Loss of salvation???

[Toknow]

Obedience comes from the filling and walking in the Spirit.......If we are not saved, we cannot be obedient.

If we lose salvation, Christ crucified becomes foolish again, the Spirit leaves us and we can no longer be obedient.....SILLY!!

Heb 6:6 , Ironically proves eternal security for the loss of salvation crowd.

@Roger316 even gave you a LIKE

Let's look at Hebrews 6:6 and please explain how it does NOT refer to loss of salvation.
And I should add,,,,,there are MANY verses that support loss of salvation...
Hebrews 6:6 is not the only one.

But we'll concentrate on that:

Hebrews 6:4-6
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

6and then have fallen away,


1. We see from verse 4 that they have been:
ENLIGHTENED
TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT
MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

that sounds like a saved person.

THEN

2. Verse 6
They, the saved believers, have FALLEN AWAY.

Verse 6 goes on to say that they cannot be RESTORED...
so it is NOT speaking about gifts or blessings...
it's speaking about losing salvation.


Hebrews 6:6....
..., it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.


The writer states that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.
Is repentance necessary for salvation?
Yes.
So they have lost salvation.

 

[Toknow]

Believing on the Son IS FAITH.

It is a work that reveals that faith has taken root and is alive.

And yet
PAUL
taught that faith is NOT a work.


Romans 11:6
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

 

[studier]

What makes you think you can walk away? Do you have a verse that sates plainly that our failing to walk in fellowship with the Lord can cause the loss of the salvation from the penalty of sin God has gifted us? If so, I think that is the verse we should be looking at.

I'm attempting to remain in the Text looking at Scriptures and not just discussing overall theories. I assume everyone knows that there are different interpretations of Scriptures resulting in OSAS and in Loss theories.

In the John6:37-40 verses which I showed the basic structure and some of the wording of, I pointed out one place where OSAS and Loss camps diverge. Some of you don't seem to think anything of such things, but things like these are where the different theories came from - the theories we've been taught from and have chosen to believe as making sense to us for whatever reasoning we've used to determine what we think is correct. And one person's common sense is another person's nonsense.

I do have the blessing of being able to analyze the Greek, so it's where I look for answers. Some others here have seen in English and other translations - and from history - that there are definite reasons to reject OSAS. As long as these reasons exist I'm working in the Text at the most precise level I can, responding to textual issues,I read or see, and trying to stay out of the petty bs which is rampant here - some of it is mind-boggling. Actually, at this point I see no reason to even accept OSAS as something that needs to be disproven - rather it needs to be proven.

What makes me think we can walk away?

• We have volition.
• I don't think God wants His volitional creature He created in His likeness to be non-volitional.
• I don't think God tested the volition of the man and the woman in the Garden and allowed all the destruction that ensued for no ultimate reason.
• We have a complex Text written in a very old language that we're still learning things about and debating.
• There is precision in this language that is well-beyond that of English that most of us are dealing from.
• We discussed things like the perfect tense in Eph2:8 that some of you were taught means OSAS, which in itself it does not do. If you were taught that, then you were taught error.
• We've briefly discussed the conditional clauses such as the one posted in Heb3:14 which is stated emphatically in a form that does not provide assurance and we have seen in some of the comments how some take these as simply being guidelines and pastoral rather than them saying there is actual potential for failure, which the conditional structure says there is. And there's another issue in that verse I didn't see anyone even bring up.
• In John6 the language shifts from Jesus not losing from things given to Him from the Father, to Jesus not forcing out individuals who come toward/to Him. Jesus not forcing out simply does not say someone by his own volition cannot apostatize. Nor does it say something else I'm not even going to bring up yet because I get enough flack as it is. Again, we're dealing with a precise language written with precision. There are plenty of ways such things could be stated that would make the issue very clear one way or another. When it's not, I question why.
• You ask me if I have a verse that says Loss. Do you have one that says OSAS? I'm willing to look at anything methodically and to tell anyone what I see and don't see in the language. Eph2:8 perfect tense doesn't say OSAS. Heb3:14 I see as warning and not as pastoral comforting. John6:37-40 I don't see anyone proving OSAS in the sense that man cannot volitionally walk away - in fact all I see is the assurance of our Lord that He will not force a man who comes toward Him to leave.

