Loss of salvation???

[FlyingDove]

I wasn't going to get into this, but you asked:


Lexicons define words - they don't teach theology.

Dictionaries like TDNT, again, help define words through historical use. Please cite the page and quote the specific portion of TDNT that says Justification is non-reversible or cannot be abandoned.

Please explain how the aorist tense makes Justification non-reversible.

Please explain how any of this reference material proves Justification is not probationary, partial, or reversible.

Assuming this reference material never portrays Justification as probationary, partial or reversible, which you have not proven, why does this mean Justification is not probationary, partial, or reversible?

Please prove no NT text teaches salvation can be lost.

I said your post was nicely drafted, but essentially standard Faith-Alone fare. I didn't say your post proves anything or does not jump to unproven theological conclusions. In fact, IMO, it does just that.

All you've really done is make the usual bold statements Faith Alone Theology normally makes, and left yourself a tremendous amount of work to prove them.

It's not up to me or to any of us to disprove what you haven't proven.

The core of my argument isn't the reference material-it's the NT text. The lexicons, grammars & dictionaries don't CREATE theology, but they do constrain it. They describe how the NT writers actually use the words & tenses we're arguing about.

Justification in the NT is forensic & completed. Paul uses it as a verdict, not a process (Rom 5:1 & Titus 3:7). It's tied to conversion & Holy Spirit baptism (1 Cor 6:11, 12:13, Titus 3:5–7). A legal declaration by God is, by nature, not PROBATIONARY or PARTIAL.

The aorist doesn't mean IRREVERSIBLE by itself-but it does mean COMPLETED. My point is simple: the NT consistently speaks of justification as a decisive, once‑for‑all act, not as an ongoing, fragile status that comes & goes.

The reference works matter because of what they don't say. You won't find TDNT, NIDNTT, ISBE, or standard lexicons describing justification as: probationary, partial, or reversible. That silence is telling-because if the NT clearly taught a revocable justification, it would show up in the way the term is described.

But all of that is secondary to the question you still haven't answered: Which specific NT text shows God reversing any of these three divine actions?

Christ's initiating act of Spirit baptism - The Father's legal declaration of righteousness - The Holy Spirit's sealing, indwelling & guaranteeing work

Until you can point to a passage where God undoes what He Himself has done, your objection is about my THEOLOGY not about the text.

 

[FlyingDove]

I am familiar with it. It's in the context of God's Prothesis Rom8:28 - His Plan is completed and intact. What we do does not change His Plan. If we want to be and remain a part of it, we do what He says under His grace through faith-obedience.

Romans 8:30 doesn't describe God's plan in the abstract - it describes what God actually does to the people He calls.

Paul doesn't say ""those in the plan WILL be glorified."" He says those He justified, He ALSO glorified.

There's no conditional clause in the text. No if they remain. No if they obey enough. No if they stay in the plan.

Paul's point is that the same group moves through every stage without loss. If justification were probationary or reversible, Paul's statement would be false.

 

[studier]

Romans 8:30 doesn't describe God's plan in the abstract - it describes what God actually does to the people He calls.

Paul doesn't say ""those in the plan WILL be glorified."" He says those He justified, He ALSO glorified.

There's no conditional clause in the text. No if they remain. No if they obey enough. No if they stay in the plan.

Paul's point is that the same group moves through every stage without loss. If justification were probationary or reversible, Paul's statement would be false.

We probably should include and consider all of what Paul says:

NKJ Rom8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

cc: @Roger316

 

[studier]

Here are my comments and questions again:

Lexicons define words - they don't teach theology.

Dictionaries like TDNT, again, help define words through historical use. Please cite the page and quote the specific portion of TDNT that says Justification is non-reversible or cannot be abandoned.

Please explain how the aorist tense makes Justification non-reversible.

Please explain how any of this reference material proves Justification is not probationary, partial, or reversible.

Assuming this reference material never portrays Justification as probationary, partial or reversible, which you have not proven, why does this mean Justification is not probationary, partial, or reversible?

Please prove no NT text teaches salvation can be lost.

I said your post was nicely drafted, but essentially standard Faith-Alone fare. I didn't say your post proves anything or does not jump to unproven theological conclusions. In fact, IMO, it does just that.

All you've really done is make the usual bold statements Faith Alone Theology normally makes, and left yourself a tremendous amount of work to prove them.

It's not up to me or to any of us to disprove what you haven't proven.

The core of my argument isn't the reference material-it's the NT text. The lexicons, grammars & dictionaries don't CREATE theology, but they do constrain it. They describe how the NT writers actually use the words & tenses we're arguing about.

