2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5; what is coming?

[Nathan]

I showed the verse that says that "it is impossible for God to lie" from Heb 6:18, and then I showed the 2 verses that guarantee that "having believed", one is sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit, for the day of redemption.

That's what I said.


The phrase "having believed" is an aorist tense. That means initial faith. A point in time of belief. And from that point in time initial belief, the one who has believed, is sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit, a guarantee for the day of redemption. Eph 1:13-14


There are not 2 beliefs. There is one belief, in a point in time. Which saves, seals, justifies, adopts as son, and gives eternal life.

Your two beliefs are opposed to each other.

Just to make sure I did not misunderstand you, I'll ask again. You seem to be misunderstanding me.

Do you believe a person who turns away from belief in Jesus as the only savior, will still be sealed with the Holy Spirit?

It's really not a hard question to answer. I do not find that someone who turns from faith can still be sealed. I've never found another way listed in the Bible that a person can be sealed. Do you find another way?

 

[MarkT]

I said this:
"The only question is where does the Bible address how anyone who has been sealed can be unsealed (removal of the Holy Spirit).

If you are talking about those who are called to be saints, if they are called to be saints and they have been sanctified by the Spirit, 1 Peter 1:3 I would agree. Paul counted himself the least of all the saints. Eph. 3:8

It is impossible to unseal them since they are chosen by God. Eph. 1:4 But Jesus said even the impossible would happen if God did not shorten the days of tribulation. Mt. 24:22 And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

But if you are talking about the church, many will fall away. Mt. 24:10 Or they may be led astray by false teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

 

[JLB]

Please provide evidence in your own words that the NIV is one of 'the more liberal translations'.

• For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 NKJV

• For there are three that testify: 1 John 5:7 NIV

JLB

 

[JLB]

And then ignored or scrambled the rest of scripture which refutes your position.
We got it.
Thanks.
Time to move on.

 

[JLB]

Except "as long as" don't figure in.

It absolutely "figures in" to the New Testament as the words of Jesus Christ.

Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
John 16:2

In Christ = Eternal Life
Removed from Christ = Eternal Death; thrown into the fire and burned.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6



Once you are "in Christ", as long as you remain "in Christ", you have access to the eternal life that flows from Christ.
if you don't abide or remain "in Christ", then you will wither, and are cast into the fire and burned.


Just as a branch can not "have life", in and of itself, apart from the vine, so also we can not have life apart from Jesus Christ.

In Him = Eternal Life
Removed From Him = Eternal Death

Connected to Him = Eternal Life
Disconnected from Him = Eternal Death


Pop Quiz!


What's the difference between an unbeliever who is not connected to Christ, and a person who was connected to Christ, then removed from Christ?


Answer: Nothing, as they are both disconnected from Christ.



JLB

 

[chessman]

Was the post for someone else and was sent to me by mistake?

No, it was meant for you.

You made the unsubstantiated statement:
"Whether one "partakes" of the Holy Spirit or one "partners" with the Holy Spirit, they must "receive" the holy Spirit in order to do so."

So I asked for some Biblically based evidence for your claim:

Really, says who?

Which went unanswered.

Then I showed Biblically that none of His disciples had "received" the Holy Spirit until Jesus "gave" them the Holy Spirit after His resurrection.

Lacking any Biblical evidence for your claim, you need to show that none of his disciples "partnered" with the Holy Spirit before they "received" the Holy Spirit as a gift.

 

[JLB]

Then I showed Biblically that none of His disciples had "received" the Holy Spirit until Jesus "gave" them the Holy Spirit after His resurrection.

Please show us from the bible that "partnering" with the Holy Spirit doesn't mean having the Holy Spirit in some capacity.

• All the Prophets in the Old Testament had the Spirit of Christ within them.

10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

• John the Baptist's mother, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, before Pentecost.

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:41

• Jesus empowered His disciples,before Pentecost, to do the works He did, after He received the Holy Spirit. If they were not empowered with the Holy Spirit then what Spirit?

And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.
Matthew 10:1-4

• Judas received this power of the Holy Spirit, along with the others.

• This power He gave to them to witness and preach the Gospel, was the Holy Spirit, before Pentecost.