 

[Mem]

We've briefly discussed the conditional clauses such as the one posted in Heb3:14 which is stated emphatically in a form that does not provide assurance and we have seen in some of the comments how some take these as simply being guidelines and pastoral rather than them saying there is actual potential for failure, which the conditional structure says there is. And there's another issue in that verse I didn't see anyone even bring up.

I've long been acquainted with trouble. Some might even say that I must be, whether consciously or subconsciously, I don't know, looking for it. So, I've found myself looking for what you see that no one else has seen as of much significance. I see the if clause indicating the possibility as much as the potential for the contrary, of holding our original confidence firmly, to the end. Does what you allude toward have anything to do with the substance of 'our confidence'?

 

[studier]

So, I've found myself looking for what you see that no one else has seen as of much significance.

I'm not the only one who sees what I said. Rather than leave you with that simple statement and ask you to prove I'm alone in what I see:

There are more than a single reason for variation. I'm going to let AI answer this. These days anyone can easily research how various theological systems deal with Scriptures. My only caveat would be to not accept some things apart from pressing for or seeking proofs and accuracy:

Query to Google AI: How do various theological groups interpret the conditional clause in Heb3:14?

Answer:

THIS IS GETTING MESSED UP IN PASTING SO I'LL DO ANOTHER POST

 

[studier]

@Mem Heb3:14 AI response:

The conditional clause in Hebrews 3:14—"if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end"—serves as a primary text for debates over perseverance and eternal security. Interpretations vary significantly based on a group's understanding of whether salvation can be lost.
Major Theological Interpretations

• Reformed (Calvinist) View:
  • Perseverance as Evidence: They interpret the clause not as a condition to become a partaker, but as the proof that one has already become one.
  • Logic: If a person fails to hold firm, it demonstrates they were never truly "partakers of Christ" in the first place, rather than having lost a genuine salvation.
  • Grammar: Focuses on the Greek perfect tense of "we have become" (), suggesting a past event with ongoing results that is validated by future perseverance.
• Arminian & Wesleyan View:
  • Conditional Security: They view the "if" as a literal condition for maintaining salvation. Believers are truly partakers of Christ, but this status is contingent on their continued faith.
  • Apostasy Risk: It is possible for a genuine believer to "shrink back" or develop an "unbelieving heart," thereby forfeiting their salvation.
• Free Grace View:
  • Fellowship vs. Salvation: This group often interprets "partakers" () as "partners" or "companions" in a sense of intimacy and reward, rather than eternal life.
  • Outcome: Holding firm secures "rewards" at the Bema seat or a deeper level of fellowship, but failing to do so does not result in the loss of eternal life itself.
• Orthodox & Catholic View:
  • Synergy & Process: Both traditions generally view salvation as a dynamic, lifelong process rather than a one-time past event.
  • Continuous Faith: The conditional clause is an exhortation to remain in a state of grace through the sacraments and faithful living; as long as a person is alive, they have the free will to reject God and "fall away".
    Medium +13

Summary of Interpretive Frameworks

Reformed	The proof of a past reality	Proof of true election
Arminian	A requirement for future safety	Current state that can be lost
Free Grace	A condition for extra rewards	Partnership/Fellowship status
Orthodox	The necessity of the human will	Ongoing union with Christ

[th]

View​

[/th][th]

Meaning of "If..."​

[/th][th]

Nature of "Partakers"​

[/th]​

 

[Roger316]

@Roger316 even gave you a LIKE

Let's look at Hebrews 6:6 and please explain how it does NOT refer to loss of salvation.
And I should add,,,,,there are MANY verses that support loss of salvation...
Hebrews 6:6 is not the only one.