So, you apparently agree with my point that Lexicons do not teach theology.

And I assume that you will not be providing any quote from TDNT to prove that it says Justification is non-reversible or cannot be abandoned.

Have you read the TDNT description of dikaioō? It's interesting.

Justification in the NT is forensic & completed. Paul uses it as a verdict, not a process (Rom 5:1 & Titus 3:7). It's tied to conversion & Holy Spirit baptism (1 Cor 6:11, 12:13, Titus 3:5–7). A legal declaration by God is, by nature, not PROBATIONARY or PARTIAL.

I see you making but not proving your conclusions.

I also see you dropping mention of irreversible and ignoring requests for proving Justification cannot be abandoned.

The aorist doesn't mean IRREVERSIBLE by itself-but it does mean COMPLETED. My point is simple: the NT consistently speaks of justification as a decisive, once‑for‑all act, not as an ongoing, fragile status that comes & goes.

So, the aorist does not mean irreversible. I assume you also mean the aorist does not mean permanent and does not mean Justification cannot be abandoned by the justified.

The reference works matter because of what they don't say. You won't find TDNT, NIDNTT, ISBE, or standard lexicons describing justification as: probationary, partial, or reversible. That silence is telling-because if the NT clearly taught a revocable justification, it would show up in the way the term is described.

If they don't teach theology, then why would they teach theology?

Argument from silence works both ways. If those three concepts are not taught, then they're not taught and nobody gets to use the silence as "telling" for their theology.

But all of that is secondary to the question you still haven't answered: Which specific NT text shows God reversing any of these three divine actions?

No one, including me, owes you any such answer.

You're making statements not proven by what you cite and reference.

You're wrongly attempting to use argument from silence in your favor.

You're going well beyond the few verses you cite and making theological assertions based in a theological system that not all agree with and have argued against for centuries and for almost a year on this thread.

You said:

It is never portrayed as probationary, partial, or reversible.

If salvation can be lost, Christ's initiating act must be undone - something no NT text teaches.

So, my request for you to prove this remains unanswered - you've not proven what you said here.

Until you can point to a passage where God undoes what He Himself has done, your objection is about my THEOLOGY not about the text.

I assume you think your theology comes from the Text.

You've not proven that the Text supports your theology.

You've cited references that don't prove your theology.

When asked for substantiating quotations from those references, you ignore the request.

I've made it clear that I disagree with your theological system.

I don't object to the Word of God. I object to your overall systematic interpretation of His Word.

 

[mailmandan]

It is not possible because you have "self" in the way, just like @Toknow.

Until you choose to lay that down, there is no amount of verses or exegeting which will make a difference against that wall.

But rest assured you and @Toknow and all others who preach against the Good News, but rather supplant it with "self" disguised as faith and obedience,

cannot walk in the Law of Liberty,
cannot walk in Godly Joy,
cannot walk in Freedom

which is received via the completed work of Christ Jesus.

Instead you have chosen the Path of Burden, which feeds upon "self."
Ironic, don't ya think.

Amen and well said! The gospel according to SELF.

SELF promotion
SELF righteousness
SELF preservation

The gospel according to SELF is motivated by PRIDE and culminates in works-righteousness.

 

[Roger316]

I am familiar with it. It's in the context of God's Prothesis Rom8:28 - His Plan is completed and intact. What we do does not change His Plan. If we want to be and remain a part of it, we do what He says under His grace through faith-obedience.

There is no contingency in Paul's description.

Romans 8:29
For those whom He foreknew . . .

Paul has narrowed his focus to a specific subset of humanity whom God chose. He draws an unbroken line from those whom he foreknew to those he glorified, using a rhetorical verbal pattern "those whom he . . . . he also.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined
and these whom He predestined, He also called;
and these whom He called, He also justified;
and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Here, Paul shifts the conversation from possibility to inevitability. The prothesis not only describes a plan, but it also defines an existential reality for those whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. For the chosen, their glorification is guaranteed to happen. The only uncertainty is when or how, not whether.

Framed this way, there are none whom God is saving that will lose their salvation.

 

[Roger316]

I wasn't going to get into this, but you asked:


Lexicons define words - they don't teach theology.

Dictionaries like TDNT, again, help define words through historical use. Please cite the page and quote the specific portion of TDNT that says Justification is non-reversible or cannot be abandoned.

Please explain how the aorist tense makes Justification non-reversible.

Please explain how any of this reference material proves Justification is not probationary, partial, or reversible.

Assuming this reference material never portrays Justification as probationary, partial or reversible, which you have not proven, why does this mean Justification is not probationary, partial, or reversible?

