Thanks for your extensive time/effort here. This type of interaction is where I find value in these debates. Hopefully you will too. There's two broad points/topics I'd like to address quickly, however, prior to spending more time if it's desired. We'll see where it leads (what's your rebuttal so to speak to these observations):
1. WRT "Paul didn't tell them to feardiscipline, he told them to fearfalling short of entering that rest, which you just admitted is the kingdom." there are several Technically inaccurate conclusions you make:
A. Hebrews cannot be proven to be Paul's letter.
B. Hebrews literally says "Therefore let us fear __?__...
1) So already you missed that the author includes himself in this verse. It says let us fear __?__, not them. No big deal, I suppose, on either the author or who is included in the fear, but I like to stay strictly to the text as much as possible (see related comment about 'divorce' below).
2) The verse is there for a reason. Yes, it's about The Kingdom. But it follows on the heals of the previous rest's example. These two rest's cannot be entirely separated just because the rest in 4:1 is The Kingdom. Ch 3, is 'there for' chapter 4's point. You didn't respond to the points I clarified from 3:14. Do you now see my point about being "partners with Christ"? Which by the way, the author included himself in that verse too. So they relate.
I don’t think the author is important as long as it is agreed that Hebrews is Scripture. And, yes, the author included himself which again I don’t think that changes anything.
The rest is the same, it’s the Promised Land. He says, “any of you should seem to come short of it.” It’s also translated, found coming short of it. However, the verse clears up any question because Paul says those to whom it was first preached didn’t enter in, so, they fell short of it.
3) and most importantly it DOES NOT say; "fearfalling short of entering that rest". It quite literally simply and merely says "fear __?__, while there remains a promise..." You assume the author means fear falling short of entering that rest". Whereas I see a huge conflict with that assumption. Namely, in the same breath he says "while there remains a promise of entering His rest (kingdom rest)".
I’ve not assumed it, the word “lest” tells us what is to be feared, it connects the fear and what is to be feared.
How can one be fearful of falling short of the kingdom while there remains a Great Promise of it? It's illogical. Who, by the way, The Great Promise, is a partner with us while we wait (from 3:14a)
It’s perfectly logical, one can have a promise but not meet the conditions of that promise and thus not receive that promise. I could promise you $10 if you came to my house, however, if you didn’t come to my house you have fallen short of the promise and do not receive it.
Regarding the “partner” which is Christ, there is something you need to think about in Heb 3:14. The second clause is conditional, but what’s interesting about this that the “Ginomai” translated “made” in the first clause is in the perfect tense. What that means is that, “made”, a past completed action whose results continue to the present (time of writing) is contingent on a future event. Logically this seems impossible. How can a past completed event be contingent on a future action? Yet, that is what the grammar indicates. In order to reconcile this it seems to me (and I’m checking further) that what Paul is saying, is that if we continue steadfast to the end, then God counts all of our Christian life as from the beginning. However, if we don’t continue steadfast to the end, none of it counts. This would seem to agree with what Ezekiel said about the righteous and wicked man.
LXE
Ezekiel 18:24 But when the righteous man turns away from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, according to all the transgressions which the transgressor has wrought,
none of his righteousness which he has wrought shall be at all remembered: in his trespass wherein he has trespassed, and in his sins wherein he has sinned, in them shall he die.
4) and what's the purpose for this fear anyway? Hebrews tells us the purpose for this fear:
So"that none of youappearto fall short of it." Appearing to fall short is technically different than actually falling short. Appearances are not always accurate, however. The Pharisees 'appeared' to be acting right. Take Moses and Aaron falling in the wilderness, for example, too. It might 'appear' that they fell short of The Kingdom because they fell short of the promised land, but did they really? No.
Here I would suggest a more in depth look at the Greek word. I can have other meanings and is translated differently in some translations
And just quickly for why I'd say 'discipline' fills in the blank as to what should be feared. The previous example of the discipline that Israel experienced on their way to and even after entering their promised land is what should be feared. Our promise is Christ, our new found partner, however.
-But discipline’s not in view in the passage.
2. WRT 'divorce' again technically:
A. God put them away and issued them a "
certificate of divorce" yet still pleaded with them to return to Him (still does, and it's prophesied to occur so I think it will) and said He was still married to them.
B. technically verse 8 clarifies they "
were not afraid" and committed adultery, yet their Father/Master/Husband still loved them anyway.
C. Technically
Jer 3starts at verse 1 with how a man would never take back a divorced wife who marries another, then goes on to demonstrate how God's love for Israel is superior to that of a mere man's love. Yes, He allows them the freedom to choose another and even the paperwork to make it legal for them to do it. Yet still considers Himself married to them after the certificate was given and their "loyal Master" or as the KJV says "
O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you" (v. 11, 14). Did you read those verses? What do they demonstrate to you?
The point is that God did divorce Israel, yes He does cal them to return and yes He does say He’s married to them. However, He’s married to them as a people, those who don’t repent are outside of the covenant. So, as a people He is married to them yes as individuals who have placed themselves outside of the covenant He is not.
This is exactly why I think believers being partners with The Lord from
Heb 3:14needs to be taken into account.
I think that passage needs to be looked at more deeply.
And it also supports what I've been saying all along. The more you look into these verses or phrases that people are pointing to for anti -OSAS proof, the more assured of OSAS you come away. But you must look and consider both sides.
I disagree. I used to be OSAS, but the evidence has since convinced me.
Also, going back to the rest, to get a better idea of what Paul is getting at it is helpful to read Numbers chapters 13-14. Notice God asks, ‘how long will these people reject me?’ god considered their actions as rejecting Him. In turn He also rejected them.
34 `According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for each day you shall bear your guilt one year,
namely forty years, and
you shall know My rejection. (Num 14:34 NKJ)
This is the background to the short quotes that Paul gives when he quotes David.
6 Oh come, let us worship and bow down; Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker.
7 For He
is our God, And we
are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice:
8 "Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion1, As
in the day of trial2 in the wilderness,
9 When your fathers tested Me; They tried Me, though they saw My work.
10 For forty years I was grieved with
that generation, And said,`It
is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.'
11 So I swore in My wrath,`They shall not enter My rest.'" (Psa 95:6-11 NKJ)