Loss of salvation???

[markss]

OK, now that you've actually posted Scripture,

See, this is why I'm not interested in discussion with you. This shows your attitude, your style, whatever you want to call it. I'm just not interested. Like I don't post Scripture. Like I don't make numerous allusions to passages. Like I don't salt my posts with quotes from the Bible even if I don't give the reference. And like you sit yourself above me to speak this way.

No, just, now that you've actually posted Scripture. I think you ought to read through that passage until you see that God here makes this distinction.

Otherwise, nevermind.

Much love!

 

[markss]

Good. So, 'conflating' prompts a response and 'works-phobic' prompts a response.

Now, how about discussing Romans4?

Do you not understand? I'm not interested. For the reasons given.

 

[FlyingDove]

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.

LOL - the goading is noted, but no, I haven't ""come around"" to your position at all. We agreed on the grammatical label (epexegetical), not on your theological leap. An epexegetical infinitive explains or gives content, it does not redefine the noun, collapse categories, or create a fused theological identity. That has been my point from the beginning & nothing I've said grants you the right to turn ""unbelief"" into '"unbelief‑as‑departure"" as a single concept. My Eph 4:22 reference wasn't claiming identical syntax, only illustrating the basic point that explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity. Hebrews 3 still keeps unbelief & its expressions distinct, Luke 17 still keeps faith and obedience distinct. On that, we clearly disagree & once again I'm content to leave it there.

 

[mailmandan]

See, this is why I'm not interested in discussion with you. This shows your attitude, your style, whatever you want to call it. I'm just not interested. Like I don't post Scripture. Like I don't make numerous allusions to passages. Like I don't salt my posts with quotes from the Bible even if I don't give the reference. And like you sit yourself above me to speak this way.

No, just, now that you've actually posted Scripture. I think you ought to read through that passage until you see that God here makes this distinction.

Otherwise, nevermind.

Much love!

So it's not just me! You nailed it brother!

 

[markss]

So it's not just me! You nailed it brother!

I've seen that he treats others the same. We all reveal ourselves in our speech towards others. Misrepresenting someone is just a nice way of saying that he lies about others. So then by his own words he's an unbeliever, I guess.

Much love!

 

[Qt]

You tagged my post first and made an assumption. I'm really not interested in your psychological games.

No I responded to your post which was a slight on all those who don’t believe as you do. You weren’t always like this. Apparently these places have become a stumbling block for you. You might need to take a break

 

[HeIsHere]

When ‘conflating’ is being used to shut down how Scripture explains that being obedient to God is believing God, it’s being used pejoratively - it's a dismissive label meant to discredit what the Text says rather than deal with it.

Are you sure you are not conflating different concepts taught in scripture....

1. justification,
2. positional sanctification and
3. progressive sanctification?

 

[mailmandan]

No I responded to your post which was a slight on all those who don’t believe as you do. You weren’t always like this. Apparently these places have become a stumbling block for you. You might need to take a break

More psychological games. How do you know what I was always like? I've been a member here since 2014. You just joined last December. Been here before?

 

[FlyingDove]

cc: @markss

NKJ Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"

• Once we pay attention to how Greek constructions function, the point becomes clear.
• You’ve now acknowledged both the epexegetical category and the parallelism in Heb3 - exactly what the standard grammars and the sources I cited have been saying.
• An epexegetical construction explains or gives the content of the noun it follows.
• In Rom 10:16, Paul uses 'gar' ('For') to do the same explanatory work - it gives explanation and content to the parallel phrase “not obeying the gospel.”
• Paul explains “not obeying the Gospel” by specifying it as “not believing the report.”
• That is faith‑obedience - belief functioning as the explanation of obedience.
• If Paul intended a cause‑effect sequence (believing > obeying), he would have used different wording.

We're just back in the same circle. You're treating explanation as equivalence & content as identity & I'm distinguishing them. That's the core disagreement. In Romans 10:16, the gar clause gives the reason Israel didn't obey the gospel - they didn't believe the message. That's explanation, not redefinition. Paul isn't collapsing obedience into belief any more than he collapses faith & works in Romans 3–5. He uses explanatory parallels throughout his letters without turning them into identity statements (Rom 9:30–32 & Gal 3:2–3). So yes, we disagree on the category structure & repeating it won't change that.

 

[Mem]

And He says you can be His friend if you obey Him.