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Acts 1:8



JLB

 

[chessman]

John the Baptist's mother, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, before Pentecost.

I never said people did not have the filling of the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. I said His disciples did not "receive" the Holy Spirit before Jesus' resurrection. Which is true, they didn't.

Indeed JTB was "filled with the Holy Spirit" before his birth.

Luke 1:15 (NASB) For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. ​

The issue (and question you keep avoiding) is rather; did the Jewish leaders that "crucifed the Son of God and put Him to open shame", "receive" the gift of the Holy Spirit or did they "partake" of the Holy Spirit through listening to JTB witness to them and Jesus (the word of God) speaking to them.

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Acts 1:8

JLB

"You shall receive power when..." is some of Jesus' final words recorded by Luke about their future "receiving" of the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost).
"You shall be witness to me" is also future tense.

Judas received this power of the Holy Spirit, along with the others.

More insertion on your part.

The Text doesn't say they "received this power of the Holy Spirit"!

It says and I quote:

He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease

Where is "receiving the Holy Spirit" mentioned here??? It's not.

Jesus empowered His disciples,before Pentecost, to do the works He did, after He received the Holy Spirit. If they were not empowered with the Holy Spirit then what Spirit?

He gave them "authority/power" to heal. The Authority of the Word of God was their empowerment.

People who thirst, receive water by drinking.

My wife made brussel sprouts today. I tasted them but did not eat them.
My daughter came home with iced coffee the other day and asked me to try it. I tasted it but did not drink it.

Hebrews 6:4-6 (NASB) For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.​

It is possible that the Jewish leaders that crucifed to "themselves" the Son of God and put Him to open shame tasted the heavenly gift (the good Word of God) when Jesus spoke to them and they rejected Him, crucifed Him and put Him to open shame.

It is possible that the Jewish leaders that crucifed to "themselves" the Son of God and put Him to open shame were "partakers" of the Holy Spirit when John the Baptist witnessed God's prophetic word to them and they rejected the words and cut off his head.

It is possible that the Jewish leaders that crucifed to "themselves" the Son of God and put Him to open shame were enlightened about Him when they read the words about Him in Isaiah and elsewhere and they rejected Him, crucifed Him and put Him to open shame.

 

[OzSpen]

I can only do so based on examples. For instance;

2 Corinthians 5:5 (ESV) He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

2 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV) Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

You see here the NIV added the last phrase "guaranteeing what is to come". That is a liberal approach to translating the Bible. I'm not aware that any manuscripts which have that phrase in the original language.

Nathan,

You don't know the difference between a philosophy of formal equivalence translation (ESV) and dynamic equivalence translation (NIV). Formal equivalence attempts to be word-for-word, while dynamic equivalence translates meaning-for-meaning.

See how the ESV has to make some adjustments with the word-for-word in 2 Cor 5:5. Please translate the Greek text as meaning-for-meaning to show me that you know that the NIV added the phrase instead of explaining the meaning. Here's the Greek:

5 ὁ δὲ κατεργασάμενος ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θεός, a]">[a]ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος.

Thanks,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It requires a large dose of assumption to conclude from any of the verses given for the OSNAS side that they teach loss of salvation.

No sir! Only one warning would be enough to demonstrate that salvation can be lost. I've repeated the examples over and over to you but you're not listening: Heb 6:4-6 (ESV); 1 Tim 1:18-20 (ESV); John 15:6 (ESV).

I've given up going around in a circle with you.

Bye, bye
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I see. I am very cautious of "scholars", because generally their denominational background steers their focus.

Nathan,

You favour the blueletterbible.org website that uses Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Do you know the theological beliefs of Joseph Henry Thayer who compiled this lexicon?

A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy." (Joseph Henry Thayer 1977. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, publishers introduction, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, p. vii).​

So here you support a blueletterbible website that uses Thayer's lexicon and he was a Unitarian, not believing in the Trinity, and a number of other fundamental doctrines.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

• For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 NKJV

• For there are three that testify: 1 John 5:7 NIV

JLB

JLB,

Don't you understand the differences in MSS evidence? The NKJV adds the extra words, based on MSS from the 16th century. They were NOT in MSS earlier than 16th century. The NIV textual footnote gives you that information.

