Results 681 - 700 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
681 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207629 | ||
I agree whole heartedly that repentence is a gift from God. I ask that if you are frustrated with this conversation you just stop reading with that, if you are instead wanting to know my thoughts on it then read the next paragraph. I do not want to continue if this is upsetting you. I agree that repentence is a gift from God. But do you really think the author is saying, these guys who were never saved and have fallen/walked away, they can not be "again" brought to repentence because they are recrucifying Christ and putting Him to shame? If it is simply a matter of God needing to grant a repentence, what does recrucifying Him have to do with it? Does it not at all seem to you that he is talking about something here more than that? Otherwise in what way are they recrucifying God that everybody isn't? Please don't think I'm saying repentence is not a gift from God. I am simply suggesting that so far, with this answer, the pieces haven't all fit together yet. |
||||||
682 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207630 | ||
I attempted to respond to this post earlier but it didn't seem to go through. In the links to these posts Tim Moran posts my theory on how this verse is to be understood. I won't restate it since he does an amazing job. Thank you Tim, the whole reason I never said it and have been waiting for somebody to offer a good explination is that I wish the answer didn't require us to say that the NASB interpreters translated in a way that made the true meaning rather hidden. | ||||||
683 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207638 | ||
I agree with basically everything you said theologically, I'm not sure this passage is to that point of uncertainty however where we can't simply determine what he said from context. I think part of the confusion from this whole thread is that people assumed since I was asking how to understand this passage that I didn't believe these things. When in reality I was simply trying to understand exactly what the author intended within this frame work. And as a result people, rather than explaining the verse, began to argue once saved alway saved thinking, which was rather waisted, because I never doubted that. However, with regards to the passage at the moment I disagree. I do think its talking about saved individuals. But I do not think its talking about them loosing their salvation. Part of the reason I think this is because I consider it not to be very clearly translated. If you will note that your NASB in fact gives an alternative meaning in one point that it could be WHILE they crucify, rather than SINCE. I think while would be correct along with some clearer meanings of some of the participles involved. Morant61 posted some numbers that you can look up. Numbers in which he very clearly explains my thoughts on the passage, I would highly encourage you to look those up, its a bit more than I ought to repost. The understanding of the passage which he posts is completely compatable with the theological statements which you've made (perseverance of the saints, irresistable grace, etc.) However, while it may not seem it at first glance from this thread, I truely do hold this interpretation of this passage very lightly. And I am willing to change my stance should the evidence grammatical, syntactical, from literary context or otherwise truely merit it. But with what has been discussed so far, and in my own studies, I simply can not -yet- accept that the author is not referring to saved individuals. If the passage could not be understood on its on and within its context to have a clear meaning that does not violate these doctrines we hold dear, then perhaps I would lean more on the evidence people are suggesting. But while I do believe it might have an alternative explination that satisfactoraly explains it, and avoids clashing with clearly revealed doctrine, and fits the context then I think there is no merit in trying to say that the author is not talking about the saved when he says these things and he says moving them "again" to repentence. Read those links and tell me what you think, I very much would love to hear your thoughts on what they present. |
||||||
684 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207677 | ||
I'm sorry I didn't know the bible version question was directed towards me. Hands down my preferred version is the NASB, but if you are asking which I think does the best with this passage I can't say. I've just been working with the NASB and the greek. | ||||||
685 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207731 | ||
Dear Bowler, Could you just not please? If you'd look at the post times for the thread you'll see I've stepped out of this discussion. I lost the spirit to discuss it some time ago now. I repent of ever having brought this issue up, and I repent of having been willing to say that I thought certain explinations were lacking. And since I seem to not have the skill for being able to discuss differing view points without seeming abrasive I simply wish to step away from this discussion. I really do apologize to any I may have offended, I am simply use to an environment where people could debate view points on a verse, seeking the best understanding and cirtiques and counter views were not held in disdain. And I can not say your little jab at me does anything to make me desire to return to the conversation. So if you feel like debating this passage with others do feel free, but please don't do so on my account, rather discuss it with those who still wish to. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
