Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
If I ask someone for a gift, did I earn it, or work for it when I got it handed to me?
- Thread starter llama
- Start date
I know the meaning of oxymoron.
FreeGrace,
When I wrote (above) that Thayer gave the meanings from classical Greek authors Polybius and Xenophon in his definitions of papapiptw, I was showing that authors outside of the Bible - and ancient authors - did use papapiptw in a different way to the LXX and NT.
Yes, the Bible does use words with a slightly or even considerably different meaning from ancient secular sources. Where do I find that in the Bible? I won't, just as I won't find the fact that Captain James Cook circumnavigated New Zealand in 1770 and then sailed up the east coast of Australia. I'm grateful for scholars who have compared the ancient sources with the LXX and NT in our Greek lexicons and publications such as Kittel & Friedrich's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. It is hard work reading and analysing the etymology of words in ancient writers in the original languages to arrive at meanings.
Where in the Bible is the teaching of losing salvation? I've already provided the evidence from Heb 6:4-6 (ESV) and 1 Tim 1:19 (ESV) but you don't want to receive that information. This latter verse talks of shipwreck of one's faith.
Take a look at the present condition of the wreck of the Titanic:
(Titanic wreck 2003, courtesy Wikipedia)
Apostasy speaks of repudiating salvation; a shipwrecked faith indicates a useless faith for what it was designed (salvation).
I don't believe in eternal security or once-saved-always-salved but I do believe the Bible teaches perseverance of the saints, i.e. believers will persevere to the end of life. This is taught in John 3:36,
'Whoever believes [continues believing] in the Son has [continues having] eternal life; whoever does not obey [continues not obeying] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains [continues remaining] on him'.
The meaning of the Greek present tenses [that I have put in square brackets], confirms this biblical theology that the saints will persevere and not commit apostasy or have their faith shipwrecked.
Matt 24:13 (ESV) also verifies this: 'The one who endures to the end will be saved'.
May you have a blessed Christmas season.
Oz
Last edited:
Those verses teach justification but they do not teach justification that is irrevocable. You are imposing on these verses to get your 'irrevocable' emphasis.
Rom 11:29 (ESV) in the context of Rom 9-11 (ESV) is not talking about irrevocable or unrepented gifts in isolation. The Greek preposition gar (for) at the beginning of this verse (11:29) links it back to what has preceded it. The gifts of God, as the context makes clear, are not just for Jews but for Gentiles as well. See Rom 9:4-5 (ESV); Rom 11:1 (ESV); Rom 11:11-24 (ESV).
It is so important to interpret in context and not as a remote verse. The meaning of Rom 11:29 (ESV) is tied up with the Gospel going to the Jews (who often rejected it) and the Gentiles.
You seem to be wanting Rom 11:29 (ESV) to mean something that it doesn't mean in context.
Oz
Yes, you have completely misunderstood what the scriptural word fellowship means because you have it "mixed up" with your "redefined" postmodern definition of the word.
The scriptural word for fellowship is what we are called to by God, to have access to the eternal life Jesus Christ provides.
God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:9
and again
the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:2-3
This is the same description given by the same Apostle John, that he recorded for us, as spoken by Jesus Christ.
...this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 17:3
The people are "in Him", then they are later they end up cast into the fire and are burned.
The only way to be in Christ, is to believe.
Those who believe for a while, then go back to their "unbelief", have returned to being unbelievers.
JLB
JLB,
I would emphasise what the Greek present tense verbs state in John 3:36 (ESV), 'Whoever believes [continues to believe] in the Son has [continues to have] eternal life; whoever does not obey [does not continue to obey] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains [continues to remain] on him'.
For each of these verbs for which I have provided the meaning [in square brackets] are Greek present tenses, which mean continuous or continual action.
Thus, if one used to continue to believe in Jesus but then commits apostasy and repudiates continuing belief in Jesus, that person is not only lost but Heb 6:6 (ESV) confirms that for that person there is now no possibility of repentance. They are forever doomed.
This kind of information does not go down well with promoters of irresistible grace and unconditional election. I support perseverance of the saints.