So the KJV and NKJV have added to Scripture. The NIV is accurate to the earliest MSS we have.

I do wish you would study the MSS evidence before making a comment like this.

Oz

 

[JLB]

I never said people did not have the filling of the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. I said His disciples did not "receive" the Holy Spirit before Jesus' resurrection. Which is true, they didn't.

Untrue.

"You shall receive power when..." is some of Jesus' final words recorded by Luke about their future "receiving" of the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost).
"You shall be witness to me" is also future tense.

What you don't seem to understand is, Jesus gave them power to preach the Gospel, heal the sick, raise the dead, and cleanse the lepers, before Pentecost, which was the same Holy Spirit power He operated by.

More insertion on your part.

The Text doesn't say they "received this power of the Holy Spirit"!

It says and I quote:

And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.
Matthew 10:1-4

He "gave", means they "received" power.


All you have to do is show which "spirit" or which "power",from the scriptures, if not the Holy Spirit, that these disciples operated by when the received power to preach the Gospel, cast out devils, heal the sick, and raise the dead.

• John the Baptist's mother, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, before Pentecost.

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:41

• Jesus empowered His disciples,before Pentecost, to do the works He did, after He received the Holy Spirit. If they were not empowered with the Holy Spirit then what Spirit?

And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.
Matthew 10:1-4

• Judas received this power of the Holy Spirit, along with the others.

• This power He gave to them to witness and preach the Gospel, was the Holy Spirit, before Pentecost.

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Acts 1:8



Hebrews 6 is a reference to receiving the Gospel and repenting, and receiving the Holy Spirit.

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.



JLB

 

[gr8grace3]

FG,

It was you who stated in #189, 'But, what the Bible never even suggests, is that loss of faith equals loss of salvation. That has not been shown'. I was replying to that. Therefore, if one no longer has faith in Jesus, he/she no longer has salvation.

Emphasising the aorist tense of Eph 1:13 for 'having believed' - it's pisteusantas, an aorist participle - is problematic on this forum because this is not a place to go into the nuances of the participle, including the aorist participle.

However, this we know that the God of truth will not lie or contradict Himself. The meaning of Eph 1:13 must be in harmony with verses such as John 3:16 (ESV), 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

We know that,

• 'believes' is present tense participle, with its nuances;
• 'have' is present tense verb = continues having.

So the one who continues to believe continues to have eternal life.

Oz

I do not understand the logic of ," You can't emphasize the nuances of a participle." And then go on to emphasize a participle to "prove" your point.

And your "proving" is false. In John 3:16 "believing" is in a purpose clause(how do you not know this?) You have went past a year or 2 of Greek right? I shouldn't even have to make a simple explanation for you. But I will.

Believe is in a purpose clause. "that" introduces Gods Purpose. Gods purpose in His son PRESENTLY stands for ALL. Acts 16:31. Whoever believes on His SON(Gods present purpose John 3:16) Shall be saved.

You do know of the purpose clause and how it uses present tense and subjunctive moods right? It is not describing a specific individual and if they are presently believing. The purpose clause is Gods purpose and it presently stands.

Whoever believes in Gods purpose(His Son) at this present time time WILL(Acts 16:31 the moment they believe/ Aorist tense His present purpose John 3:16) be saved.

 

[OzSpen]

I do not understand the logic of ," You can't emphasize the nuances of a participle." And then go on to emphasize a participle to "prove" your point.

And your "proving" is false. In John 3:16 "believing" is in a purpose clause(how do you not know this?) You have went past a year or 2 of Greek right? I shouldn't even have to make a simple explanation for you. But I will.

Believe is in a purpose clause. "that" introduces Gods Purpose. Gods purpose in His son PRESENTLY stands for ALL. Acts 16:31. Whoever believes on His SON(Gods present purpose John 3:16) Shall be saved.

You do know of the purpose clause and how it uses present tense and subjunctive moods right? It is not describing a specific individual and if they are presently believing. The purpose clause is Gods purpose and it presently stands.