And He says you love Him if you obey Him.

And He says you love your believing siblings if you obey Him.

And He says you remain in His love if you obey Him

And He ultimately says this is what Faith is.

Are you arguing that I don't love Him, or that He doesn't love me?

 

[Roger316]

LOL - the goading is noted, but no, I haven't ""come around"" to your position at all. We agreed on the grammatical label (epexegetical), not on your theological leap. An epexegetical infinitive explains or gives content, it does not redefine the noun, collapse categories, or create a fused theological identity. That has been my point from the beginning & nothing I've said grants you the right to turn ""unbelief"" into '"unbelief‑as‑departure"" as a single concept. My Eph 4:22 reference wasn't claiming identical syntax, only illustrating the basic point that explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity. Hebrews 3 still keeps unbelief & its expressions distinct, Luke 17 still keeps faith and obedience distinct. On that, we clearly disagree & once again I'm content to leave it there.

Thank you for your posts I enjoy reading them. Can I ask a couple of questions? First, I am intrigued by something you said, "that explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity." Can you explain what you mean?

Second, Paul talks about the "old man" and it seems to be a reference to a transformation of a person's nature. Do you see it that way also?

 

[Magenta]

It is God Who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose. Apart from Me you can do nothing. No word from God will ever fail. “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus said, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

 

[Lamar]

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

I have no idea what King Saul was looking forward to.

What does it matter?

Must be missing something here.

 

[studier]

See, this is why I'm not interested in discussion with you. This shows your attitude, your style, whatever you want to call it. I'm just not interested. Like I don't post Scripture. Like I don't make numerous allusions to passages. Like I don't salt my posts with quotes from the Bible even if I don't give the reference. And like you sit yourself above me to speak this way.

No, just, now that you've actually posted Scripture. I think you ought to read through that passage until you see that God here makes this distinction.

Otherwise, nevermind.

Much love!

Actually, I think God's Word sits above all of us and that Faith-Alone advocates like yourself don't really like to get into His Word in any depth.

As I said, it's real easy to copy and paste. Good for you for at least doing so. I guess we won't know how you will explain it all, though, and deal with any questions that may come your way.

 

[studier]

Do you not understand? I'm not interested. For the reasons given.

Yes I do understand. You're interested in copy and paste and not dealing with the Word in any in-depth way, while asserting a systematic theological interpretation that not all share.

You're just doing what I'm doing and blaming me for doing what you're also doing - standing on the way we interpret the Word differently than one another.

Try the ignore feature. It works well.

 

[studier]

So it's not just me! You nailed it brother!

You sure did...

 

[studier]

Are you sure you are not conflating different concepts taught in scripture....

1. justification,
2. positional sanctification and
3. progressive sanctification?

Yes.

 

[FlyingDove]

Thank you for your posts I enjoy reading them. Can I ask a couple of questions? First, I am intrigued by something you said, "that explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity." Can you explain what you mean?

Second, Paul talks about the "old man" and it seems to be a reference to a transformation of a person's nature. Do you see it that way also?

When I say ""explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity,"" I'm simply noting that when a writer explains something, he isn't redefining it. An explanatory phrase tells you why or in what sense something is true, but it doesn't collapse the 2 things into one. For example, in Rom 10:16, Paul says Israel didn't obey the gospel because they didn't believe the message. That's an explanation of their disobedience, not a redefinition of obedience as belief. The categories stay distinct.

On your 2ond question: yes, Paul's ""old man"" language points to a real transformation, but he uses it covenantally & representationally, not as a metaphysical substance. The ""old man"" is who we were in Adam, the ""new man"" is who we are in Christ. It's identity‑transfer language, not a claim that the believer's nature becomes sinless or that the flesh disappears. Paul still speaks of the flesh, desires & the need to put off & put on. So yes, transformation - but within Paul's already/not-yet framework.

 

[Ceph]

I hope every once in a while you guys just let your selfs die, and read the words you write to each other without partiality.
What's the point? Did God call you, or not? Are we brothers, or adversaries?

But maybe you guys go out taking things from these battles with you, and it helps you witness better to people who need help.
Does that happen? I hope so, because that's what's most important.

 

[Mem]

I have no idea what King Saul was looking forward to.

What does it matter?

Must be missing something here.

You offered King Saul as an instance of the possibility of losing salvation.