Greek Tenses and OSAS

Things that accompany salvation -- means "salvation". Never does Paul mention "the toys in heaven" that you seem to imagine in Heb 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Both sides agree that Paul is not writing to people that have back-slidden from Christianity and no longer read scripture etc.Rather the READER is going to be some Christian with a copy of the letter to the Hebrews - probably one who is faithful. That is not the issue.

IN the case of those WHO HAVE once BEEN enlightened!

This is NOT a statement sahing "Those who have had 10 toys but lose 5 of them".

The Toys in heaven idea is totally missing from the text.

(This is the view of the lost - in darkness ACCEPTING light such that they ARE enlightened - at least at one time).

AND have tasted of the heavenly gift

Not the description of the totally depraved lost.


AND have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

This is never the description of the totally depraved lost experience.

"AND THEN HAVE FALLEN AWAY"

clearly FALLING away from being LOST is not a bad thing - it is a GOOD thing.

But here it is falling away from eternal life - from salvation so obviously it is a BAD thing!!

And it is not talking about "falling away from more toys".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am a FIRM believer in OSAS - the Election of Free Grace, like you, Lloyd, but I really am disappointed with this defense of yours.
I have said it before on this thread - which unfortunately I did not follow closely - and will say it again, Hebrews 6 does not deal with possibility, but with impossibility. And the IM-possibility for the writer is that one once (truly) "enlightened" and, who has "received" the "first principles" of Faith of Christ, could fall away - completely (as BR argues) - and then could be enlightened a second time as if the things of salvation must be repeated - it CANNOT, because if is the unrepentable gift of God.

 

Mind if I post this on the thread 'Seventh Day Adventist Question'?

 

Wrong "again".

Hebrews was NOT written to any one local congregation!

You are also "Wrong" to ignore the text of Heb 6 in your text-devoid post.

Neither of the methods you used is actually "exegesis" of any kind.

HAD you bothered to READ the text of Heb 6 you would see that the chapter STARTS with the same concept developed at the end of chapter 5 regarding MEAT vs MILK and the fact that THEY ARE STILL CHRISTIAN but are not GOING ON to the more weighty doctrinal topics.

SO in Heb 6 the CONTEXT is identifying the MILK and then pointing forward to the MEAT-ier doctrinal topics -- topics to be covered in FACT in Heb 7-12.

Your ignorance of Hebrews is understandable at this point based on the text-devoid way you have treated so many other texts that "displeased you".

So lets turn to the "actual text" of Heb 6 rather than your text-devoid spin cycles.

Paul shows clearly that this is a continuation of the Chapter 5 subject of “Milk vs Meat” doctrines. The fact that although they eagerly embraced the Gospel and the Christian faith – they failed to move on into maturity. “By now you should be teachers, but instead you are in need of …” Heb 5

This is not a case of the Hebrews in all NT churches rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Christ – for as Paul says in Heb 4 “The Gospel was preached TO US just as it was to them ALSO” Heb 4:1-2 and the identification of the “Milk” which Paul says they DO ACCEPT involves “Teaching about the Christ” – the Messiah – “Repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction in washing, laying on of hands and resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment” all valid Bible – Gospel topics that are valid NT instruction and worthy of repeating and this “We will do if God permits” – but it is the milk of the Gospel.

The MEAT will be presented in Heb 7-12.

===================================

Both sides agree that Paul is not writing to people that have backslidden from Christianity and no longer read scripture etc.Rather the READER is going to be some Christian with a copy of the letter to the Hebrews - probably one who is faithful. That is not the issue.

Wrong "Again" Lloyd.

The text does NOT SAY ANYTHING about "the OLD Faith" or "TWO GOSPELS".

Rather in Heb 4:1-2 the CONTEXT leading into HEB 6 is that "THE gospel was preached TO US JUST as it was TO THEM ALSO" speaking of OT Israel vs the NT church!

You seem to get "everything wrong" Lloyd! That can't possibly be an accident!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
ENDS up being BURNED is not spinnable to "ends up with fewer toys in heaven".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point Christ makes is not "The weeds are good for nothing" ...

Rather His argument is that the AFTER trying repeatedly to grow GOOD crops in the ground and meeting with continual failure - the attemtps STOP "The GROUND is good for nothing -- only to be burned" HE SAYS Nothing about "The Ground is ideal for a clean sweep and a health crop to follow".

