What does 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 mean?

[FreeGrace]

This is the same argument that is made in the OSAS arguments. All that can really be claimed from this argument is that God won't break the seal. However, I don't believe anyone is making that claim. This doesn't prove that the seal can't be broken

If God won't break His seal, which is a promise, why should anyone think that anyone else can make God break His own promise? That doesn't make any sense to me. Kinda like Jn 10:28,29; no one (no person) can snatch anyone (any person) from God's hand. That includes yourself, being a person.

 

[chessman]

I asked:

How would it bring glory to God for a sealed believer, with God's stamp of ownership upon him to break God's Seal and un-glorify God's anointing?

You replied:

What I think about how it would bring God glory doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the seal can be broken.

That's an odd answer to my question coming from someone accusing us of ignoring the context of this passage. My question came from verse 20, you know. To fully understand a verse like 2 Cor 1:22 I think it's important to understand the communication(s) around it to include the verse 20 just preceding it. That verse says very clearly sealed believers bring glory to God (through us). I ask, How so? If you’d rather not share your thoughts on that verse, fine. I understand that a guy in your position might not think about how un-sealing a believer de-glorifies not just the believer but God (the Holy Spirit). But to not share what you think about that message seems to me to be avoiding the context, not debating it. It’s your choice though. It seems like an avoidance of the context, especially so coming from someone accusing others of not considering the context.
But yes, technically you are correct that what you think about verse 20 (or what I think about it for that matter) doesn’t change the Seal’s breakability, one way or the other.
Just to be clear there would be at least these three conflicts with your hypothesis that the seal of verse 22 is breakable by the individual believer (just not by God). As I recall, you’re the one that first suggested the seal can be broken so it’s surprising that you will not interact with these contextual points more than you have:

1. The individual believer is NOT more faithful toward God than God is faithful toward the individual believer. “For as many as are the promises of God, in him they are “yes”, God is faithful, …
   And you’ve already agreed that God will not break the seal. You just think the believer can break it. But that is missing the point of the context in the verses 18-19, in my opinion. First, it’s God’s seal to break or not to break, not the believer’s seal. Second, in Him, the promises He makes, it’s always a “yes”, never a “no”. He’s faithful with His promises and the seal is a promise (in my opinion). But if you don’t care to interact with this point, fine. Just don’t accuse me of ignoring context though.
2. Somehow, someway, sealed believers show the glory of God through us. I didn’t just think this idea up. It’s part of Paul’s message in verse 20 (which appears right before the verse in question, v 22). As I ponder it’s meaning (which simply must be related to Paul’s message in v22), it fundamentally makes sense to me that the only way a sealed believer could ultimately show the glory to God and the glory of God’s “yes”, is if that sealed believer is one day also glorified. But, that’s just me and my thoughts, I guess. If you don’t want to respond to this point, fine. I’ll just keep believing it though. Now you can say I think this way because I’m predisposed to OSAS. Maybe that’s true. Or maybe I’m predisposed to OSAS because of passages like this. (chicken or egg) But you being pre-disposed to anti-OSAS yet avoiding this point isn’t going to change my mind on it.
3. The seal, in this case, is quite literally said to be the Holy Spirit placed in our hearts, not some sort of a physical seal to be broken or not broken. Though the symbolism points to a physical stamp indicating ownership by the ruler/authority sure, Paul has told us (in this context) that this particular seal is the Holy Spirit. Paul is saying (and I agree with him) that I literally and personally have the Holy Spirit in my heart. You keep reverting back to the idea that the seal (here in this verse) is something other than the Holy Spirit I guess. But that’s simply not true here. Sure, a physical seal on a book or something can be broken. It’s not the case here, however, as Paul clarifies what the seal is for us in this context. Again, if you don’t care to take this point into consideration, that’s fine. But don’t claim defeat of our argument until you’ve shown that the Holy Spirit can be broken. We all understand wax seals, etc. can be broken. That’s not really the point, however. The discussion of this verse simply has to be, can the Holy Spirit be broken or not? So every time you bring up the supposed breakability of another seal, you are in fact suggesting breaking the Holy Spirit in this context. Pulling in another ‘seal’ from another context like Rev’s is erroneous Bible study, in my opinion. (sorry for the repetition and I hope it’s not an excuse for closing this thread, but you keep going back to this erroneous point as if it’s going to be a persuasive argument to us. It’s not very persuasive, so I’ve simply tried to get you off of it and to interact with verses 18-19 instead). Plus, coming from someone that has already agreed:

   … God won't break the seal.

   it seems unreasonable/illogical to then argue that Paul expected them to think this seal is breakable since he told them the seal was the Holy Spirit. Either the seal is the Holy Spirit or it’s not. And the truth is, the seal of v22 IS the Holy Spirit. Let’s move on. Then, either the Holy Spirit can be broken or He cannot. Maybe I’m just pre-disposed to thinking any man cannot break the Holy Spirit. I admit it, that’s true. But demonstrate to me that the Holy Spirit can be (or has been) broken by a believer and you’ll have won your point of debate. Also, not that I think it’s comparing apples to apples, but you might notice that God is the one that removed His Spirit from Saul at times (then gave it back). Saul didn’t break God, God broke Saul.

