having been saved, I don’t see how it’s possible anyone could ever do that, at least without some kind of huge deception. So hypothetically if a believer was to turn His back on God and go back to living like they were before regeneration then yes, but in all honesty I really can’t comprehend that even being possible after coming to know Truth.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Only those who are not born again. . .which means their faith was counterfeit in the first place, not having the root (Lk 8:13) of rebirth.

Or as James said, They had a claimed faith, but were hearers of the word only not doers. Their faith was dead, and unable to save them.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is the same way I have thought of it too, kind of like in a technical sense we could lose our salvation if we sincerely wanted too, and took measures to turn away from Him. However personally after having been saved, I don’t see how it’s possible anyone could ever do that, at least without some kind of huge deception. So hypothetically if a believer was to turn His back on God and go back to living like they were before regeneration then yes, but in all honesty I really can’t comprehend that even being possible after coming to know Truth.

I would just ask, If one truly repented, and had an assurance (faith) their sin cast them asunder with God, and had Faith God was real, and condemns sin, and had faith God saved them. how could they go back to that which they KNOW is against everything they repented if.

Then I would ask, did they repent at all. or did they really love their sin, and maybe got scared that maybe there is a god and judgment, and came to check it out, But realised, he did not really trust that to begin with.

As scripture says, a dog returns to his vomit, because he is still a dog.

 

[SarahM777]

why do you people always use websters instead of the actual greek disctionaries. or lexicons?

ἁρπάζω; fut. ἁρπάσω [Veitch s. v.; cf. Rutherford, New Phryn. p. 407]; 1 aor. ἥρπασα; Pass., 1 aor. ἡρπάσθην; 2 aor. ἡρπάγην (2 Co. 12:2, 4; Sap. 6:11; cf. W. 83 (80); [B. 54 (47); WH. App. p. 170]); 2 fut. ἁρπαγήσομαι; [(Lat. rapio; Curtius § 331); fr. Hom. down]; to seize, carry off by force: τί, [Mt. 12:29 not R G, (see διαρπάζω)]; Jn. 10:12; to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly: τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, Mt. 11:12, (Xen. an. 6, 5, 18, etc.); to snatch out or away: τί, Mt. 13:19; τὶ ἐκ χειρός τινος, Jn. 10:28 sq.; τινὰ ἐκ πυρός, proverbial, to rescue from the danger of destruction, Jude 23, (Am. 4:11; Zech. 3:2); τινά, to seize and carry off speedily, Jn. 6:15; Acts 23:10; used of divine power transferring ferring a person marvellously and swiftly from one place to another, to snatch or catch away: Acts 8:39; pass. πρὸς τ. θεόν, Rev. 12:5; foll. by ἕως with gen. of place, 2 Co. 12:2; εἰς τ. παράδεισον, 2 Co. 12:4; εἰς ἀέρα, 1 Th. 4:17. [COMP.: δι-, συν-αρπάζω.]*

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (pp. 74–75). New York: Harper & Brothers.

in The greek, yes it does mean forcibly removed. But you will not listen to that will you? You will find another reason to blow it off and say it does not say what it says

Eg it is says THE EXACT SAME THING as what Webster's say only STRONGER.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Eg it is says THE EXACT SAME THING as what Webster's say only STRONGER.

No, It does not.

You asked if it said to sieze, or that strong. which it did not.

yet the greek word means to literally sieze (take by force) and remove.

 

[JesusIsAll]

At least we agree on Elduh Floyd and Brother Russell. . .

Speekin 'o wich, gots ta git fer now, but needs be reminderin me 'bout Elduh Floyd throwin cans chicken noodles soop sumtime, oookeee?

 

[SarahM777]

Did you overlook what you posted at the top?

Settle down, my friend. . .

Elin,

Did you read Viligant_Warrior's post that it was addressed to? You used the word pluck,HE used the word snatched. My point is and was that BOTH mean the SAME THING. What has NOT been addressed is this.


Does snatched out by definition mean walk,step,run,jump or leaped out? Do any any of those mean FORCIBLY REMOVED in anyway,shape or form? Does anything that IS DONE BY choice mean they that person IS FORCED out of HIS HAND? If so then please PROVE IT. It makes no sense on one hand to say forcibly removed means the same as SOMETHING THAT IS DONE BY CHOICE.

Elin I do get very animated when I talk,and it is coming across in the posts. I am not angry,but I am trying to emphasis the posts. I do apologize if they are across as being angry. My intent was not to come across that way.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Elin,

Did you read Viligant_Warrior's post that it was addressed to? You used the word pluck,HE used the word snatched. My point is and was that BOTH mean the SAME THING. What has NOT been addressed is this.


Does snatched out by definition mean walk,step,run,jump or leaped out? Do any any of those mean FORCIBLY REMOVED in anyway,shape or form? Does anything that IS DONE BY choice mean they that person IS FORCED out of HIS HAND? If so then please PROVE IT. It makes no sense on one hand to say forcibly removed means the same as SOMETHING THAT IS DONE BY CHOICE.

Elin I do get very animated when I talk,and it is coming across in the posts. I am not angry,but I am trying to emphasis the posts. I do apologize if they are across as being angry. My intent was not to come across that way.

If God holds your hand, You would have to forcibly remove yourself from his hand. Because he promised he would never let go.

Not to mention. as has been asked 1000 times now (it seems) WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO?

Why do you continue to try to want to be right so bad, yuo will use any means possible.

 

[Elin]

Elin,

Did you read Viligant_Warrior's post that it was addressed to? You used the word pluck,HE used the word snatched. My point is and was that BOTH mean the SAME THING.

In the Greek, pluck does not mean quite the same as it does in the English.

In the Greek, it has a component of force in it.

Elin I do get very animated when I talk,and it is coming across in the posts. I am not angry,but I am trying to emphasis the posts. I do apologize if they are across as being angry. My intent was not to come across that way.

I know. . .

 

[SarahM777]

In the Greek, pluck does not mean quite the same as it does in the English.

In the Greek, it has a component of force in it.


I know. . .

This is what Merriam has for the definition of pluck

: to pull (something) quickly to remove it

: to remove some or all of the feathers or hairs from (something)
: to take (someone or something) away from a place or situation suddenly or by force



I could be wrong but when they say the definition is to TAKE BY FORCE, it means to take by force or am I wrong on that?

 

[SarahM777]

Not to mention. as has been asked 1000 times now (it seems) WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO?

Again EG that question is based on your EMOTIONS,not whether the Father,Jesus and the writers of scripture says otherwise. Again we are not TOLD the why they do.