But we'll concentrate on that:

Hebrews 6:4-6
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

6and then have fallen away,


1. We see from verse 4 that they have been:
ENLIGHTENED
TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT
MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

that sounds like a saved person.

THEN

2. Verse 6
They, the saved believers, have FALLEN AWAY.

Verse 6 goes on to say that they cannot be RESTORED...
so it is NOT speaking about gifts or blessings...
it's speaking about losing salvation.


Hebrews 6:6....
..., it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.


The writer states that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.
Is repentance necessary for salvation?
Yes.
So they have lost salvation.

Couldn't Hebrews 6:6 be a hypothetical statement rather than a case in point based on what Paul says next? Hebrews 6:9

 

[Roger316]

@Mem Heb3:14 AI response:

The conditional clause in Hebrews 3:14—"if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end"—serves as a primary text for debates over perseverance and eternal security. Interpretations vary significantly based on a group's understanding of whether salvation can be lost.
Major Theological Interpretations

• Reformed (Calvinist) View:
  
  • Perseverance as Evidence: They interpret the clause not as a condition to become a partaker, but as the proof that one has already become one.
  • Logic: If a person fails to hold firm, it demonstrates they were never truly "partakers of Christ" in the first place, rather than having lost a genuine salvation.
  • Grammar: Focuses on the Greek perfect tense of "we have become" (), suggesting a past event with ongoing results that is validated by future perseverance.
  • Conditional Security: They view the "if" as a literal condition for maintaining salvation. Believers are truly partakers of Christ, but this status is contingent on their continued faith.
  • Apostasy Risk: It is possible for a genuine believer to "shrink back" or develop an "unbelieving heart," thereby forfeiting their salvation.

Summary of Interpretive Frameworks

Reformed	The proof of a past reality	Proof of true election
Arminian	A requirement for future safety	Current state that can be lost
Free Grace	A condition for extra rewards	Partnership/Fellowship status
Orthodox	The necessity of the human will	Ongoing union with Christ

[th]
View

[/th][th]
Meaning of "If..."

[/th][th]
Nature of "Partakers"

[/th]​

Wouldn't you say that a fair evaluation of the four alternative interpretations is the degree to which they make sense of the chapter at large and the surrounding context?

 

[studier]

Wouldn't you say that a fair evaluation of the four alternative interpretations is the degree to which they make sense of the chapter at large and the surrounding context?

Certainly. Do you think those 4 theological systems would not agree with us that context matters?

Why do you ask about Heb6:6 vs. Heb6:9 as you do? Are you predisposed to one or to some mixture of the systems?

 

[Roger316]

Certainly. Do you think those 4 theological systems would not agree with us that context matters?

I was trying to help you to help others understand that the Hebrews text has an objective meaning, one which Paul, the author, meant and that just like you and I don't give up out of frustration with all the alternatives out there, you and I look at the text objectively to see what the author means to say.

Why do you ask about Heb6:6 vs. Heb6:9 as you do?

Well, I have often wondered if Hebrews 6:6 should be understood as a hypothetical statement based on what he says in Hebrews 6:9. I haven't decided yet.

I always imagined that Paul was writing to a large audience of Hebrews, making his case for why it was fitting for the Messiah to be a human man, to those among them who are beginning to have doubts about the Gospel. Perhaps they are getting pressure from the Sanhedrin or another source. I don't know. That was strictly speculative.

Paul's conditional statement doesn't read as if it were already actualized. like it remained theoretical or hypothetical for his audience. I could be wrong.

Are you predisposed to one or to some mixture of the systems?

No, I believe an entirely different and relatively new system developed by a Modern Biblical Philosopher, Dr. John A Crabtree. He wrote a book called "The Most Real Being" arguing for Divine Determinism based on God's nature as a transcendent being.