686 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207741 | ||
My apologies bowler. Please understand I have not been short on responses that were telling me that I was simply being hard to talk to and was being given sufficient answers that I simply unwilling to listen to. When your post ended in you saying you wish to give your 2 cents then posted a scripture where the author was saying the reader was hard headed and dull of hearing, it seemed a jab. If that was not your intent, do forgive me, and I hope you can see how it would seem that from my shoes. I should have read your post with more grace assuming the best of my brother in Christ until proven otherwise. Forgive me. My e-mail is jw_dobbins@hotmail.com you are welcome to e-mail me if you wish. I do still eagerly follow this thread, but as I've said, I don't have the spirit to participate in it any further. Regardless, Tim Moran is expressing what I have suspected all along to be the answer so ably that there is little point. Well done, Tim. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
687 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207764 | ||
1. Yes, I have a calvinistic outlook on security of the believer. I ofcourse want to know the intended meaning of the text regardless what that may be. But I originally put forward the question to be resolved within this security of the believer framework not because its what I believe, but because outside of that understanding its not a problem. What I mean is this, if you are comfortable with the idea you can loose your salvation then this text is no difficulty at all, so why debate it with that assumption? However, in a sense you could say I'm trying to fit it into this security of the believer framework because I believe scripture teaches that and therefore whatever the answer to this will therefore be in harmony with that teaching. 2. I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. When I originally stated that I wasn't looking for that explination I meant that I have heard people argue the following: Paul is arguing that if a person lost their salvation they couldn't get it back but it could never happen and he just wants us to know what would hypothetically happen if we could. I find this horribly lacking. These are what I was meaining in my original post when I said those things. |
||||||
688 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207784 | ||
lookn, You had asked if I thought that the author considered apostasy something that could actually happen. My response was that I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. What I meant about that was this: That if apostasy is indeed what he is referring to, then he must see it as a real possibility. I says "whatever" simply because we have not yet determined with any certainty what exactly he is talking about. But whatever it is, whether apostasy, or something else, he is speaking of a situation that is a real threat to whichever group he is talking about. Now granted, a few verses later he is clear that he expects better from his readers, but whatever he is warning of is real. It is hard to be more specific when we are not talking about some concrete examples. For example, if what we determine this text to mean that you can loose the opportunity to be saved but not loose your salvation, then clearly this is a real danger, but it is a real danger that a saved christian could not face. And in such a case the warning would just be to those who have not yet become christians among them. But regardless, that would still be something very real to worry about for whoever it is he is warning. However, I hope I've clarified what I mean. |
||||||
689 | Why can they recieve repentance? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 222172 | ||
marcia, The bad news is this is a very debated passage. The good news is that it has been very much debated on these forums. Do a search and you will probably find almost every opinion possible expressed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
690 | True fact of future sin | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 243814 | ||
EdB, Hebrews 6:4-6 is a hotly debated passage. Nobody can simply quote it in passing as if it can settle a discussion. You would need to defend your interpretation of it at length. I actually think it is not referring to loosing salvation. I believe it is talking about somebody who has been within the church and has been a participant in the blessings of the various ministries of the church over length and yet ultimately reveal themself to have never belong to Christ. Now I am certain you don't believe that, but my whole point is this: you can not simply say "see heb 6:4-6, discussion won." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
691 | True fact of future sin | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 243817 | ||