Please prove no NT text teaches salvation can be lost.

I said your post was nicely drafted, but essentially standard Faith-Alone fare. I didn't say your post proves anything or does not jump to unproven theological conclusions. In fact, IMO, it does just that.

All you've really done is make the usual bold statements Faith Alone Theology normally makes, and left yourself a tremendous amount of work to prove them.

It's not up to me or to any of us to disprove what you haven't proven.

That isn't entirely true. The question at hand, as I understand it, is whether a forensic declaration of God can ever be understood as probationary, partial, or reversible. If we say that a forensic declaration of God can be reversed, then we need to show how and when such an occurrence might happen or did happen.

Perhaps it would be an oversimplification to say that, since God justifies those who have faith, it is logically possible that he might reverse his judgment in light of a person's falling away from the faith. But it remains for us to find a passage where God, in fact, reversed his declaration.

 

[FlyingDove]

We probably should include and consider all of what Paul says:

NKJ Rom8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

cc: @Roger316

Rom 8:28 describes the people for whom God works all things for good. Rom 8:29-30 describes what God actually does to those people.

Paul doesn't place the condition inside the chain - he places it outside the chain.

The chain itself is unconditional: Those He foreknew > He predestined. Those He predestined > He called. Those He called > He justified. Those He justified > He glorified.

Paul never says: Those who keep loving God will remain justified or those who obey enough will stay in the chain.

He simply states what God does to the group He calls.

If justification were reversible, Paul's statement ""those He justified, He also glorified” would be false.""

 

[Mem]

I did?
What post did I state this?

#11216

You led in with God's sovereignty and ended with Saul losing his kingdom.
But God, in His sovereignty, also didn't allow Moses to enter the promised land, or David to build His temple. There's an obvious running theme that you have to be perfect, but nobody is but the One.

 

[Qt]

The theological identity you're asserting isn't in any of your sources, it's GARBAGE you imported & then retro‑justified with linguistic footnotes.

Hebrews 3 text itself keeps the categories distinct: the root is unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) & the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience in Vs. 15–18 are its expressions. The inspired author gives the theological category, the grammars simply describe the syntax. Using grammars to override the author's own summary is not exegesis, it's category collapse GARBAGE.

My friend you are saying so without showing so.

In respect to the Greek word translated depart in the KJV. One can't depart unless one is in a place to depart from.

From Danker and Bauer:
... to distance oneself from some pers. or thing (mid. forms, and 2 aor., pf., and plupf. act.) intrans.
go away, withdraw τινός (Hdt. 3, 15; Epict. 2, 13, 26; 4, 5, 28; BGU 159, 4; Sir 38:12; En 14:23; Jos., Ant. 1, 14; Just., D. 106, 1) Lk 2:37. ἀπό τινος (PGM 4, 1244; Sir 23:11f; Jdth 13:19; 1 Macc 6:10, 36; Just., D. 6, 2) Lk 1:38 D; 13:27 (Ps 6:9); 24:51 D; Ac 12:10; 19:9; Hs 9, 15, 6. ἐκ τοῦ τόπου Hm 5, 1, 3. Abs. (Aesop, Fab. 194 H.=86 P.=H-H. 88; cp. Ch. 158; Just., A I, 50, 12) s 8, 8, 2. Desert ἀπό τινος someone (as Appian, Iber. 34 §137; cp. Jer 6:8) Ac 15:38; GJs 2:3.—Fall away (Hdt. et al.), become a backslider abs. (Appian, Iber. 38 §156 ἀφίστατο=he revolted; Jer 3:14; Da 9:9 Theod.; 1 Macc 11:43; En 5:4) Lk 8:13. ἀπό τινος (X., Cyr. 5, 4, 1; Polyb. 1, 16, 3; oft. LXX, mostly of falling away fr. God) Hb 3:12;..

One can't depart from, fall away from unless one is a place to depart, fall away from.

As Cambridge Greek alludes to with it's use of the word apostasy:
ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπό, “in the apostatising from.” In that one word—Apostasy—the moral peril of his Hebrew readers was evidently summed up. To apostatise after believing is more dangerous than not to have believed at all.