Even so, I would prefer to table that discussion and remain focused on the scriptures and how we can help the others learn how to study the Bible for themselves. I very much appreciate your views and discussions on the Greek grammar. Thanks for that.

 

[studier]

Does what you allude toward have anything to do with the substance of 'our confidence'?

Yes, in part, of course - because it's what we need to retain. I mentioned somewhere in this thread that I had some thoughts on this also, but that I would leave it aside for now.

Here're the basics of it:

• Young's Literal shows the English that is closer to the Greek: YLT Hebrews 3:14 for partakers we have become of the Christ, if the beginning of the confidenceunto the end we may hold fast,
  • Just focusing on the underlined words for now - and noting that you asked "the substance of", which is part of what I'll try to explain.
  • The article is from the Greek which says "the hupostasis" (base word instead of the genitive it's stated in)
    • BDAG Lexicon:
      • 1. the essential or basic structure/nature of an entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality
      • 2. a plan that one devises for action, plan, project, undertaking, endeavor
      • 3. The interp. situation, condition (Cicero, Ad Attic. 2, 3, 3 ὑπόστασιν nostram=our situation), also specif. frame of mind
      • 4. guarantee of ownership/entitlement, title deed
    • #3. is where the translators are getting "confidence"
    • "hupostasis" also in Hebrews:
      • NET Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
      • NKJ Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
    • This is the word that is a base for the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ - the God Man.
• Although this word can mean "confidence" and Paul uses it this way in 2Cor9:4 & 2Cor11:17, I don't really see this as the meaning in Hebrews.
  • The word itself is a compound of hupo = under + histemi = to stand - to stand under - to be underlying - figuratively 'essence'
  • We see it's first use in Heb1:3 where it's speaking of Jesus Christ being the representation/reproduction/ exact imprint of God's essence - the underlying reality of Jesus Christ is God
  • I've seen some things in Hebrews to suggest the author is dealing with some very deep and important realities. I've also seen some things that make me think he may be going after Greek Philosophy in the same depth. For example, Heb11:1, which also uses hupostasis, has some language that was well known in speaking of the Socratic Method of reasoning. John addressed Greek Philosophy in regard to the Logos. Hebrews is potentially addressing it with the hupostasis of God in Jesus Christ and challenging Greek Philosophical reasoning with Hebrew and Christian Faith.
  • I don't see much if any reason to simply take Heb3:14 as "confidence" - it may have some warrant, but as you noted, what is the substance of that confidence? Maybe what Heb1:3 says it is - The Man Jesus Christ is the radiance of God's glory & an exact imprint of God's essence.
• Now, if we revisit Heb3:14 - IMO the message is; we'd best hold tightly to this hupostasis until the end.
  • This is the only foundation Paul states in 1Cor3 - Jesus [is] Christ - the only foundation to build upon.
  • Apart from orienting ourselves to and continuing to orient ourselves (hold tightly) to this reality until the end - our profession of faith is empty.

 

[studier]

I was trying to help you to help others understand that the Hebrews text has an objective meaning, one which Paul, the author, meant and that just like you and I don't give up out of frustration with all the alternatives out there, you and I look at the text objectively to see what the author means to say.

As an aside, some of us aren't convinced Paul is the author.

I think most understand the concept of the importance of context. I do think many set it aside in favor of proof-texting. I also think eisegesis is staggeringly prevalent.

Well, I have often wondered if Hebrews 6:6 should be understood as a hypothetical statement based on what he says in Hebrews 6:9. I haven't decided yet.

I always imagined that Paul was writing to a large audience of Hebrews, making his case for why it was fitting for the Messiah to be a human man, to those among them who are beginning to have doubts about the Gospel. Perhaps they are getting pressure from the Sanhedrin or another source. I don't know. That was strictly speculative.

Paul's conditional statement doesn't read as if it were already actualized. like it remained theoretical or hypothetical for his audience. I could be wrong.