Oz
You're just using another word to mean the same thing. Paul isn't describing or defining anything in Romans 6:23
Romans 11:29 really points to God's faithfulness towards Israel in that even though they were made enemies of God regarding the gospel, God still loves them for the sake of their forefathers. What Romans 11:29 is saying is God is faithful. That's why Paul says, 'For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.'
I said this:
"So, you don't understand the difference between fellowship and relationship?"
I'll use the same example as Scripture uses: birth parent and child.
That is a relationship that cannot be severed, broken, undone, etc.
Fellowship refers to the nature of that relationship.
Are children always obedient and respectful to their birth parent? Of course not. When they aren't, the fellowship suffers, but the relationship is intact, and always will be.
There is no reason to assume any difference in the spiritual realm.
God is our Heavenly Father, and this is a spiritual relationship. Just as the physical birth parent and child is a physical relationship. Neither can be broken.
Fellowship speaks to the nature of the relationship.
When the child of God is "abiding in Christ" (Jn 15) they are in fellowship. They will be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Spirit (Gal 5:16).
However, the opposite is being out of fellowship, and they will be grieving (Eph 4:30) the Spirit and quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Spirit.
I have used Scripture to support my explanation.
If any of it is wrong, please advise.
One last thing: King Saul died out of fellowship. We know this because 1 Chron 10:14 says that God killed him for going to a medium. Yet, 1 Sam 28:19 reports Samuel telling Saul that Saul would join him the next day.
"So, you don't understand the difference between fellowship and relationship?"
So, I'll help you understand the difference, then.
I'll use the same example as Scripture uses: birth parent and child.
That is a relationship that cannot be severed, broken, undone, etc.
Fellowship refers to the nature of that relationship.
Are children always obedient and respectful to their birth parent? Of course not. When they aren't, the fellowship suffers, but the relationship is intact, and always will be.
There is no reason to assume any difference in the spiritual realm.
God is our Heavenly Father, and this is a spiritual relationship. Just as the physical birth parent and child is a physical relationship. Neither can be broken.
Fellowship speaks to the nature of the relationship.
When the child of God is "abiding in Christ" (Jn 15) they are in fellowship. They will be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Spirit (Gal 5:16).
However, the opposite is being out of fellowship, and they will be grieving (Eph 4:30) the Spirit and quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Spirit.
I have used Scripture to support my explanation.
If any of it is wrong, please advise.
One last thing: King Saul died out of fellowship. We know this because 1 Chron 10:14 says that God killed him for going to a medium. Yet, 1 Sam 28:19 reports Samuel telling Saul that Saul would join him the next day.
I said this:
"One of the other of God's gifts that is irrevocable is justification: Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17."
I've imposed nothing on Scripture. I only point out what Paul said.
Each believer is held accountable for the dots they connect and the dots that they do not want to connect.
And I'll leave it at that.
"One of the other of God's gifts that is irrevocable is justification: Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17."
Paul was the one who described both justification and eternal life as gifts of God. Before he then said that God's gifts are irrevocable.
I've imposed nothing on Scripture. I only point out what Paul said.
No one has said anything about isolation. Paul described what he meant by "gifts of God" in his letter to the Romans. That is FACT. Paul also taught that God's gifts are irrevocable. Connecting these dots is so obvious.
If the gifts in 11:29 do not refer back to the gifts of God that Paul had already described, then just what do they refer to? Don't forget to stay within context.
I believe his entire letter to the Romans is THE context for whatever he wrote IN that letter. But, since you don't believe Paul was referring to the gifts that he already described in that letter, just what "gifts" was he referring to, per context?
Where do you get this from?
I'll just say it again: Paul described what he meant by "gifts of God". Then he said those gifts are irrevocable.
Each believer is held accountable for the dots they connect and the dots that they do not want to connect.
And I'll leave it at that.
Well, please provide a clear explanation of the difference between the words "fellowship" and "relationship" since you've rejected my explanation, even though I gave a thoroughly clear example in the physical realm of birth parent and child.
This sounds as though fellowship is just another word for "getting saved". Is that you understanding?
OK, you're using the word "fellowship" enough and from Scripture, but there is nothing in this that explains what it is.
I gave very clear examples of what it is. You've not done that.
[QUOTEThe people are "in Him", then they are later they end up cast into the fire and are burned.[/QUOTE]
Please show the evidence that those who have been placed in Him have gone to hell. Except there is none.