Paul isn't addressing the issue of a person turning from Christ …

I know. I agree. Paul certainly isn’t addressing the issue of a person turning from Christ. Paul’s is, however, addressing the issue of God never, ever turning from the person. And Paul’s point is that God doesn’t ever turn from the person. His "yes" is always yes. Never, ever no.

… so this passage isn't really relevant to the issue.

Huh? You do realize that the verse I quoted from was 2 Cor 1:20 and we are discussing verses 21-22 and you say that passage isn’t relevant while accusing us of ignoring context. These are the types of statements that make your ‘argument’ look very, very weak.

This is why I keep harping on the subject of reasoning.

Umm:

1. how is it ‘reasonable’ to avoid stating what you think Paul means by verses 18-20 when debating the meaning of verses 21-20? What hermeneutical principles do you use for Bible Study?
2. how is it ‘reasonable’ to conclude that since Paul isn’t addressing the issue of a person turning from Christ that the seal can be broken? Your conclusion doesn’t follow your one (and only one) premise (that wax seals can be broken, which isn't even a true premise to begin with).
3. how is it ‘reasonable’ to not stick with the proven fact consistently throughout 2 Cor 1, that in verses 21-22 Paul means by ‘seal’ none other than the Holy Spirit and stop reverting back to some disproven premise (that Paul means another type of physical seal from the book of Revelation)?

 

[Butch5]

Sorry you must of missed this post:


Yes, Eph 4:30~~New American Standard Bible
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Sealed~~ culminative Aorist tense~~The aorist tense is a culminative aorist, which looks at the action as a whole from the viewpoint of its completed results.

The Passive voice tells us GOD did it and we had nothing to do with the Sealing. SO it is HIS seal and we had nothing to do with the actual sealing(we just believed.)

Try to explain the culminative aorist? God has no future. He sees everything complete and finished at this moment. It is all done in His Eyes, and our future is NOW. This is the culminative aorist and How SEALED is looked at.

This is the original language......Scriptural support.

Firstly, how have you determined that this is a culminative aorist?
Secondly, if it is, how does this prove the seal cannot be broken?
Thirdly, you said, "God has no future. He sees everything complete and finished at this moment. It is all done in His Eyes, and our future is NOW. This is the culminative aorist and How SEALED is looked at." Can you suppport any of this from Scripture? I don't think you can make this argument from Scripture thus, I don't think any of this addresses the issue.

 

[Butch5]

By choosing the archaic KJV, you think you have a defense. Is the Third Member of the Trinity a ghost or a Spirit? Obviously, He is a Spirit. As is God the Father, per John 4:24.

I was citing from the NASB, which recognizes that the Third Member of the Trinity is a Spirit, not a ghost. And the NASB uses the word "spirit" in ALL of my citations.

It's interesting that the argument is based solely in one translation. Does the NASB have authority over the Greek text? However, this still doesn't address the fact that no Scripture says that man is a spirit.

We have no Scripture that says man is a spirit, but we have God's own words that man is dust. It seems like an open and shut case.

 

[Butch5]

Sure. In the OT, very few believers received the Holy Spirit. David himself was in danger of losing the Holy Spirit after his sin with Bathsheba, which is why he prayed that God would not take the Holy Spirit from him, per Psa 51:11.

However, Jesus Himself promised the coming Holy Spirit, who would be with us FOREVER, per Jn 14:16. Jesus keeps His promises.

And, there are NO verses in the NT that warn about losing the Holy Spirit, any more than there are verses that warn about losing salvation.

What's your point? It only takes one recorded event to show that it can happen. If the OT is inspired then it can happen. The promise of the Spirit is not unconditional, it's for those who believe. The argument you've presented doesn't address those who reject Christ.

 

[Butch5]

See Heb 4:12.

Is this dealing with the text? I presented a text, this post doesn't deal with it. Rather, it seems to me to be trying to nullify it.

Although, I dont' see how you think this passage prove that man is a spirit. There is a spirit in man and it can be separated from the soul. How does this support your c;laim that man is a spirit?