EdB, I have no problem with you arguing that a person can loose their salvation. I think you are wrong, but I think this forum is a place where you out to be able to discuss that position from scripture if you wish. So don't think I'm objecting to that. But you are mistaken when you think the only people who disagree on Heb 6:4-6 are calvinists. I wrote a paper on this for a Ph.D. seminar, and then I had to give a public defense against the brutal onslaught to my stance. Which does not make me an expert, but it ought to lead credence when I tell you it is hotly contested from many many views. I'm merely letting you know that throwing out "Heb 6:4-6" isn't like throwing out some clear passage where everybody looks at it and says, "oh, that is very plain." I assure you have thought carefully about the passage, and I don't agree with your interpretation. Now I may well be wrong. But all I can say is that if I am wrong then I am honestly wrong. I'm not playing games with it to make it say what I want to say. Finally, I am extremely confident that Doc does not think the quotes from men trumps scripture. He absolutely agrees that scripture is the final measure of truth from which we ought to judge all sstatements. What's more, I'm willing to bet that every single man he has quoted also agrees with that. NOBODY is suggesting that quotes from men trump scripture. But quotes have their value. Not a value of defining what we believe, but there is some value to seeing that Christians throughout history have held to a certain position. And there is also value in knowing when a position has been debated throughout history. Further sometimes people of the past have thought deeply and then stated things in ways much more clear and compelling than we could ever manage. This is valuable too. Doc is not asserting that things are true BECAUSE certain men spoke it. He is simply sharing things he believes were always true, but somewhere throughout the history of the church somebody said it in a particularly edifying way. That's ok. I would equally welcome you quoting great Christians from the past who hold to your view. I would guess John Wesley would be a good place to start as he was opposed to the calvinistic viewpoint and he was a true treasure from Christian history. And I promise, none of us will think you are suggesting something is true simply because John Wesley said it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
692 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220821 | ||
Fundamentals, I've debated this question more than once on this site, so when you asked I was rather determined not to get involved in the conversation once more. However, the answer given by lightedsteps very much should be addressed. To put it simply, what he has told you about the "IF" in the sentence is wrong. His interpretation is literally impossible due to the way it is written in the original greek. Verse 6 says, "Kai parapesontas, palin anakeinidzein" Feel free to take my word for it, but anybody who does not take my word for it let me break this phrase down for you. Kai (and, even, also) This word simply connects this section to what has come before. 'Palin anakeinidzein" means to renew again. It goes on to say "to repentence" but I didn't want to reproduce the entire verse in Greek. Now here is the point. There is one word left, "parapesontas." This is a participle of the verb which means "to fall away." Notice this, there is no IF or WHEN in the text at all. In fact, this is true of all verses 4-6, there is no word in this entire text for IF or WHEN. The word IF isn't even in the text! Either of those words ONLY comes into the text as you try to translate this participle. Participles can be translated in different ways. Some possibilities could be, When they fall away Having fallen away If they fall away because they fall away etc. Translations deal with this participle in different ways. I'm not trying to tell you or anybody how to translate this participle. But what I am saying is that you can not translate it in a conditional sense, into "If they fall away," And then take the if and move it else where into the sentence! The IF is ONLY there by virtue of you taking the "to fall away" participle in that sense. You can not treat the IF as an independent word in the sentence and debate where it is applied. This is literally a grammatically impossible interpretation of the greek. I hope this helps. I know it didn't answer the verse for you, but I didn't want you to go away with an answer that is literally impossible grammatically. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
693 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220830 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm not trying to argue that one can loose their salvation. I don't think that this passage is teaching that a person can loose it. I believe whole heartedly in the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. But I can tell you for certain where the IF came from. If you want to have IF in there at all it is unavoidably connected to the "falling away." Your end conclusion I wouldn't begrudge. But you have to translate the falling away some how and the options are limited. I can tell you for certain that what it is defined as impossible is the renewing to repentence. In the greek there is really no room for confusion. The main clause is "For it is impossible to renew them to repentence." Now from there you can argue the passage multiple ways, but that much greek grammer constrains us to. There is a fellow that frequents these forums, Bro. Tim. He seems to be more proficient in greek than I am and I would urge him to validate or correct my claims here if he notices this post. But once again, I don't think you are comming to a wrong conclusion, you are just reaching it in a way the grammer won't support. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