Which William Robertson Nicol confirms in his work:
...What they are to be on their guard against is the emergence of καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν … ζῶντος, a wicked heart of unbelief manifesting itself in departing from Him who is a living God. ἀπιστίας is the genitive of quality = a bad, unbelieving heart; whether the wickedness proceeds from the unbelief, or the unbelief from the wickedness, is not determined. Although, from the next verse it might be gathered that unbelief is considered the result of allowed sin: i.e., it is when the heart is hardened through sin, it becomes unbelieving, so that the psychological order might be stated thus: sin, a deceived mind, a hardened heart, unbelief, apostasy. The main idea in the writer’s mind is that unbelief in God’s renewed offer of salvation is accompanied by and means apostasy from the living God. In the O.T. Jehovah is called “the living God” in contrast to lifeless impotent idols, and the designation is suggestive of His power to observe, visit, judge and succour His people. In this Epistle it occurs, Heb 9:14, Heb 10:31, Heb 12:22. To object that the apostasy of Jews from Christianity could not be called “apostacy from God” is to mistake. The very point the writer wishes to make is just this: Remember that to apostatize from Christ in whom you have found God, is to apostatize from God.

One can not apostatize, depart from God, fall away from unless one is with God in the first place

Which A. T. Robertson confirms in his work:
In falling away from the living God (εν τω αποστηνα απο θεου ζωντος). "In the falling away" (locative case with εν of the second aorist active (intransitive) infinitive of αφιστημ, to stand off from, to step aside from (απο with the ablative case θεου) the living God...

One can't be removed unless one is in a placed to be removed from.

And if it is that one can't be removed or placed because of predestination, what is the point in beseeching them that they be not hardened through the deceitfulness of sin?

Obviously, there is a choice.

Heb 3:12 See, brethren, lest there shall be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in removing away from the living God.

Heb 3:13 But beseech one another according to each day, as far as the day is called; lest any of you be hardened by deceit of sin.

Typical, throw out a cluster of Greek terms & then smuggle in a ""grace through obedience"" conclusion that none of the grammars actually support. In Post #10,602 you described your method as shrinking the battlefield, isolating the hidden flaw, tracing upstream corruption & identifying the one point where GARBAGE enters the system so everything downstream becomes GARBAGE OUT. That's a very specific rhetorical posture: you cast yourself as the diagnostician, the root‑cause analyst, the one who sees what others miss & the one who decides what counts as valid data & what counts as GARBAGE.

The problem is that this posture is now being used to override the very grammars you cite. You didn't follow Votaw, Robertson, BDF, or Moulton‑Turner, YOU ""overrode them"". All 4 classify the infinitive in Heb 3:12 as epexegetically, meaning it explains unbelief. None of them say unbelief is disobedience or that faith is obedience. Grammars describe syntax, not doctrine.
Click to expand...

The context states it. Can I show you or do you want to show me it doesn't?

Okay I will show you. But first a couple facts need laid out in respect how the infinitive departing clarifies unbelief. Unbeleif stems from the departing.

How do we know?



Because of the preposition en.

The text literally reads unbelief in the the departing from the living God.

What is interesting is the definite article is in the dative case.

This makes the infinite instrument or the locative.

In other words the source of the unbelief.

 

[BillyBob]

Do you not know that grace does not cover people who live in sin?

Do you always assume things that you know nothing about?

 

[studier]

That isn't entirely true. The question at hand, as I understand it, is whether a forensic declaration of God can ever be understood as probationary, partial, or reversible. If we say that a forensic declaration of God can be reversed, then we need to show how and when such an occurrence might happen or did happen.

Perhaps it would be an oversimplification to say that, since God justifies those who have faith, it is logically possible that he might reverse his judgment in light of a person's falling away from the faith. But it remains for us to find a passage where God, in fact, reversed his declaration.

We all know this is about permanence, OSAS, Eternal Security, correct?

It's no mystery when Justification, Sealing, etc. are put forth as argument for OSAS.

Did you see my questions about withdrawal and abandonment in regard to this being irreversible?

Certainly those who love God (present active participle - not aorist - not one time in the past) can rely upon the chain of what God says He has established in His Prothesis and prepared for those who love Him (present active participle - not aorist - not one time in the past) (as Paul also says).

Certainly you can see what's actually being discussed here, correct?

Why is that highlighted phrase above being skipped over and Rom8:30 being presented in isolation from it?

 

[Magenta]

What do you make of his teaching that those in Christ have the spirit of Christ?

Set Free

 

[studier]

Rom 8:28 describes the people for whom God works all things for good. Rom 8:29-30 describes what God actually does to those people.

Paul doesn't place the condition inside the chain - he places it outside the chain.

The chain itself is unconditional: Those He foreknew > He predestined. Those He predestined > He called. Those He called > He justified. Those He justified > He glorified.

Paul never says: Those who keep loving God will remain justified or those who obey enough will stay in the chain.

He simply states what God does to the group He calls.

If justification were reversible, Paul's statement ""those He justified, He also glorified” would be false.""