Whoever believes in Gods purpose(His Son) at this present time time WILL(Acts 16:31 the moment they believe/ Aorist tense His present purpose John 3:16) be saved.

gr8,

You are dead right. I made an error in this one. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

I do hope you learn your English grammar. You stated: 'You have went past a year or 2 of Greek right?'

I have been past a year or 2 of Greek.

'Went' is past tense; 'have been' is the present perfect tense. I was, am, and will be past a year or 2 of Greek.

Oz

 

[Nathan]

Nathan,

You don't know the difference between a philosophy of formal equivalence translation (ESV) and dynamic equivalence translation (NIV). Formal equivalence attempts to be word-for-word, while dynamic equivalence translates meaning-for-meaning.

See how the ESV has to make some adjustments with the word-for-word in 2 Cor 5:5. Please translate the Greek text as meaning-for-meaning to show me that you know that the NIV added the phrase instead of explaining the meaning. Here's the Greek:

5 ὁ δὲ κατεργασάμενος ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θεός, a]">[a]ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος.

Thanks,
Oz

Actually I do know the difference between the two.

That's why I believe it is liberal. Maybe we have different views of what is liberal?

I define liberal as someone stepping outside the bounds of giving me more than is necessary. As in, telling me what something means, rather than what something says.

I would rather spend the time to figure out what something says, and just read what the people wrote.

I'll translate meaning in a bit. Have to wait till I have a PC. Just be sure not to publish it in a book and call it the Bible please.

 

[Nathan]

Nathan,

You favour the blueletterbible.org website that uses Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Do you know the theological beliefs of Joseph Henry Thayer who compiled this lexicon?

A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy." (Joseph Henry Thayer 1977. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, publishers introduction, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, p. vii).​

So here you support a blueletterbible website that uses Thayer's lexicon and he was a Unitarian, not believing in the Trinity, and a number of other fundamental doctrines.

Oz

I use, not support(unless you classify my letting people know as support) the website.

I rarely, almost never, look at the explainitory notes. I can't say I have never, but it's not even remotely something I do to any extent. Reason being, I see them as commentary, and I don't like commentary when I study.

I have read them, and read other commentaries, which is along the same lines of listening to someone preach. When I do those things I put on my filters and try to catch everything I can through them.

To expound on my original statement, I only am cautious of 'scholars' when it comes to recommendations and other personal beliefs - as in commentaries. As long as the lexicon gives me a general idea of what the Greek word means I'm happy.

The men of God who wrote the books and letters we read were inspired and did so by the same Spirit we have today. Kind of amazing I would think. I have zero doubt of His ability to give me the insight I need, when I need it, without the aid of someone else giving their meaning.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually I do know the difference between the two.

That's why I believe it is liberal. Maybe we have different views of what is liberal?

I define liberal as someone stepping outside the bounds of giving me more than is necessary. As in, telling me what something means, rather than what something says.

I would rather spend the time to figure out what something says, and just read what the people wrote.

I'll translate meaning in a bit. Have to wait till I have a PC. Just be sure not to publish it in a book and call it the Bible please.

biblestudy.org gives a helpful explanation of the differences between formal and dynamic equivalence translations HERE.

 

[OzSpen]

To expound on my original statement, I only am cautious of 'scholars' when it comes to recommendations and other personal beliefs - as in commentaries. As long as the lexicon gives me a general idea of what the Greek word means I'm happy.

Nathan,

That's why I'm receiving such varied - and confusing - messages from you.

• you are cautious of scholars and their recommendations and personal beliefs. Do you apply the same standard to yourself?
• Lexicons are not designed to give the general idea of a Greek word. They are for providing the specific meaning of Greek words - just life Oxford dictionaries and Merriam-Webster dictionary. Both of these are designed to provide specific, narrow, definitions of English words.

Oz

 

[JLB]

JLB,

Don't you understand the differences in MSS evidence? The NKJV adds the extra words, based on MSS from the 16th century. They were NOT in MSS earlier than 16th century. The NIV textual footnote gives you that information.

So the KJV and NKJV have added to Scripture. The NIV is accurate to the earliest MSS we have.

I do wish you would study the MSS evidence before making a comment like this.

Oz

• For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 NKJV

• For there are three that testify: 1 John 5:7 NIV

I made no comment.

Which of these two different versions is true?



JLB