 

[Butch5]

If God won't break His seal, which is a promise, why should anyone think that anyone else can make God break His own promise? That doesn't make any sense to me. Kinda like Jn 10:28,29; no one (no person) can snatch anyone (any person) from God's hand. That includes yourself, being a person.

I think I've made it quite clear that the issue is man breaking the seal. This post seems to be red herring.

 

[gr8grace3]

Firstly, how have you determined that this is a culminative aorist?

Context. You were sealed for the day of redemption. God said this from the vantage of your redemption. If He said this from the vantage of your redemption, it means the seal made it intact to your redeemed state because it said from the point of your redemption.

Secondly, if it is, how does this prove the seal cannot be broken?

It proves the seal cannot be broken, because it is said from the finished vantage. Your sealed for the day of redemption. And God is saying "sealed" from the point/vantage of your redemption day.

Thirdly, you said, "God has no future. He sees everything complete and finished at this moment. It is all done in His Eyes, and our future is NOW. This is the culminative aorist and How SEALED is looked at." Can you suppport any of this from Scripture? I don't think you can make this argument from Scripture thus, I don't think any of this addresses the issue.

O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, and are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O Lord, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. (Psalm 139:1-6)

 

[FreeGrace]

It's interesting that the argument is based solely in one translation. Does the NASB have authority over the Greek text?

Have you read any other translations other than the KJV, which is obvious archaic at this point?

However, this still doesn't address the fact that no Scripture says that man is a spirit.

Since you haven't read any other translations, your conclusion is based solely on one archaic translation.

We have no Scripture that says man is a spirit, but we have God's own words that man is dust. It seems like an open and shut case.

Heb 4:12 divides between soul and spirit, so it is obvious that believers have both. Unbelievers have a soul.

Or is your view that man has no immaterial part? iow, is man only physical? Since the body does go to the grave, how do we exist in eternity, if not with our spirit?

Your view leads to many questions.

 

[FreeGrace]

What's your point? It only takes one recorded event to show that it can happen. If the OT is inspired then it can happen.

Well, you missed my point entirely, and failed to answer my challenge. First, I pointed out that the Holy Spirit was not promised to every believer. In fact, only a few ever received the Holy Spirit. And that was called an endoument, not indwelling. And, as such, the Holy Spirit could be removed from a believer, as David knew.

But you ignored the promise Jesus made about the coming Holy Spirit for every believer, who would be with us forever. Please address how that fits into your view.

The promise of the Spirit is not unconditional, it's for those who believe.

Yes, that was my point. And you ignored the fact that Jesus noted that He would be with believers forever.

The argument you've presented doesn't address those who reject Christ.

I'm not addressing unbelievers, so why are you bringing that subject up?

 

[Butch5]

I asked:
You replied:
That's an odd answer to my question coming from someone accusing us of ignoring the context of this passage. My question came from verse 20, you know. To fully understand a verse like 2 Cor 1:22 I think it's important to understand the communication(s) around it to include the verse 20 just preceding it. That verse says very clearly sealed believers bring glory to God (through us). I ask, How so? If you’d rather not share your thoughts on that verse, fine. I understand that a guy in your position might not think about how un-sealing a believer de-glorifies not just the believer but God (the Holy Spirit). But to not share what you think about that message seems to me to be avoiding the context, not debating it. It’s your choice though. It seems like an avoidance of the context, especially so coming from someone accusing others of not considering the context.
But yes, technically you are correct that what you think about verse 20 (or what I think about it for that matter) doesn’t change the Seal’s breakability, one way or the other.
Just to be clear there would be at least these three conflicts with your hypothesis that the seal of verse 22 is breakable by the individual believer (just not by God). As I recall, you’re the one that first suggested the seal can be broken so it’s surprising that you will not interact with these contextual points more than you have:

Ad Hominems do prove the seal can be broken. If you agree that what either of us thing about the passage has any bearing on whether or not the seal can be broken what is the point in addressing it. It's not that I don't want to address the passage, it's simply a matter of debate. I've debated people long enough to know when a conversatrion is being lead away from the topic at hand. If the passage has nothing to do with the topic, then it's not relevant. I could choose to address the subject, however, I've already spend a lot of time in this thread putting together posts that were simply dismissed. So, I chose not to spend more time addressing a passage that you admit has no bearing on the matter.

Another reason I didn't address it is because, as I see it, it's reasoning backwards. Yet another reason I didn't address it is because There is Scripture that shows plainly that the Holy Spirit (the seal) can be removed from a person. If I have irrefutable evidence that the Holy Spirit can be removed from a person, what reason is there for me to address the passage?

