Loss of salvation???

[Mem]

God, and only God, is good. And God values faith, and faith is what God rewards.
Hebrews 11:6 ('rewarder' only occurs once, and it is here). This is what God is checking your pockets for. He considers faith to be a "good trade" for the reward of His goodness. You either believe He IS God, and therefore good, or you're a liar.

 

[Roger316]

In what sense?

The reason I ask is because of your wording:

NKJ Gal5:24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

What does Paul mean by "crucified the flesh"? Can a person who is not "in Christ" crucify the flesh? Is Paul talking about a "white knuckle" experience where I try as hard as I can to avoid sin, or is it something else?

(My intent is not to put you on the spot. I value your opinion, and I would appreciate your perspective.)

NKJ 1Cor15:20-24 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

When the day comes for us to be made alive in Christ, I imagine that some of us will be taking "selfies" and in that moment we shall be transformed into incorruptibility. This seems to imply that those "in Christ" are special in some way. Verse 23 is limited to a fraction of the human population. I doubt the angels will simply pick people at random.

It seems to me that Paul has coined a term to indicate that subset of the population who are identified with Christ in a significant way.

I hope you'll note the resurrection context of 1Cor15 and who the next resurrected are and correlate it to how Paul describes them in Gal5:24.

I'm uncertain about the connection you see between the passages.

 

[FlyingDove]

OK, so now you either couldn't or simply wouldn't define and explain the meaning of "epexegetical" that you used before and that actually destroyed your argument. That's pretty slippery.

And you still haven’t quoted a single line from any of those resources that contradicts what I cited. If you believe they deny that the infinitive clause gives the content of ‘unbelief,’ then produce where they say so.

The shift to ad hominem comments about me rather than explaining what 'epexegetical' means and citing anything that refutes what I cited is the typical move when the actual content of the discussion has been left. IOW, you have nothing of meaning left.

You're simply still making unfounded assertions to shore up a failed theology, while refusing to disclose the source of the content of your posts.

Heb3:12-19 is simply a chain of explanations of the word "unbelief" - unbelief is in withdrawal <> rebellion <> sin <> disobedience <> [summarizing] unbelief. All these words tell us what biblical unbelief is.

No root-fruit analogy. No cause-effect. Simply epexegetical content, substance, explanation - just as your resource told you.

Simple logic: disobedience <> unbelief, so obedience <> belief - parallel terminology - biblical faith-obedience - ultimately faithfulness - what God requires from us and assists us to become.

You've repeatedly shifted the discussion away from the text & into personal accusations, questioning motives, dismissing opposing views as GARBAGE & positioning yourself as the final arbiter on what counts as valid doctrine. I've stayed with the text & used the sources you yourself cited.

My point remains simple: none of the grammars you appealed to make the theological identity claim you assert. They define the infinitive as epexegetical - explanatory - NOT as an identity statement. Explanation is not equivalence. Clarification is not redefinition & Heb 3 itself distinguishes unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) from the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience that flow from it (3:15–18). The inspired author keeps the categories distinct. You collapse them.

You're free to hold your view, but you don't get to override the grammars, the text, or other believers by declaring every differing interpretation GARBAGE. I'm rejecting that posture, because it elevates your conclusions above the very sources you've appealed to.

 

[JayWalker]

I cited Exo. 31:14, 35:2 and Num. 15:32 in reply to you wanting to find the bible verse that says people go to hell for going to church on the wrong day

These verses you cited don't say New Covenant believers will be rejected by the Lord if they don't go to church on Saturday

We see proof in the New Covenant of the Apostles meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday)

Is it your claim they were being led of the devil to meet on Sundays?

so we should serve the Lord by doing good/godly works every day.

And the New Covenant does not teach that going to church on Saturday is one of the good works Christians are to be doing

 

[Toknow]

I just do not think individual "word study" is the first "go to" for understanding a text.

Context (in its fullest sense) is always the correct approach to exegeting a text.

Hey He

YOU posted Hebrews 6:1-3 and I really believe you have no idea what it means.

See your post no. 11,164

So, yeah, forget about a WORD....
You don't seem to understand whole paragraphs !


Hebrews 6:1-3 and beyond.... CEV
1We must try to become mature and start thinking about more than just the basic things we were taught about Christ. We shouldn't need to keep talking about why we ought to turn from deeds that bring death and why we ought to have faith in God.

2And we shouldn't need to keep teaching about baptisms+ or about the laying on of hands+ or about people being raised from death and the future judgment.

3Let's grow up, if God is willing.

4-6But what about people who turn away after they have already seen the light and have received the gift from heaven and have shared in the Holy Spirit? What about those who turn away after they have received the good message of God and the powers of the future world? There is no way to bring them back. What they are doing is the same as nailing the Son of God to a cross and insulting him in public!