Somewhat briefly, I see the end of Heb5 being rebuke for lazy believers not advancing to maturity. It also provides one of the better if not best descriptions of what maturity is. Then Heb6 goes into the basics they should have learned and been getting beyond by now and issues a command to move to maturity. Heb6:3 issues a warning in the form once again of an intensified 3rd-class condition of God's permission. This tells me they're being rebuked > the rebuke is being clarified & the command issued > they are being warned that at some point God may or may not allow their advance. Then the explanation for the warning - you've been given what you need - [if] you fall away/fail to follow through on a commitment/commit apostasy - repentance is impossible > then the agricultural explanation for burning & curse of non-productive earth.

Then the encouragement for his audience while also telling them they need to show haste/diligence until the end.

I think lightening this warning - and statement that God may step in and disallow the advance He's just commanded - is not good.

I also think we're getting some instruction on how the believer can get into trouble he may not be able to come back from. God requires productivity and built into these verses is a command to mature and commands require obedience and obviously here, continuing obedience.

No, I believe an entirely different and relatively new system developed by a Modern Biblical Philosopher, Dr. John A Crabtree. He wrote a book called "The Most Real Being" arguing for Divine Determinism based on God's nature as a transcendent being.

Even so, I would prefer to table that discussion and remain focused on the scriptures and how we can help the others learn how to study the Bible for themselves. I very much appreciate your views and discussions on the Greek grammar. Thanks for that.

Thanks for finally shedding some light on where you're coming from. As I said before you seem deterministic but at times seem to provide some openings. I'll look Crabtree up.

 

[studier]

No, I believe an entirely different and relatively new system developed by a Modern Biblical Philosopher, Dr. John A Crabtree. He wrote a book called "The Most Real Being" arguing for Divine Determinism based on God's nature as a transcendent being.

I read a few overviews. I think I can see why you want to avoid TULIP related discussions and the "Calvinist" label.

But I can also see why I've mentioned that some of what you says is seemingly very Calvinistic. It looks like a philosophical approach that overlaps extensively in conclusions with Calvinism + Compatibilism.

 

[Genez]

In your view, when does salvation take place?

What difference does it make??????

Why do some dwell on this as if it is all important?
We are saved.
And, we know it.

Don't let you question become a distraction.

 

[Roger316]

What difference does it make??????

Well, some believe that salvation takes place the very moment that an individual confesses belief. They would quote Romans 10:9-10 (TNT) as evidence. Others, like me, believe that salvation is a gift of God's grace that elsewhere is called "Sanctification." Titus 3:5

In my mind, if God is saving a man through the process of sanctification, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then the man isn't completely saved until God is finished with the man. Therefore, that man can't lose his salvation because it doesn't depend on him, it depends on the will of God.

Why do some dwell on this as if it is all important?
We are saved.
And, we know it.

Don't let you question become a distraction.

Sorry if you were offended by my question. That was never my intent. Sometimes I ask questions to keep the conversation moving smoothly and avoid sounding like an arrogant "know-it-all." I like people, and I like talking to fellow brothers and sisters, and I would never intend to insult anyone.

Thanks for responding.

It's important to know when we are saved because we tend to overlook God's work to save us in these discussions where we overly emphasize our possible ineptitude. (Not that you are doing that. ) see what I mean?

 

[Roger316]

I read a few overviews. I think I can see why you want to avoid TULIP related discussions and the "Calvinist" label.

But I can also see why I've mentioned that some of what you says is seemingly very Calvinistic. It looks like a philosophical approach that overlaps extensively in conclusions with Calvinism + Compatibilism.

I would deny both Calvinism and compatibilism because they are philosophically flawed. They see reality as if it was one big house. We live on the bottom floor, while God lives in the upper floor. But the Bible claims that God completely transcends the house altogether.