694 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220839 | ||
Lightedsteps, Sin seperates us from God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
695 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 219946 | ||
Dodoy, Absolutely. So many think of salvation as a momentary transaction. But you have clearly come across the fact that scripture does not see it so. We have been saved. Scripture teaches that at the cross of Christ the atonement was made for all the elect of all time. Salvation was accomplished. Beyond this when we through faith received Christ we are justified. I say this to mean that at that time our sin is forgiven and the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us. We have been saved. We are being saved. Even now though we are being saved through God's constantly holding us to Him through faith. We are continually being sanctified and made more like Christ. 2 Peter 1:4 says that we not are only saved from final judgement but from the corruption of this world. This is a process going on now. Philippians 2:12,13 says even now we are to be working out our salvation because God is working in us both to will and to do this. We are being saved now. We will be saved. Our salvation will be fully realized on that day we stand before the judgement seat of Christ, and while all those who do not know Christ will be judged and found guilty, we will be pronounced as innocent as the Lamb who bore our sins. We will be saved. Praise God for what He has done in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
696 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 219950 | ||
Dodoy, I apologize for my other post where I asked about your take on the sabbath/first day debate. Had I read your profile the answer would have been obvious. My bad. Also, I do think you have been taught wrongly on a great many things. However, please let me hold off to write you why, and give scriptual support this coming week. I ask this because I do believe you ask for this in sincerity and from scripture rather than my opinion. As a result, I think you deserve a quality, scripture supported answer. This I can not give such as you and the question deserver at 10:30 PM before I preach the next morning. So, be patient and this week I will write you an answer on this that is fitting. If I think it is too long to trouble the forum with I'll send it to the address in your profile. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
697 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220000 | ||
1 Tim 4:10 "because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." If we are to understand this passage rightly we are going to have to think carefully. First, lets honestly observe what is said. It says that God is a savior. This is qualified by all men, certainly. But at the end of the day it does NOT specifically say, that all men are saved. It simply affirms that God is a savior, and that of all men. Now, the question we must then try to answer is: In what sense is God the savior of all men? It is very important that you understand what I've just said. The verse rightly leads us to this question, and we must strive to answer it, but we must also be honest enough to say that it has not explicitely told us. It has affirmed that God is a Savior of all men, but not how so. Second, whatever interpretation we come up with, it must be in a different sense or in a different degree than how God is a savior to believers. If not, then we render the phrase "especially of those that believe" to be meaningless. So we will not be surprised when we come to a conclusion that does not see unbelievers with the same blissful rewards that accompany believers. Now, consider that for many times and places the name of the LORD was not known. In how many tragedies, and in how many sea voyages, and in how many battles in such places and times have men cried out to heaven to be delivered from their temporal and immediate plights? How many people, who have sternly denied the existence of God, has in those moments found themselves crying out to heaven in hopes that they were wrong, and somebody was hearing who was able to deliver them? Now, who has answered them if we are thinking according to the Christian view? Whether any man ever, has cried out to the name of some strange God, or has cried out with no name but only a desperate hope that "maybe somebody hears," if any deliverance has ever been granted from above to any man of any time, that deliverance has came only from the One True God. Now, don't leap to fast to insert this into the passage, but first contemplate it. From this can we not all here today agree that in this sense God is indeed the savior of all men everywhere of all time. You may think this is not the intent of what Paul is saying here, but if I was to say that God is the savior of all men, and if I meant it in this sense, would you disagree? I would expect most wouldn't. Now, if I were to make such an assertion, that God was in this way the savior of all men. I would then be making a statement about God being a savior, without making any statement of the eternal destiny of those being saved in this fashion. Which is all that we know for certain the text is saying. That God is a savior. But, then we assert that God is much more than just