And you never replied to post no. 11,165.



I thought that verses 4 to 6 were also very interesting.

 

[markss]

You've repeatedly shifted the discussion away from the text & into personal accusations, questioning motives, dismissing opposing views as GARBAGE & positioning yourself as the final arbiter on what counts as valid doctrine. I've stayed with the text & used the sources you yourself cited.

My point remains simple: none of the grammars you appealed to make the theological identity claim you assert. They define the infinitive as epexegetical - explanatory - NOT as an identity statement. Explanation is not equivalence. Clarification is not redefinition & Heb 3 itself distinguishes unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) from the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience that flow from it (3:15–18). The inspired author keeps the categories distinct. You collapse them.

You're free to hold your view, but you don't get to override the grammars, the text, or other believers by declaring every differing interpretation GARBAGE. I'm rejecting that posture, because it elevates your conclusions above the very sources you've appealed to.

I've found the same thing, that's why I don't engage this member. Things just like this, false equivalencies snuck into the discussion, sources that refute the assertions he claims they support, and yes, all the personal stuff that signals a poor argument, and more. It's not fruitful.

Much love!

 

[Toknow]

Good morning FD
I'm reading through this very intellectual discussion with much interest since it's about one of my favorite topics re the NT teachings.

Could you please answer the following?:

Hebrews 3:12-19

You are separating UNBELIEF and DISOBEDIENCE.

So are you saying that a person could disbelieve but still be obedient

or

a person could be disobedient but still believe??

Thanks.

(IOW I have difficulty separating the two and do not see the clear differentiation in scriputre that you do)

Hi @FlyingDove ....

Could you give your opinion on the above?
Thanks.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

And the New Covenant does not teach that going to church on Saturday is one of the good works Christians are to be doing

So is it your claim the works of God is not "good works" Exo32:16 Exo20:8-11 Lev23:3 and His instructions on righteousness not "good works" Isa 56:1-2 we in the NT are told to follow 2Tim3:16

So for generation after generation preaching the word of God in every city on every Sabbath not "good works" in your view Acts15:21

So Jesus was not doing good works in your view Luke4:16 and the apostles following in His footsteps doing the same Acts 13:44 Acts 17:2 Acts 18:4

And when the saints get to heaven following in the same holy convocation on the Sabbath Heb12:23 Isa66:23 not "good works"


Well thankfully we all have to answer to someone Else who says something much different Exo20:8-11 Isa56:6-7 Lev 23:3 Psa 73:28 Psa78:7 Rev2:26

 

[Toknow]

I've found the same thing, that's why I don't engage this member. Things just like this, false equivalencies snuck into the discussion, sources that refute the assertions he claims they support, and yes, all the personal stuff that signals a poor argument, and more. It's not fruitful.

Much love!

I've found that it's always the other guy that started it.
Just like in kindergarten.

I went back a few posts.
You might want to check out no. 11,193

But it's nice how you guys stick together.

i guess if a person can't get support from the general population...
he'll stick with the group.....
to get that support that is needed when scripture isn't available.



Matthew 7:12
12“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Toknow]

I've found the same thing, that's why I don't engage this member. Things just like this, false equivalencies snuck into the discussion, sources that refute the assertions he claims they support, and yes, all the personal stuff that signals a poor argument, and more. It's not fruitful.

Much love!

oh
the irony !

 

[GWH]

These verses you cited don't say New Covenant believers will be rejected by the Lord if they don't go to church on Saturday

We see proof in the New Covenant of the Apostles meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday)

Is it your claim they were being led of the devil to meet on Sundays?




And the New Covenant does not teach that going to church on Saturday is one of the good works Christians are to be doing

You initially said "people", not "NC believers".

Yes, the NT does not say what day of the week Christians should go to church but only to not give up meeting together (Heb. 10:25).

 

[JayWalker]

You initially said "people", not "NC believers".

Well you know New Covenant believers are people you know.

Just because some of them act like donkees, it doesn't mean they are actually donkees.

 

[studier]

What does Paul mean by "crucified the flesh"? Can a person who is not "in Christ" crucify the flesh? Is Paul talking about a "white knuckle" experience where I try as hard as I can to avoid sin, or is it something else?

(My intent is not to put you on the spot. I value your opinion, and I would appreciate your perspective.)


When the day comes for us to be made alive in Christ, I imagine that some of us will be taking "selfies" and in that moment we shall be transformed into incorruptibility. This seems to imply that those "in Christ" are special in some way. Verse 23 is limited to a fraction of the human population. I doubt the angels will simply pick people at random.

It seems to me that Paul has coined a term to indicate that subset of the population who are identified with Christ in a significant way.


I'm uncertain about the connection you see between the passages.

A few observations and things to ponder:

• I responded to what you asked using your words.
• Paul wrote both of these Scriptures.
• In Gal he's explaining who these men are and what identifies them
• In 1Cor he's naming them as next in resurrection.
• Not holding to monergism, the explanation of Gal5:24 is in the close context on the one hand of those in whom is the fruit of the Spirit developed - those walking in Spirit. In the greater context Paul's speaking of standing fast in Christ.
• IMO you were asking me more about how we become Christian, since @HeIsHere and I were speaking of justification when you entered in. I'm just guessing though.
• Let's approach it like this and let me show you why i took your terminology and went where I did:
  • Jesus tends to jump to the heart of the matter and show us how He uses Scripture.
  • NKJ John6:43-47 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
  • Jesus draws from Isaiah who speaks of "God's learned men"
  • He applies this in essence backwards - the end to the beginning - to how God draws men - God teaches (because God will have learned men).
  • He then proceeds forward to say the the men who come to Him, hear & learn what God teaches & they believe - so, God will ultimately have learned men just like Isaiah said.
  • Jesus just took us from the end and applied it to the beginning.
  • The rest of Jesus' NC teaching has this same type of reasoning in more detail
    • Paul's telling us about the end - the resurrection of Christ's men 1Cor15:24.
    • Then he describes Christ's men as those who [under grace in abiding and enduring faith-obedience in willing cooperation with God] crucified their flesh with its passions and desires Gal5:24.
    • I see in Paul's writings and in the entire NC the characteristics of these men from their beginning
      • They heard and learned & obeyed God's teaching and believed Jesus is the Christ (as Jesus commanded and as God commands).
      • They abided in Christ as He commands, endured in Christ as He commands, accomplished their salvation as He commands cooperating with God who provides His capacities for them to both will and work for His good pleasure (which work in Phil2:12-13 is in the context of accomplishing their salvation).
      • They through time and work and remaining in faith-obedience to God under grace crucified their flesh walking in Spirit in Christ having the fruit of the Spirit developed in them
      • They are Christ's [men] who are next resurrected.

IOW, they are Christians whose Father and Lord and His Spirit did not fail in raising and training and renewing, and who did not turn around and withdraw from the process of Salvation. IOW, they are the believers.

NKJ 2Tim2:19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "(COMMAND) Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity unrighteousness."

• This command is not apart from the statement that He knows who are His.
• This "depart from" is the same language used elsewhere re" departing from the faith
  • It's the same word I've been dealing with in Heb3:12 that in part explains and defines what unbelief is and inherently does.
  • We get "apostasy" from this word.
  • It means to withdraw/revolt from.
  • We're COMMANDED to not get into unbelief/revolting from God/rebellion/sin/disobedience/unbelief
  • We're COMMANDED to revolt from unrighteousness (which is sin) if we're going to name the name of Christ

If we can't look back and see that this is what we willingly signed up for according to Scripture when we believed JESUS IS THE CHRIST and someone has led us to think this is not an abiding and enduring life of faith-obedience - faithfulness - believing loyalty to the God and Creator of everything including everyone, then we have a problem.

 

[studier]

You've repeatedly shifted the discussion away from the text & into personal accusations, questioning motives, dismissing opposing views as GARBAGE & positioning yourself as the final arbiter on what counts as valid doctrine. I've stayed with the text & used the sources you yourself cited.

Mostly wrong while partially right.

I too have been personal.

I have not shifted the discussion from the Text.

I've cited multiple works that agree with and substantiate my reading of the language under discussion. You have cited none.

You've very simply not provided anything but assertions made by you IMO using others' works who you will not disclose.

You also will not provide any detail of why you should be regarded as having any credibility in the languages. IMO you have no or extremely limited training.

You assert words like 'epexegetical,' which it was obvious you did not understand, because it supported what I and those several references concluded, and it destroyed your argument in a single word. When I asked you to explain the word, you ignored the request. You were stuck even if you didn't realize it.

Until if and when you provide something with some credibility, I'm going to write you off so we can both stay away from anything personal.

I'll probably still address your errors - both narrow and wide.

 

[studier]

I've found the same thing, that's why I don't engage this member. Things just like this, false equivalencies snuck into the discussion, sources that refute the assertions he claims they support, and yes, all the personal stuff that signals a poor argument, and more. It's not fruitful.

Much love!

Wasn't it you too who thought he knows something about the language that you really don't know? Wasn't it the same assertion of "false equivalency" between biblical faith and obedience? Or was it something else?

