Actually what's happening, dadof10, is you aren't comprehending the argument, nor the plain words of scripture that say Peter "is completely clean"
while he has his dirty feet. Then you try to defend your misunderstanding
with a different point being made in the passage that Peter will lose his complete cleanness
if he refuses to get his feet cleaned.
The passage says he is completely clean
while he has his dirty feet. The warning of losing his place in Christ applies to whether or not he refuses Christ's washing after getting dirty feet, not applicable to him having dirty feet in the first place. That's what the passage plainly says.
5Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?”7Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.”8Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.” (John 13:5-11 NASB)
"If I do not wash you"....that is when Peter loses the cleanness of his justification (not when he gets his feet dirty). That is when he would need to be re-justified. But that is impossible. God will not do that (Hebrews 6:4-6). Your re-justification doctrine falls flat. Not only is it unnecessary for dirty footed believers who get their feet continually washed by Christ to be re-justified, but it is impossible for the 'believer' who refuses to get his feet washed to be re-justified.
Re-justification: Unnecessary for the believer, who gets his feet washed by Jesus, because he is already justified, and impossible for the one who loses his justification, by not getting his feet washed by Christ, because God said he won't do that. I said this right from the beginning.
I'm done discussing these verses. This particular tangent is not getting either one of us anywhere. I would like to point out one thing concerning "engaging", though. You have brought up "foot washing" verses, "lump/leaven" verses and other verses that you think bolster your case. In every instance, I have "engaged" by doing an exegesis on
the actual verses you post. You usually don't agree, but I have "engaged". We went 'round and 'round about lumps, leaven, Church and that one sinning "chap". We went 'round and 'round about "foot washing", "completeness", baptism and repentance. In short, when you post your opinion on Scripture, I engage
on those verses, I don't say "that can't be a proper exegesis because of these other verses over here". I would like the same consideration.
The OP of this thread includes an exegesis of Hebrews 11: 4-8. I have repeatedly brought it up, most recently Monday
The Process Of Justification. You continue to ignore it, except to say that Hebrews 11 is "all about commendable faith". I will post a short exegesis here in the hopes that you will actually engage on these verses. I'll use the NIV because it uses the word "commendable". I will also include in my exegesis your "commendable faith". It is just another word for true, justifying faith because God is doing the "commending". It is not another whole hybrid "kind" of faith that obeys, trusts, has "works attached", yet doesn't justify.
By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
So, the "commendable faith" Abel had when he "brought God a better offering than Cain" made him righteous. The "commendable faith" mentioned here is a faith that justifies. Abel was justified by his "commendable faith"
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: "He could not be found, because God had taken him away." For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.
Enoch was "taken away" by God, obviously justified, unless you want to make the case that God "takes [people] from this life" who aren't justified. He didn't taste death because "he was commended as one who pleased God". Here is another example of "commendable faith" that is pleasing to God and that lead to justification. Enoch was justified by "commendable faith".
The Greek word for "commendable" in both these places is "martyreō" which is defined as:
to be a witness, to bear witness, i.e. to affirm that one has seen or heard or experienced something, or that he knows it because taught by divine revelation or inspiration
- to give (not to keep back) testimony
- to utter honourable testimony, give a good report
- conjure, implore
This would mean both of these men had the kind of faith that God "bore witness" to or "gave testimony" to. This is "commendable faith" or "witness faith" or "testimony faith". The one doing the "bearing witness", "giving testimony" and "commending" here is GOD. If the faith that these men had was "bore witness" by God, how could it be less than justifying faith? Let's continue...
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Enoch had a faith that pleased God, even though he didn't have the fullness of truth. He had a rudimentary trusting faith, which included belief that He exists and created, and that "commendable faith" was enough to justify him.
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
Noah became an "heir of righteousness" by faith. Obviously "inherited" the faith from Abel and Enoch. I'm sure we agree that the faith being talked about here is "justifying faith". He "inherited" this justifying faith from two people who had "commendable faith". Noah was justified by faith. Whether you consider it "commendable" or not is up to you. Whatever label you want to use, the facts are that he inherited it from Abel and Enoch and it justified him.
Abel was "commended as righteous", Enoch was "commended as one who pleased God", Noah "became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith". Seems like this "commendable faith" is a faith that justifies and that this justifying faith is a running theme throughout Hebrews.
Now, the author just gave us three straight examples of "men of old" who were justified by their "commendable faith", and please note he has not given one example of a person who had a faith that did not justify. The last word in v. 7 is "
pistis", faith. The last few words of v.7 are "By his
faith he condemned the world and
became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith." The very next word is "
pistis" and refers to Abraham in Gen. 12.
...
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. (Heb 11:4-8 NIV)
This is obviously the
exact same kind of faith that has been mentioned in all the previous verses. It's the faith that "commended [Abel] as righteous", led to Enoch being "taken from this life" by God, and made Noah an "heir of righteousness", the righteousness shared by both the men listed before him. This is the
exact same kind of faith that all the other "men [women] of old" have, including Rahab, who was justified by her faith, yet not mentioned in Hebrews as "righteous". I guess the author figured he didn't have to make an announcement about everyone's justification. We could draw that obvious assumption from the first 8 verses.
The author is obviously talking about the faith that justified these "men of old". First, Abel is shown to be justified, then Enoch, then Noah, all using the same word "
pistis", "
By faith". What makes you think that the faith mentioned in verse 8 and connected to Abraham, was somehow not a justifying faith? What sets Abraham's "
pistis" apart from the ones that came before? Don't you see a running theme throughout Hebrews 11, and isn't this theme that it was always faith that justified these "men of old", not "works of the law"?
reba