Your "spin" of the text only works in the format that ALL your spin cycles are posted - WITHOUT THE DETAILS of the text itself that so debunk your spin-doctrines!

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is NOT the story of "being saved and going on to even MORE wonderful salvation Gospel experiences" as Lloyd would spin it.

IF in fact it WERE to be stood on its head to mean such an absurd thing - then "IMPOSSIBLE to renew them again" would be to LEAVE Them in such a wonderful state as "about to go on to more wonderful fruitfull Gospel living" - when left in the spin-doctrine word-wrenched format that Lloyd has proposed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ah yes, this looks like we agree on the important things, to be grateful for. Nevertheless, you saying things like Hebrews says nothing about forensic justification? Maybe it's our different understanding of this concept that may cause you to so think. But I don't, because the book says a lot of Jesus' work of atonement on our behalf - which to me is simple forensic justification. An Anchor for the soul, e.g., although it's seeming subjectivity is an objective application by Christ for us. Etc., but as I say, I think this shows unimportant difference.
Main thing is - as far as Bob Ryan is concerned, Jesus made full atonement once for all and for eternity while being Saviour here below and High Priest here below. It's the same disagreement we are dialoguing at the moment on the thread 'Seventh Day Adventist Question' - the SDA 'doctrine' of an 'investigative judgement'.

 

Heb 9 "Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins" -- this is forensic justification.

Heb 10 "Christs ONCE for ALL sacrifice" provides real forgiveness of sins where the blood of animals forgives NO sins!

This is again forensic justification.

Heb 6:1-2 the MILK of the Gospel contains the subject of the Messiah - the Christ - and the topic of how HE accomplishes forgiveness -- again - forensic justification.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3394/17.html#000247

Impossible to miss in the book of Hebrews.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Despite our seemingly insurmountable differences otherwise, dear Bob, I heartily in this matter agree with you!

Just remember, this is forensic justification fully and finally and irrevocably through and in and by the High Priestly Atonement "wrought" by God in Christ "when he raised Him from the dead"!

 

GE - you are prone to "make stuff up" and to "quote you" more than scripture. Those methods are not sound or Biblical or compelling.

Notice that in MY post I make the DIRECT connection between forensic justification and the pure text of God's word.

You on the other hand are taking a flying leap into a quote that can not be found in all of scripture - because it is just you quoting "you" as the source.

GE quotes GE for his point "finally and irrevocably through and in and by the High Priestly Atonement "wrought" by God in Christ "when he raised Him from the dead

So having no text that says
""finally and irrevocably through and in and by the High Priestly Atonement "wrought" by God in Christ "when he raised Him from the dead -- you just "insert it".

That is a poor way to make a case.

use the method I have shown above - state the direct point and then SHOW IT in text after text as the TEXT MAKES THE POINT.

For your point we would need an entire rewrite of scripture!

Don't do that.

In Christ,


Bob

 

Sometimes, says the Scriptures, one should answer the fool in his foolishness; sometimes, the Scriptures says, one should not answer the fool in his foolishness.

I think that when the fool doesn't think anything about his foolishness, one could answer him. But when the fool thinks his foolishness is wisdom, then keep your mouth!

 

Anyway -----

Back to the last actual point --

 

Speaking of the last actual point -- how about going all the way back to the OSAS topic?!!

IN the case of those WHO HAVE once BEEN enlightened!

This is NOT a statement sahing "Those who have had 10 toys but lose 5 of them".

The Toys in heaven idea is totally missing from the text.

(This is the view of the lost - in darkness ACCEPTING light such that they ARE enlightened - at least at one time).

AND have tasted of the heavenly gift

Not the description of the totally depraved lost.


AND have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

This is never the description of the totally depraved lost experience.

"AND THEN HAVE FALLEN AWAY"

clearly FALLING away from being LOST is not a bad thing - it is a GOOD thing.

But here it is falling away from eternal life - from salvation so obviously it is a BAD thing!!

And it is not talking about "falling away from more toys".

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Right... how about Greek tenses & their application to OSAS?

 

Yes that would be interesting as well -- Lloyd had hoped that "greek" would get him out of the trouble that ignoring exegesis put him in.

It didn't work.

In Christ,

Bob

 

OSAS - If one is saved then one is always saved. This is man made statement that can not be proven that it's a true statement.

 

Jesus is the one who used the phrases "eternal life" and "everlasting life". Hardly man made. It's amazing how two simple phrases can be yanked and twisted to not mean eternal and everlasting. It's proven. It's true.