a savior from our temporary plights! To those that believe God is much more. He is the one who saves for all eternity from the wrath of that terrible day of the Lord, in which all men are judged. He is the one who washes us clean of our sin. So not only is He the savior of all men from their temporal plights, He is much more in a special way the savior of those who believe. Now, I find this to be a reading of the text that fits all the pieces of the puzzle. If we claim this is the proper reading we have robbed or slighted no portion of what Paul has stated. But at the end of the day, let us at least admit that what assures us that a reading of this type is the proper one is the rule of faith. What I mean that ofcourse there are other possiblities that while would seem to fit this passage just fine, those readings do make this passage the enemy and at odds with the rest of scripture. Therefore, if we have two possible interpretations of a single passage and both of them are equally fitting yet one contradicts the whole of scripture and one is in harmony with all of scripture, are we not bound to choose the interpretation in harmoney with scripture? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
698 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220006 | ||
Dodoy, A few points. 1. Unless I missunderstand what you've posted, you didn't actually engage or interact with anything I said. You simply stated that I was wrong. Perhaps I didn't follow what you said well enough. 2. If you will allow me to paraphrase what I'm suggesting the passage says: Verse 10: For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, (Who is the only hope of any salvation for any man), especially of believers who he saves in the greatest of possible ways, from eternal judgement. Now, I you may certainly think that is not what Paul is saying. All well and good. But, you can not argue with any success that based on only the immediate context and basic grammer, that he can NOT be saying that. 3. Are you actually trying to argue that the Bible CAN NOT be using the word savior in any sense other than of eternal salvation, simply because we know that Christ saves? Simply use any Bible search tool and you will see the word is used to refer to being saved on a smaller scale quite fequently, as in being saved from armies, or disease, or hunger, etc. You can argue that he means otherwise if you wish, but you can't simply say because we know Jesus saves from sins, therefore a reference to God being a savior is only and always limited to that sense. 4. Finally, you said "In what context did Paul say God is teh Savior (NOT just a Savior) of all men?" I'm not sure what you are asking, best I can tell you are asking a rhetorical question that you answer in the following line suggesting the context is 1 Tim 1:15. But are you honestly suggesting that 1 Tim 1:15, something stated three chapters earlier is undeniably what Paul has in mind with no unpacking of the things said in between? And saying that as if it should seal the case with no question? My final point is this. Given the immediate context and grammer alone, and if we read it with no other theology in mind, both are completely possible interpretations of the passage. That being said, I would argue that the wider Biblical context (all of scripture) rules out a universal salvation interpretation. I'm not presumming to convince you of that, however. I'm only trying to argue that my interpretation fits the passage. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
699 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220007 | ||
Dodoy, Let me suppliment my arguement with this passage. Isaiah 45:5-7 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." This passage affirms that there is no deliverance of any type, nor calamity of any type that is not ultimately from the hand of God. The arguement is simply this: I'm the only God out there, who else could it be? This doesn't prove my reading, but it supports what I'm saying with regards to all deliverance of any type of worldly distress is ultimately from the hand of our God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
700 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220017 | ||
Dodoy, I have not forgotten. I've not found time to type it but I have had time to do some thinking on it and to consider what verses to show you and in what order. But it would help me if you could explain what you just said a little better. Grasping what you believe would help me select scripture. 1.) In what sense can any person be "saved from sin" yet not receive eternal life. The very term "saved" is understood as being saved from something. That thing they are being "saved" from is a guilty verdict from God on the day of judgement. So when we say the word "saved" we are talking about being spared on that day the Lord judges all the earth. So in what sense are they saved, and yet judged on that day? In short, can you explain your terminology. 2. When you say only the righteous will be rewarded with eternal life, can you define what you mean by "the righteous." Do you mean that only those who through their deeds are righteous will receive eternal life, or do you mean only those who receive the righteousness of Christ counted for them through faith? Helping me understand these things will help me know which scriptures to present you with. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ] Next > Last [40] >> |