Your answer is that "those who love God" in Rom8:28 are not those who are being discussed in Rom8:29-30 - the group is not made of those who love God - loving God has nothing to do with being in the group?

And others are agreeing with you?

Astounding, but not really surprising.

The lengths some will go to deny Scripture to protect a systematic theology...

 

[Cameron143]

Your answer is that "those who love God" in Rom8:28 are not those who are being discussed in Rom8:29-30 - the group is not made of those who love God - loving God has nothing to do with being in the group?

And others are agreeing with you?

Astounding, but not really surprising.

The lengths some will go to deny Scripture to protect a systematic theology...

Not at all his point. His point is that those who are justified are also glorified. If somehow one could be justified and then be no longer justified, they would never be glorified...making the statement false and scripture untrustworthy.

 

[FlyingDove]

Your answer is that "those who love God" in Rom8:28 are not those who are being discussed in Rom8:29-30 - the group is not made of those who love God - loving God has nothing to do with being in the group?

And others are agreeing with you?

Astounding, but not really surprising.

The lengths some will go to deny Scripture to protect a systematic theology...

Say's the guy protecting a systematic theology.

 

[FlyingDove]

Here are my comments and questions again:



So, you apparently agree with my point that Lexicons do not teach theology.

And I assume that you will not be providing any quote from TDNT to prove that it says Justification is non-reversible or cannot be abandoned.

Have you read the TDNT description of dikaioō? It's interesting.


I see you making but not proving your conclusions.

I also see you dropping mention of irreversible and ignoring requests for proving Justification cannot be abandoned.


So, the aorist does not mean irreversible. I assume you also mean the aorist does not mean permanent and does not mean Justification cannot be abandoned by the justified.


If they don't teach theology, then why would they teach theology?

Argument from silence works both ways. If those three concepts are not taught, then they're not taught and nobody gets to use the silence as "telling" for their theology.


No one, including me, owes you any such answer.

You're making statements not proven by what you cite and reference.

You're wrongly attempting to use argument from silence in your favor.

You're going well beyond the few verses you cite and making theological assertions based in a theological system that not all agree with and have argued against for centuries and for almost a year on this thread.

You said:


So, my request for you to prove this remains unanswered - you've not proven what you said here.


I assume you think your theology comes from the Text.

You've not proven that the Text supports your theology.

You've cited references that don't prove your theology.

When asked for substantiating quotations from those references, you ignore the request.

I've made it clear that I disagree with your theological system.

I don't object to the Word of God. I object to your overall systematic interpretation of His Word.

It's hard not to notice the irony: the person who prides himself on ""shrinking the battlefield"" responded with a data‑dump of demands instead of answering the ONE question that actually matters.

Salvation in the NT is a unified Trinitarian act.

Christ initiates it by baptizing the believer in the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Acts 1:5; 1 Cor 12:13)

The Father legally declares that believer righteous on the basis of union with the Son (Rom 3:26; Rom 4:5; Rom 8:33).

The Spirit seals, indwells, and guarantees that verdict until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13–14; Eph 4:30).

If salvation can be lost, the NT must show God reversing one of these divine actions-Christ un‑baptizing, the Father un‑declaring, or the Spirit un‑sealing.

If your position is biblical, you should be able to produce one passage where God undoes what He Himself has done. If you cannot, then the disagreement isn't about my theology - it's about your lack of textual support.

 

[studier]

Not at all his point. His point is that those who are justified are also glorified. If somehow one could be justified and then be no longer justified, they would never be glorified...making the statement false and scripture untrustworthy.

those who love God are the group. as long as they love God they are the group. the structure of the language is absolutely clear that the chain applies to those who love God. in fact the entire chain is the basis for Paul's statement about knowing all things work together for good for those who love God. there is no chain for those who do not love God. the participle is present active and not some momentary event. we're right back to having to prove once justified always justified which is simply OSAS.

 

[studier]

Say's the guy protecting a systematic theology.

just analyzing Scripture and capable of seeing where you disconnect connections therein.

 

[Cameron143]

those who love God are the group. as long as they love God they are the group. the structure of the language is absolutely clear that the chain applies to those who love God. in fact the entire chain is the basis for Paul's statement about knowing all things work together for good for those who love God. there is no chain for those who do not love God. the participle is present active and not some momentary event. we're right back to having to prove once justified always justified which is simply OSAS.

It's not simply those who love God, but also those who are called according to His purpose. Since we love God in response to God's love, those who love God are loved by God. And the exercise of that love is seen in being called, predestined, etc. What comes after being called according to His purposes is a recitation of His purposes; in other words, after God has set His affection upon an individual.