1. The individual believer is NOT more faithful toward God than God is faithful toward the individual believer. “For as many as are the promises of God, in him they are “yes”, God is faithful, …
   And you’ve already agreed that God will not break the seal. You just think the believer can break it. But that is missing the point of the context in the verses 18-19, in my opinion. First, it’s God’s seal to break or not to break, not the believer’s seal. Second, in Him, the promises He makes, it’s always a “yes”, never a “no”. He’s faithful with His promises and the seal is a promise (in my opinion). But if you don’t care to interact with this point, fine. Just don’t accuse me of ignoring context though.

Firstly let me say that I don't agree that God will not break the seal, I was simply allowing the premise from your side of the argument to point out that it didn't answer the question. It's my position that God will break the seal. Paul said you were seal unto the day of redemption. He didn't say you were sealed permanently or forever. The idea is that the seal will be opened at the redemption.

However, I go back to the same point again, the promise of the seal is "ONLY" for the believer. There is not promise for those who don't believe. If one rejects Christ then they don; believe. You've spoken here that God's promises are sure, yes they are. However, they are only to the believer.

You use the phrase above, "in my opinion." That was my whole point when I said, 'what I think about how it glorifies God has no bearing on whether or not the seal can be broken. How I understand the believer being sealed and that glorifying God doesn't address the issue of whether or not the seal can be broken because it's my opinion.

What I'm getting at is that unless the actual words on the page state something plainly, we are dealing with opinions, inferences, and assumptions. All to often I see Christians forming doctrines based on, opinions, inferences, and/or assumptions and many times these doctrines are absolutely contrary to what is plainly staed in black and white. I think this is the case here People are arguing that the seal can't be broken, Yet we know that in reality not only can a seal be broken, but that it's expected to be broken, we see in Scripture that seals that are on God's scroll can and are broken. Then the argument turned to the Holy Spirit and it is argued the He can't be broken. Of course no one can literally break the Holy Spirit but that is not what is being indicated. It's obvious that the sealing with the Spirit is the receiving of the Spirit. It's been shown that the Spirit can be taken from a person and yet this thread continues.

Arguments continue to be made that oppose what is plainly stated in black and white.

Somehow, someway, sealed believers show the glory of God through us. I didn’t just think this idea up. It’s part of Paul’s message in verse 20 (which appears right before the verse in question, v 22). As I ponder it’s meaning (which simply must be related to Paul’s message in v22), it fundamentally makes sense to me that the only way a sealed believer could ultimately show the glory to God and the glory of God’s “yes”, is if that sealed believer is one day also glorified. But, that’s just me and my thoughts, I guess. If you don’t want to respond to this point, fine. I’ll just keep believing it though. Now you can say I think this way because I’m predisposed to OSAS. Maybe that’s true. Or maybe I’m predisposed to OSAS because of passages like this. (chicken or egg) But you being pre-disposed to anti-OSAS yet avoiding this point isn’t going to change my mind on it.

I'm not trying to change your mind about OSAS. I don't expect to change the minds of those who debate. The reason I debate is for those who may never post in a thread yet they read the threads. It's for those who may be on the fence or who are having difficulty with certain passages. Over the years I received comments from quite few people who have read something I've posted that has helped them, yet I've never seen them post on the board.

You said, "that's just me and my thoughts". If it's your thoughts then it's not something stated in Scripture, correct?

 

[Butch5]

1. The seal, in this case, is quite literally said to be the Holy Spirit placed in our hearts, not some sort of a physical seal to be broken or not broken. Though the symbolism points to a physical stamp indicating ownership by the ruler/authority sure, Paul has told us (in this context) that this particular seal is the Holy Spirit. Paul is saying (and I agree with him) that I literally and personally have the Holy Spirit in my heart. You keep reverting back to the idea that the seal (here in this verse) is something other than the Holy Spirit I guess. But that’s simply not true here. Sure, a physical seal on a book or something can be broken. It’s not the case here, however, as Paul clarifies what the seal is for us in this context. Again, if you don’t care to take this point into consideration, that’s fine. But don’t claim defeat of our argument until you’ve shown that the Holy Spirit can be broken. We all understand wax seals, etc. can be broken. That’s not really the point, however. The discussion of this verse simply has to be, can the Holy Spirit be broken or not? So every time you bring up the supposed breakability of another seal, you are in fact suggesting breaking the Holy Spirit in this context. Pulling in another ‘seal’ from another context like Rev’s is erroneous Bible study, in my opinion. (sorry for the repetition and I hope it’s not an excuse for closing this thread, but you keep going back to this erroneous point as if it’s going to be a persuasive argument to us. It’s not very persuasive, so I’ve simply tried to get you off of it and to interact with verses 18-19 instead). Plus, coming from someone that has already agreed: it seems unreasonable/illogical to then argue that Paul expected them to think this seal is breakable since he told them the seal was the Holy Spirit. Either the seal is the Holy Spirit or it’s not. And the truth is, the seal of v22 IS the Holy Spirit. Let’s move on. Then, either the Holy Spirit can be broken or He cannot. Maybe I’m just pre-disposed to thinking any man cannot break the Holy Spirit. I admit it, that’s true. But demonstrate to me that the Holy Spirit can be (or has been) broken by a believer and you’ll have won your point of debate. Also, not that I think it’s comparing apples to apples, but you might notice that God is the one that removed His Spirit from Saul at times (then gave it back). Saul didn’t break God, God broke Saul.

Paul is the one who choose to use the word seal, he choose it for a reason. He wanted to convey an idea to his readers. So, the question is what did a seal mean to his readers? We know what the word seal meant to his readers. For us to inject some other meaning on the word that was not there when Paul wrong is not exegesis. We have to remember Paul's readers didn't have the New Testament, they simply had to rely one everyday words that were used. A key point note is that there is nothing in the writings of Paul that says the Spirit can't be taken or the seal broken, to claim that is an assumption. It's just a fact that if something is not stated, it must be assumed or inferred.

Yes, I go to the seals in Revelation because it shows the normal literal understanding of the word seal. This is how a seal was used in Paul's day. This is how his readers would understand the word seal.

The idea that the seal cannot be broken, where does it come from? Is it stated in the text? No. If it's not in the text then the only place I can see that it comes from is either assumption or inference. If you know of another please explain.

I know. I agree. Paul certainly isn’t addressing the issue of a person turning from Christ.

Then how does any of this have any bearing on the topic? This is why I said it was contextomy.

Paul’s is, however, addressing the issue of God never, ever turning from the person. And Paul’s point is that God doesn’t ever turn from the person. His "yes" is always yes. Never, ever no.

I disagree. I'll agree that Paul is addressing the issue of God never turning from a believer.

Huh? You do realize that the verse I quoted from was 2 Cor 1:20 and we are discussing verses 21-22 and you say that passage isn’t relevant while accusing us of ignoring context. These are the types of statements that make your ‘argument’ look very, very weak.
Umm:

1. how is it ‘reasonable’ to avoid stating what you think Paul means by verses 18-20 when debating the meaning of verses 21-20? What hermeneutical principles do you use for Bible Study?

My point was to the fallacies that have plagued this thread.

1. how is it ‘reasonable’ to conclude that since Paul isn’t addressing the issue of a person turning from Christ that the seal can be broken? Your conclusion doesn’t follow your one (and only one) premise (that wax seals can be broken, which isn't even a true premise to begin with).

I never made that argument.

1. how is it ‘reasonable’ to not stick with the proven fact consistently throughout 2 Cor 1, that in verses 21-22 Paul means by ‘seal’ none other than the Holy Spirit and stop reverting back to some disproven premise (that Paul means another type of physical seal from the book of Revelation)?

I didn't argue that the seal was anything other than the Spirit. I simply employed examples of what a seal is.

 

[FreeGrace]

Is this dealing with the text? I presented a text, this post doesn't deal with it. Rather, it seems to me to be trying to nullify it.

Yes, I have nullified your claim that man is not spirit from Heb 4:12. That was my point.

Although, I dont' see how you think this passage prove that man is a spirit. There is a spirit in man and it can be separated from the soul. How does this support your c;laim that man is a spirit?

What is the spirit in, specifically? The body, which will return to dust. Your claim is that is only dust, which ignores the immaterial part of man.

Do you believe man has a soul? From your posts, it would seem not. Which is odd, considering all the verses about souls.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think I've made it quite clear that the issue is man breaking the seal.

Your claim hasn't been substantiated with any Scripture. Do you have any, or is this just your opinion? And if so, based on what, exactly?

 

[Butch5]

Context. You were sealed for the day of redemption. God said this from the vantage of your redemption. If He said this from the vantage of your redemption, it means the seal made it intact to your redeemed state because it said from the point of your redemption.

This thread has already gone in too many directions so I'll just say this. Paul said "eis" unto, I'm not sure how you see that as viewed from the point of redemption. However, this is really irrelevant as it speaks of one who believes.

It proves the seal cannot be broken, because it is said from the finished vantage. Your sealed for the day of redemption. And God is saying "sealed" from the point/vantage of your redemption day.

I think you're speculating. Not sure how you see this as view from the finish line.

O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, and are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O Lord, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. (Psalm 139:1-6)

Ok, David said this and he was prophet, however, what is the basis to claim this is a universal statement of mankind? However, I don't see anything here that says there is not future with God and the He sees everything in the present. I think this is philosophical

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul is the one who choose to use the word seal, he choose it for a reason.

He also chose the words "Holy Spirit" and "promise" and "day of redemption", which you have conveniently chosen to ignore. Your focus is singly on some idea of an inanimate object (seal), which is NOT what Paul wrote at all.

The idea that the seal cannot be broken, where does it come from? Is it stated in the text? No.

Since Paul said the seal, which means promise, is the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that this seal, or God's promise, cannot be broken.

If it's not in the text then the only place I can see that it comes from is either assumption or inference. If you know of another please explain.

All "inferences" have come from your view, that this seal is something that can be broken, by ignoring how Paul described the seal. The Holy Spirit cannot be broken, nor can God's promise be broken.

So you have no basis for your view.

I disagree. I'll agree that Paul is addressing the issue of God never turning from a believer.

So am I. Our difference is that you think He sends believers who lose faith, or aren't baptized, or etc to hell. Without a shred of evidence.

I didn't argue that the seal was anything other than the Spirit. I simply employed examples of what a seal is.

And they are irrelevant. Your examples are of an inanimate object. The Holy Spirit is not inanimate. Neither are God's promises.

Eph 1:13 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise NASB

The seal is the Holy Spirit, and is also a promise. We know what the promise is in Eph 4:30 - Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Iow, God promises that all who believe are promised to see the day of redemption. And this promise is made WHEN one believes. And note that there are no "conditionals" on this promise. It's made to everyone who believes, when they believe.

Iow, no mention of having to continue to believe, or live a certain way. The Bible does address the need for believers to continue to believe and to live a certain way, for sure. But not for salvation. For eternal reward. Totally different.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, I have nullified your claim that man is not spirit from Heb 4:12. That was my point.

You pitted Scripture against Scripture.

What is the spirit in, specifically? The body, which will return to dust. Your claim is that is only dust, which ignores the immaterial part of man.

But the spirit isn't man. Gen 2:7 God created man out of the dust of the earth. It's crystal clear and in black and white.

Do you believe man has a soul? From your posts, it would seem not. Which is odd, considering all the verses about souls.

I think if you looked at Gen 2:7 you'd know the answer to that question. Man doesn't have a soul, he is a soul.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7 KJV)

 

[chessman]

I chose not to spend more time addressing a passage that you admit has no bearing on the matter.

I never said the passage (verse 18-20) had no bearing on the matter or that it wasn’t relevant to the discussion of verses 21-22. I said the exact opposite, in fact. Especially since your accusation that you made that we are dismissing the context in/around the verse is false. I have no idea how you could think I’d say verses 18-20 aren’t important. But again, I see how someone taking your position might not want to discuss them any further. How about just saying, I’d rather not discuss them, rather than erroneously making the claim that I said they were not relevant or have no bearing on the matter. And stop accusing people of not considering a passage’s context if you are unwilling to share your thoughts on the passage’s context yourself.

I think it's important to understand the communication(s) around it to include the verse 20 just preceding it. That verse says very clearly sealed believers bring glory to God (through us). …You do realize that the verse I quoted from was 2 Cor 1:20 and we are discussing verses 21-22 and you say that passage isn’t relevant while accusing us of ignoring context. These are the types of statements that make your ‘argument’ look very, very weak.

…what reason is there for me to address the passage?

In a word, context!
And to defend the accusations you’ve made that we are ignoring the context of the verse and then to explain your thoughts on how a Christ filled and Holy spirit sealed person that hypothetically un-seals themselves from that Holy Spirit brings any glory to God through that person.

It's my position that God will break the seal. Paul said you were seal unto the day of redemption. He didn't say you were sealed permanently or forever.

Okay, that’s your new position. Thanks. Not sure when it changed from: “All that can really be claimed from this argument is that God won't break the seal. However, I don't believe anyone is making that claim.” from yesterday’s post of yours.

But sure, as a paraphrase Paul said ‘you were sealed unto the day of redemption’. More technically though he said sealed by the HS “until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory! Which by the way, is why I’d so, so like your position/thoughts on verse 20 which seems like a parallel point of Paul’s to me.

Ephesians 1:13-14 (LEB)
…you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.
20 For as many as are the promises of God, in him they are “yes”; therefore also through him is the “amen” to the glory of God through us.​

The idea is that the seal will be opened at the redemption.

Technically, it’s not an ‘idea’ it’s God’s promise that the seal will be redeemed …

But, yes he sure did say (God promised in fact) you were sealed unto the day of redemption. That’s kind of the point! It’s my position that God will, therefore, redeem His seal on the day of redemption. To think otherwise, is contrary to the texts in question. I wouldn’t say He’s ‘breaking’ it that day though, I’d say He’s “redeeming His possessions”. Or I wouldn’t say that it’s an ‘idea’ as it’s been promised to occur.

Why do you think it is called redemption yet you call it “breaking”, though? Could that be some sort of pre-suppositional creep going on there on your part? In fact can you post a Scripture that has the phrase “break the seal” in it when talking about a sealed, in Christ, New Covenant believer? No. I looked it up. There is no such phrase in the entire Bible.

God's promises are sure, yes they are. However, they are only to the believer.

Agreed, again as a paraphrase, I suppose. However, technically Paul said:
you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (past tense sealed)

What I'm getting at is that unless the actual words on the page state something plainly, we are dealing with opinions, inferences, and assumptions.

Post a Scripture that says “break the seal” in reference to a NT, in Christ, believer sealed by the promised Holy Spirit and we’ll discuss it.

we see in Scripture that seals that are on God's scroll can and are broken. Then the argument turned to the Holy Spirit and it is argued the He can't be broken.

These Scriptures turned the argument to the fact that the seal of 2 Cor 1:22, is the Holy Spirit. Even you acknowledged that fact. Are you changing that point back now as will to it being a seal on God’s scroll? Odd and out of context to do that.

I don't expect to change the minds of those who debate.

Okay. Hopefully you will not change the minds of those debating or reading into thinking that the seal of 2 Cor 1:22 is a seal on a scroll. Because it’s not.

The reason I debate is for those who may never post in a thread yet they read the threads. It's for those who may be on the fence or who are having difficulty with certain passages. Over the years I received comments from quite few people who have read something I've posted that has helped them, yet I've never seen them post on the board.

I’m more selfish. The reason I debate is to align my thoughts hopefully closer to the truth about various doctrines.

You said, "that's just me and my thoughts". If it's your thoughts then it's not something stated in Scripture, correct?

Correct.

However, I asked you about your thoughts on verses 18-20 saying that God is glorified through sealed believers and how does an un-sealed believer glorify God through that person.

Plus, my thought is that a Holy Spirit sealed believer, becoming an un-sealed believer would de-glorify not just the believer, but God Himself. So I asked for your feedback on my thought there.

 

[Gregg]

I wish you guys would address the text and stop arguing from your theology.

Man is a soul which consists of a body and the breat/spirit of God. That info can be found in Gen. 2:7. There is no Scripture that says man is a spirit. There is Scripture that says mam is dust.

pardon the off topic comment, but:

At least two Scriptures identify man as having a spirit that is his own created spirit, not the Holy Spirit; each verse differentiating our spirit, soul, and body [flesh, brain].

"And may the God of peace Himself fully sanctify you, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Th 5:23 LITV).

"For the word of God is living, and powerfully working, and sharper than every two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of both soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow [body of flesh], and able to judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart;" (Heb 4:12 LITV).

 

[Butch5]

I never said the passage (verse 18-20) had no bearing on the matter or that it wasn’t relevant to the discussion of verses 21-22. I said the exact opposite, in fact. Especially since your accusation that you made that we are dismissing the context in/around the verse is false. I have no idea how you could think I’d say verses 18-20 aren’t important. But again, I see how someone taking your position might not want to discuss them any further. How about just saying, I’d rather not discuss them, rather than erroneously making the claim that I said they were not relevant or have no bearing on the matter. And stop accusing people of not considering a passage’s context if you are unwilling to share your thoughts on the passage’s context yourself.

Chessman,


Did you read my post? I didn’t say you agreed the context was irrelevant. I said you agreed that what I think or what you think the about how being sealed glorifies God has not bearing on whether or not the seal can be broken. This is from post 222.


“But yes, technically you are correct that what you think about verse 20 (or what I think about it for that matter) doesn’t change the Seal’s breakability, one way or the other.”


If what either of us thinks about the passage doesn’t change the seals breakability what reason is there to address the passage? These posts are already long enough. I’m conversing with three different people on this and it’s time consuming.


I didn’t say people weren’t considering the context, I said they were taking the passage out of context. If one takes a passage and applies it to a different subject that is taking it out of context. I’ve not seen anyone post a passage of Scripture that deals with the question of whether or not the seal can broken.

In a word, context!
And to defend the accusations you’ve made that we are ignoring the context of the verse and then to explain your thoughts on how a Christ filled and Holy spirit sealed person that hypothetically un-seals themselves from that Holy Spirit brings any glory to God through that person.

Firstly you are talking about a different passage than they are, they are talking about Eph 4:30. Secondly, Paul didn’t say anything about one who unseals himself, so again, this passage isn’t speaking to that issue. Paul said one who is sealed brings glory to God not one who isn’t

Okay, that’s your new position. Thanks. Not sure when it changed from: “All that can really be claimed from this argument is thatGod won't break the seal. However,I don't believe anyone is making that claim.” from yesterday’s post of yours.

Yes, that’s what I said, and there’s no change. I said the most that could be claimed, I didn’t say I was claiming it. What that meant was the most that could be claimed by those arguing from your position could argue that God won’t break the seal. Like I said, I don’t think anyone is arguing that God will break the seal

But sure, as a paraphrase Paul said ‘you were sealed unto the day of redemption’. More technically though he said sealed by the HS “until the redemptionof the possession,to the praise of his glory! Which by the way, is why I’d so, so like your position/thoughts on verse 20 which seems like a parallel point of Paul’s to me.

“eis” means unto or towards. I don’t see anything here that implies the seal can’t be broken. What is it here that you believe indicates that?

Ephesians 1:13-14 (LEB)
…you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.
20For as many as arethe promises of God, in him they are “yes”;therefore also through him is the “amen”to the glory of God through us.

Ok, what are the promises of God? Is there a promise that the Holy Spirit will never be removed from a believer, If so, where?

Technically, it’s not an ‘idea’ it’sGod’s promisethat the seal will be redeemed …

But, yes he sure did say (God promised in fact) you were sealed unto the day of redemption. That’s kind of the point! It’s my position that God will, therefore, redeem His seal on the day of redemption. To think otherwise, is contrary to the texts in question. I wouldn’t say He’s ‘breaking’ it that day though, I’d say He’s “redeeming His possessions”. Or I wouldn’t say that it’s an ‘idea’ as it’s been promised to occur.

Where?

Why do you think it is called redemption yet you call it “breaking”, though? Could that be some sort of pre-suppositional creep going on there on your part? In fact can you post a Scripture that has the phrase “break the seal” in it when talking about a sealed, in Christ, New Covenant believer? No. I looked it up. There is no such phrase in the entire Bible.

We’re back to the argument from silence. You also won’t find a passage that says the seal can’t be broken. Since Paul chose the word seal and we know that a seal can be broken the burden of proof lies with the one who claims this particular seal cannot be broken.


If I have any presuppositions regarding the seal they’re straight from the text which shows seals can be broken. I’ve seen nothing in Scripture to indicate that a seal cannot be broken, so it seems to me that that claim would be a presupposition.

Agreed, again as a paraphrase, I suppose. However, technically Paul said:
youweresealed with the promised Holy Spirit (past tense sealed)/quote]


I don’t see your point.

Post a Scripture that says “break the seal” in reference to a NT, in Christ, believer sealed by the promised Holy Spirit and we’ll discuss it.

I’ve posted Scripture showing seals being broken. We can’t word the sentence, just so, so that it eliminates examples other than what we want.


It seems to me that your position is that this seal is somehow different than any other seal. If that’s your position you can try to make that case but Paul doesn’t. He chose the word and he didn’t indicate that it was any different than any other seal. He didn’t tell the Corinthians or the Ephesians that this was some super seal. Again it goes back to how his readers would understand it.

These Scriptures turned the argument to the fact that the seal of2 Cor 1:22, is the Holy Spirit. Even you acknowledged that fact. Are you changing that point back now as will to it being a seal on God’s scroll? Odd and out of context to do that.

I’m not changing anything. I’m saying that Paul used a word his readers would understand to make the analogy of their receiving the Spirit.

Okay. Hopefully you will not change the minds of those debating or reading into thinking that the seal of2 Cor 1:22is a seal on a scroll. Because it’s not.

Seriously? There’s a reason he used the word seal.

Correct.

However, I asked you about your thoughts on verses 18-20 saying that God is glorified through sealed believers and how does an un-sealed believer glorify God through that person.

Plus, my thought is that a Holy Spirit sealed believer, becoming an un-sealed believer would de-glorify not just the believer, but God Himself. So I asked for your feedback on my thought there.

I never suggested and unsealed believer. My argument all along was about the one who turned from God. If one turns from God he is no longer a believer, thus he doesn’t glorify God.