I will say something that will sound strange to your ears, but as John says, God creates everything that exists. And as such, he creates all of my free will choices.

We can talk about this more if you like.

 

[Genez]

Well, some believe that salvation takes place the very moment that an individual confesses belief. They would quote Romans 10:9-10 (TNT) as evidence. Others, like me, believe that salvation is a gift of God's grace that elsewhere is called "Sanctification." Titus 3:5

In my mind, if God is saving a man through the process of sanctification, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then the man isn't completely saved until God is finished with the man. Therefore, that man can't lose his salvation because it doesn't depend on him, it depends on the will of God.

Sorry if you were offended by my question. That was never my intent. Sometimes I ask questions to keep the conversation moving smoothly and avoid sounding like an arrogant "know-it-all." I like people, and I like talking to fellow brothers and sisters, and I would never intend to insult anyone.

Thanks for responding.

It's important to know when we are saved because we tend to overlook God's work to save us in these discussions where we overly emphasize our possible ineptitude. (Not that you are doing that. ) see what I mean?

Salvation is multidimensional.

Entrance into salvation takes place when one believes.

Acts 16:30-31

He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Then, after entering salvation?

We enter into the angelic conflict.
An invisible warfare that the world is engulfed in.

We fight in this war by learning, and obedience, to sound doctrine which becomes the means
to please the Lord. Pleasing Him as He uses us to make His enemies into His footstool.


1 Peter 1:8-11

Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now,
you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving
the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (experiential salvation - inner peace and happiness)

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow.

And? If what we believe is accurate and sound?
God is glorified by the weight of the truth that His enemies can not bear!



Romans 16:20

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

All who believed in Jesus Christ are saved from Hell.
But, not all saved will glorify Christ.
For erroneous doctrines will abound, and we must fight the good fight to get things right with the truth.

Satan hates sound doctrine.
For the Truth makes us free from his control.

It is why we see so much stupidity in religion.

 

[studier]

I will say something that will sound strange to your ears, but as John says, God creates everything that exists. And as such, he creates all of my free will choices.

We can talk about this more if you like.

That doesn't sound strange. It sounds like very strict philosophical determinism.

Obviously we're free to say what we want when we want and hopefully back it up with Scripture, but I doubt we can have a productive discussion because I will likely side against the deterministic view albeit maybe or maybe not from the perspective of those who sided against Crabtree.

 

[Kroogz]

@Roger316 even gave you a LIKE

Let's look at Hebrews 6:6 and please explain how it does NOT refer to loss of salvation.
And I should add,,,,,there are MANY verses that support loss of salvation...
Hebrews 6:6 is not the only one.

But we'll concentrate on that:

Hebrews 6:4-6
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

6and then have fallen away,


1. We see from verse 4 that they have been:
ENLIGHTENED
TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT
MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

that sounds like a saved person.

THEN

2. Verse 6
They, the saved believers, have FALLEN AWAY.

Verse 6 goes on to say that they cannot be RESTORED...
so it is NOT speaking about gifts or blessings...
it's speaking about losing salvation.


Hebrews 6:6....
..., it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.


The writer states that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.
Is repentance necessary for salvation?
Yes.
So they have lost salvation.

HEB 6:6 is describing your belief and theory. You are saved. But you have fallen away From the Lord Jesus Christ. John 5:24

It is impossible to "re-save" you. Because it is one and done.

I completely agree it is talking about losing salvation.........It cannot and won't be lost.......If we fall away from Christ, we most certainly will end up with a "loss of salvation" theory. Crucifying Christ again and putting Him to open shame.

Rom 8:16~~The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

Fall away from Him?........ We will begin to ask.....Are we really children of God?

 

[studier]

It is impossible to "re-save" you. Because it is one and done.

Insert this presupposition into any Scripture and, assuming it's wrong - as others do - then create a chain of other fallacies to make it work. You're attempting to prove a conclusion by inserting it as a presupposition as your major premise.