This is correct.
There is no Scriptural evidence that those who believe for awhile are considered unbelievers. That opinion is just not found in the Bible.
When one believes, they become a new creation (2 Cor 5:17), they HAVE eternal life (Jn 5:24), they ARE justified (Rom 5:1) and they ARE forgiven (Acts10:43).
Where are the verses that teach that ANY of these things are taken back, rescinded, lost, forfeited, or any other word one may think of?
If there are none, then there is no reason to believe that any of that is possible.
None of the warning verses suggest such a thing either.
Last edited:
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:29 KJV
According to the original Greek word, which means: not repentant of, unregretted Strongs G278 - ametamelētos
It is used in only one other verse in the New Testament: 2 Corinthians 7:10
8 For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while. 9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. 2 Corinthians 7:10
For the gifts and calling of God are without regret [without repentance]. Romans 11:29
Just like the "godly sorrow" is not to be regretted in 2 Co 7:10, because it produces repentance leading to salvation, so also God does no regret the calling or the "gifts" associated with that calling, because it will lead to salvation, even though some were "broken off".
ametamelētos, G278 does not have the meaning you are trying to assign to it, as the "modern" word irrevocable carries.
Modern Dictionary:
Irrevocable: not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be repealed or annulled;unalterable:
John 15 clearly shows us, people can in fact be removed from the eternal life [Jesus Christ], and being connected to Him, as a branch is connected to the Vine, in which it draws upon the life the Vine provides.
- 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 15:2
- 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
JLB
Your "explanation" comes from human reasoning, and post modern thought.
Though a child is born of godly parents, this does not guarantee they will be godly.
Lucifer is a son of God, though he is called Satan now.
JLB
I have a question. Is God our heavenly Father from conception?
Yes, this is true.
By implication, it means irrevocable. The onus is on you to prove that one can revoke something and yet be "not repentant of or unregretted in whatever was revoked.
That will be impossible, of course.
So, tell me what Rom 11:29 does mean then.
Which means to be irrevocable. Your disagreement with Greek scholar translators has no sway.
Ha. I haven't assigned anything to it. I am noting what actual Greek translation scholars SAID it means.
No it doesn't. Where are the words "eternal life" in that passage in relation to being cast, or thrown into a fire, or burned?
If you're going to use that ruse for Rom 11:29, then at least be consistent and apply your own rule to your own views. If not, that is just plain hypocrisy.
So, where are the words "eternal life" in this verse? I sure don't see them.
I said this:
"Well, please provide a clear explanation of the difference between the words "fellowship" and "relationship" since you've rejected my explanation, even though I gave a thoroughly clear example in the physical realm of birth parent and child."
Why would one think that God uses such family terms of "Father", "son", "child", if He wasn't making a comparison from the physical to the spiritual? Do you have any answer?
In fact, Scripture calls Adam the 'son of God' in Luke's genealogy. However, he rebelled and needed to be born again.
Only those who have placed their trust in Jesus Christ as Savior are said to be "born again" and become new creatures. Since none of that can be said of the devil, your point is irrelevant.
"Well, please provide a clear explanation of the difference between the words "fellowship" and "relationship" since you've rejected my explanation, even though I gave a thoroughly clear example in the physical realm of birth parent and child."
My explanation follows Biblical comparisons.
Why would one think that God uses such family terms of "Father", "son", "child", if He wasn't making a comparison from the physical to the spiritual? Do you have any answer?
Absolutely correct, both in the physical as well as in the spiritual realms!
He was never born again as I've pointed out before.
In fact, Scripture calls Adam the 'son of God' in Luke's genealogy. However, he rebelled and needed to be born again.
Only those who have placed their trust in Jesus Christ as Savior are said to be "born again" and become new creatures. Since none of that can be said of the devil, your point is irrelevant.
As in born again, right? Just clarifying.
All you seem to have to your "doctrine" is one scripture taken out of context, that doesn't even contain the words eternal life, which must be assumed and is based on the word irrevocable whose meaning is entirely different in the original language, than the modern day definition.
[Edited. Too inflammatory. WIP]
JLB
Last edited by a moderator: