Loss of salvation???

[markss]

The elephant in the room seems to always turn out to be the size of a mustard seed. God declares us sons, and we confine ourselves to the servant's quarters. What is that? I can't quite define it. It strikes me like some contrived humility or something, maybe even unbelief.

Yeah, false humility will do that. Pride in asserting one's self over others, that will do it. Unbelief will do that, thinking you have to buy your way in. A deceiver will do that.

Paul wrote about those who were trying to subvert other's faith as that they might glory in their flesh, that is, taking fleshy pleasure in putting others under bondage.

Much love!

 

[studier]

Yes, restating the assertion as a conclusion. Romans for completely refutes that notion that faith and obedience are the same thing. They are clearly not.

Good post!

Much love!

Typical assertions without work in Scripture.

Theological systems...

 

[HeIsHere]

Enter into and remain in Christ under grace until the end..

Just as I said, you only know a system and not how to read and work through God's Word.

Translation:
Self

 

[studier]

The elephant in the room seems to always turn out to be the size of a mustard seed. God declares us sons, and we confine ourselves to the servant's quarters. What is that? I can't quite define it. It strikes me like some contrived humility or something, maybe even unbelief.

So, Jesus didn't tell his disciples they'd best not forget who they are in relation to Him?

Care to chase the concept of serving God through the NC Scriptures.

Are you too denying submission and obedience to God as intrinsic to believing in Him?

 

[studier]

Translation:
Self

Mistranslation as usual.

Just assertions, misrepresentations, and allegations. No Scripture.

 

[Roger316]

And there we have it - disagree with the error in Faith-Alone and we're not saved.

Let's get a grasp on this; if we read God's Word to inform us that believing in Jesus Christ means to also be obeying Him and doing God's will under His Grace in Christ in Spirit for the rest of our days here and to not withdraw/revolt/apostatize from Him, then we are said to be working for our salvation and thus we are not saved.

Theologies...

Ever notice that we have a hall of the faithful in Paul's letter to the Hebrews, but we don't have a hall of the obedient?

 

[studier]

Yeah, false humility will do that. Pride in asserting one's self over others, that will do it. Unbelief will do that, thinking you have to buy your way in. A deceiver will do that.

Paul wrote about those who were trying to subvert other's faith as that they might glory in their flesh, that is, taking fleshy pleasure in putting others under bondage.

Much love!

Asserting God's Word over systems.

Very simple.

 

[HeIsHere]

Mistranslation as usual.

Just assertions, misrepresentations, and allegations. No Scripture.

You stated very clearly you remain, therefore you keep SELF saved by your own effort.

 

[studier]

Ever notice that we have a hall of the faithful in Paul's letter to the Hebrews, but we don't have a hall of the obedient?

Faithfulness doesn't include doing God's will?

 

[studier]

You stated very clearly you remain, therefore you keep SELF saved by your own effort.

You purposely missed the under grace part.

And yes, remaining is commanded, so we are the ones actively and willingly remaining under His grace.

You really should learn to do your part required of you.

Again, care to go through His Word?

It can be tough coming out of a system.

 

[FlyingDove]

Now that you’ve earlier acknowledged that the references I cited were showing the infinitive phrase to be epexegetical, and you’ve now defined an epexegetical infinitive as one that is “explanatory — clarifies, specifies, or gives the content of the noun it follows,” the phrase in Heb 3:12 is understood in those same terms:

• Unbelief explained as departing from the living God
• Unbelief clarified as departing from the living God
• Unbelief specified as departing from the living God
• Unbelief having as its content departing from the living God

All four of your own terms point to the same conclusion: the infinitive phrase functions adjectivally, giving the author’s intended sense of “unbelief” in that sentence. It's saying precisely what I and the references I cited have said. It's not describing a later action, result, or root‑fruit sequence, which would have been stated in entirely different language.

Thus we can say disobedience–unbelief or obedience–belief, with the hyphen indicating the Hebrews author’s own parallel usage and not lexical definition as you keep asserting I’m saying, but simply showing that the two terms belong together as one unified concept. The hyphen doesn’t mean the words are identical. It just shows they function together and should be read as a single, connected idea rather than as separate or sequential categories.

Faith-Obedience, just as is conveyed in several other areas of Scripture.

You're stretching EXPLANATORY far beyond what any grammar allows. An epexegetical infinitive clarifies or gives the content of a noun, but it does not redefine the noun, collapse categories, or create a hyphenated theological identity. ""Departing from the living God"" explains the kind of unbelief in view-it does not turn unbelief into departure as a single fused concept any more than ""to deceive"" in Eph 4:22 turns ""the old man"" into ""old‑man‑to‑deceive."" Explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity.

Hebrews 3 itself proves this: the author repeatedly distinguishes unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) from the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience that flow from it (3:15–18). Your interpretation erases the very distinctions the inspired author maintains & your ""disobedience–unbelief / obedience–belief"" hyphenation simply restates the category collapse you deny. Hebrews uses the terms in parallel, not as a single unified concept. Parallelism is not fusion. The text gives a root (unbelief) & its expressions (disobedience), your reading merges them into 1 thing the author never identifies. That's the core issue.

My position has been stated clearly, repeatedly & directly from the text. The same category collapse keeps getting reintroduced under different handles & the discussion has become redundant. Hebrews 3 keeps unbelief & its expressions distinct. Luke 17 keeps faith & obedience distinct. I'm leaving it at we disagree & further repetition won't change that. I'm stepping out of this loop.

 

[studier]

Ever notice that we have a hall of the faithful in Paul's letter to the Hebrews, but we don't have a hall of the obedient?

NKJ Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

The hall of the faithful is also the hall of the obedient, because apart from obedient there is no faithful.

We should probably go through the Heb11 "Hall" slowly and precisely.

 

[HeIsHere]

You purposely missed the under grace part.

And yes, remaining is commanded, so we are the ones actively and willingly remaining under His grace.

You really should learn to do your part required of you.

Again, care to go through His Word?

It can be tough coming out of a system.

Under grace>>> walk in Christ

Justified >>>> status/position conferred by God.
Try again.

 

[JayWalker]

 

[BillyBob]

It seems clear to me that God tells us that we must do many things that we simply cannot do unless enabled to do so. Even the simple commands like “Follow me” result in some following Him and many turning away.
It is the hearing of His word and the work of the Spirit that renews our heart and provides the enabling which is needed.

Matt 20:15-16

 

[studier]

You're stretching EXPLANATORY far beyond what any grammar allows. An epexegetical infinitive clarifies or gives the content of a noun, but it does not redefine the noun, collapse categories, or create a hyphenated theological identity. ""Departing from the living God"" explains the kind of unbelief in view-it does not turn unbelief into departure as a single fused concept any more than ""to deceive"" in Eph 4:22 turns ""the old man"" into ""old‑man‑to‑deceive."" Explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity.

Hebrews 3 itself proves this: the author repeatedly distinguishes unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) from the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience that flow from it (3:15–18). Your interpretation erases the very distinctions the inspired author maintains & your ""disobedience–unbelief / obedience–belief"" hyphenation simply restates the category collapse you deny. Hebrews uses the terms in parallel, not as a single unified concept. Parallelism is not fusion. The text gives a root (unbelief) & its expressions (disobedience), your reading merges them into 1 thing the author never identifies. That's the core issue.

My position has been stated clearly, repeatedly & directly from the text. The same category collapse keeps getting reintroduced under different handles & the discussion has become redundant. Hebrews 3 keeps unbelief & its expressions distinct. Luke 17 keeps faith & obedience distinct. I'm leaving it at we disagree & further repetition won't change that. I'm stepping out of this loop.

Well, you’ve now come around to agreement on the infinitive being epexegetical (after learning what it means), and you’ve also affirmed the parallelism in the passage - exactly what I and the scholars I cited have been saying. At this point it’s probably best you do step away before noticing that your conclusion no longer matches what you’ve agreed to. The author is simply telling us what he means when he says “unbelief.”

BTW, Eph4:22 is not the same infinitive construction as Heb3:12. Different infinitive constructions have different meanings. That's been a major part of this discussion.

 

[Mem]

So, Jesus didn't tell his disciples they'd best not forget who they are in relation to Him?

Care to chase the concept of serving God through the NC Scriptures.

Are you too denying submission and obedience to God as intrinsic to believing in Him?

If the emphasis that Jesus is Lord God discounts the Identity that He took upon Himself as Friend/Brother, you've missed out on the relationship entirely. John did not insult Him in claiming himself as the one that Jesus loved, being confident in that enough to lean on his bosom even. Was John the most well behaved? It very well seems so, but that he also seems to be the most aware of Jesus' love very possibly had some correlation to that.

 

[studier]

Under grace>>> walk in Christ

Justified >>>> status/position conferred by God.
Try again.

Again, use Scripture to teach us all about justification and why you think it is one time and eternal no matter what.

As a start, if it'll help, I'll list all of the verses where the verb form is used in the NC and you can explain the ones that are important in your view.

Why does commanded and thus faithfully abiding and enduring bother you so much? Do you not understand the power of His grace and what He's actually accomplishing in those who are His?

 

[markss]

You're stretching EXPLANATORY far beyond what any grammar allows. An epexegetical infinitive clarifies or gives the content of a noun, but it does not redefine the noun, collapse categories, or create a hyphenated theological identity. ""Departing from the living God"" explains the kind of unbelief in view-it does not turn unbelief into departure as a single fused concept any more than ""to deceive"" in Eph 4:22 turns ""the old man"" into ""old‑man‑to‑deceive."" Explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity.

Hebrews 3 itself proves this: the author repeatedly distinguishes unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) from the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience that flow from it (3:15–18). Your interpretation erases the very distinctions the inspired author maintains & your ""disobedience–unbelief / obedience–belief"" hyphenation simply restates the category collapse you deny. Hebrews uses the terms in parallel, not as a single unified concept. Parallelism is not fusion. The text gives a root (unbelief) & its expressions (disobedience), your reading merges them into 1 thing the author never identifies. That's the core issue.

My position has been stated clearly, repeatedly & directly from the text. The same category collapse keeps getting reintroduced under different handles & the discussion has become redundant. Hebrews 3 keeps unbelief & its expressions distinct. Luke 17 keeps faith & obedience distinct. I'm leaving it at we disagree & further repetition won't change that. I'm stepping out of this loop.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was running into that led me to disengage. The points themselves were different, but the process was exactly like you've described here.

You have a good way with words btw.

Much love!

 

[FlyingDove]

Yes, restating the assertion as a conclusion. Romans for completely refutes that notion that faith and obedience are the same thing. They are clearly not.

Good post!

Much love!

Thanks & yes, Romans refutes the idea that faith & obedience are the same thing & we've been through that before. The pattern is always the same: grammars, lexicons & dictionaries are quoted, but then overridden by a theological conclusion none of those sources actually state. The same thing is happening here in Luke 17. The text distinguishes faith from obedience. The narrative structure distinguishes them & the apostles themselves distinguish them. When someone insists that only they see the ""true data,"" even when the inspired text & the very sources they cite don't support their conclusion, the result is predictable: the categories collapse & the doctrine gets imported back into the passage. That's why the same argument keeps producing the same result.