Faith-Alone theology extended into error can seem to make such functional equivalencies found in the original language seem false. The error is in the theology - the Text is clear.

If you know the language as you purport to, you'd see how Hebrews3 is creating those functional equivalencies, and how the resources I cited see it as I do. You may have even known what epexegetical means.

 

[Lamar]

Have you ever seen scripture that supports the fact that it can be un-bequeathed?

God is sovereign.

Anything given can be taken away.

Regardless of who, what, when or where.

"Everyone who uses what they have will get more. They will have much more than they need. But people who do not use what they have will have everything taken away from them.’ Matthew 25:29

Remember the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Ungraceful Servant, that what was given to them freely was taken away.

"and said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” Job 1:21

Do not be so arrogant as to think that God is somehow bound by your understanding forgiveness.

King Saul was anointed, confirmed and witnessed by the people as king over Israel yet his crown was taken from him.

God was displeased with Saul and regretted making him king. God was not bound by the anointing of him king.

God made David king in place of Saul.

God is sovereign.

 

[FlyingDove]

Mostly wrong while partially right.

I too have been personal.

I have not shifted the discussion from the Text.

I've cited multiple works that agree with and substantiate my reading of the language under discussion. You have cited none.

You've very simply not provided anything but assertions made by you IMO using others' works who you will not disclose.

You also will not provide any detail of why you should be regarded as having any credibility in the languages. IMO you have no or extremely limited training.

You assert words like 'epexegetical,' which it was obvious you did not understand, because it supported what I and those several references concluded, and it destroyed your argument in a single word. When I asked you to explain the word, you ignored the request. You were stuck even if you didn't realize it.

Until if and when you provide something with some credibility, I'm going to write you off so we can both stay away from anything personal.

I'll probably still address your errors - both narrow and wide.

Your latest reply continues the personal evaluations while still providing no textual or grammatical support for your claim. I'm not responding to demands for my credentials - personal qualifications don't determine what the text says & neither do yours. I've stayed with Heb 3 & with the very grammars you cited.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity: ""epexegetical"" is a standard grammatical category. It means explanatory - an infinitive that clarifies, specifies, or gives the content of the noun it follows. Grammars do not define an epexegetical infinitive as an identity statement. They define it as explanatory. Again, explanation is not equivalence & clarification is not redefinition.

Returning to the text again: Heb 3 distinguishes unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) from the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience that flow from it (3:15–18). The inspired author keeps the categories distinct. Your interpretation does not.

Your latest reply continues the personal evaluations while still avoiding the text itself. Since the conversation keeps drifting into ad hominem assessments of me rather than Hebrews 3, I'm stepping back from this exchange. I'll probably still address your errors - both narrow & wide.

 

[Mem]

God is sovereign.

Anything given can be taken away.

Regardless of who, what, when or where.

"Everyone who uses what they have will get more. They will have much more than they need. But people who do not use what they have will have everything taken away from them.’ Matthew 25:29

Remember the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Ungraceful Servant, that what was given to them freely was taken away.

"and said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” Job 1:21

Do not be so arrogant as to think that God is somehow bound by your understanding forgiveness.

King Saul was anointed, confirmed and witnessed by the people as king over Israel yet his crown was taken from him.

God was displeased with Saul and regretted making him king. God was not bound by the anointing of him king.

God made David king in place of Saul.

God is sovereign.

Am I very far off in assuming that you consider Saul to be looking forward to the lake of fire?

 

[FlyingDove]

RE: More Faith-Obedience – Obedience emphasized Post #10969

The entire interpretation begins with a false premise - ""We've just been instructed in no uncertain terms what biblical faith is: It's Faith‑Obedience"".

Luke 17 never says that. Jesus never says that. The apostles never say that. The parable never says that. A false premise is imported the conclusion & then it retrofits the passage to match it.

Luke 17 isn't defining faith as obedience. Jesus gives commands (rebuke, forgive), the apostles feel inadequate & Jesus answers by describing the nature of faith, not by redefining it. The parable that follows is about humility in obedience, not the essence of faith.

If ""faith = obedience,"" then Jesus' entire contrast collapses: He commands obedience (Vs.3–4) The apostles ask for more faith (Vs.5) ""Jesus distinguishes faith from obedience"" > by using a mustard‑seed analogy (v.6) & then He teaches that obedience is simply a servant's duty (Vs.7–10)

The structure is clear: Faith trusts God. Obedience follows God. They are connected, but not identical. Luke 17 teaches humility in obedience & confidence in God’s power > not that obedience is faith.

 

[JayWalker]

I responded to what you asked using your words.

What? He has his own words???

Man, I've been just using the words everyone else has been using.