The BLB Blog

The official blog of Blue Letter Bible

Emphatic Negations in Biblical Greek

Posted on Posted by

When we read English translations of the Bible, or for that matter any other language other than the original Hebrew and Greek, we often do not get the fullness of the grammatical and syntactical structures that the Hebrew and Greek are actually stating and presenting. Over the next several weeks, we are going to focus on some of these structures—namely, those structures that denote strong emphasis in what is being said.

The use of an emphatic structure in the Greek New Testament is called the Subjunctive of Emphatic Negation. The Subjunctive of Emphatic Negation is, without any equivocation, the most emphatic grammatical structure in the Greek New Testament. Allow me to first explain what this means.

Moods of Actuality

In the Greek of the New Testament, you have four moods that relate to actuality. Or, in other words, we have four moods that refer to that which is actually happening—versus what may happen or that which one wants to happen but it isn’t occurring as yet. These four moods are as follow:

  1. Indicative Mood — this is the mood of reality, which describes events that are actually occurring, that have happened, or that will actually occur in the future.
  2. Subjunctive Mood — this is what is called the mood of probability, which refers to potential events as probably occurring but not for certain; thus, it is used to indicate that potential happenings will occur if certain actions take place (on a conditional basis).
  3. Optative Mood — this is two steps removed from the Indicative Mood of reality, and thus, it is what is called the mood of possibility. In this mood, the events described are deeply contingent upon certain events happening in order for them to occur; thus, there is a greater degree of doubt contained in this mood of an event actually happening than in the subjunctive mood.
  4. Imperative Mood — this is the mood of volitional possibility, which provides a command for something to be done, and it is totally dependent upon a person’s willingness to accept the command and follow through with it; thus, it is three steps removed from the Indicative Mood of reality and consequently, it expresses the least possibility of something occurring.

Negative Participles

In Greek, you also have particles that express the negative, and they are as follow:

  1. οὐ (ou) – this is the basic Greek particle that represents some form of “no” or “not” in our English translations, as well as a multiple form of combinations that reflect the negative in some form or other.
  2. µή (mē) – this is the other Greek particle that represents “no” or “not,” and it too has a variety of forms that it occurs in reflecting the negative. However, there is a difference in the application of οὐ (ou) and µή (mē), and Thayer explains it quite simply and clearly:

µή, the Septuagint for אַל , אַיִן , אֵין, a particle of negation, which differs from οὐ (which is always an adverb) in that οὐ denies the thing itself (or to speak technically, denies simply, absolutely, categorically, directly, objectively), but µή denies the thought of the thing, or the thing according to the judgment, opinion, will, purpose, preference, of someone (hence, as we say technically, indirectly, hypothetically, subjectively).

Why It Matters: Subjunctive of Emphatic Negation

However, when these two Greek negative particles are combined in the form of οὐ µή (ou mē) with reference to a future event, what results is an intensified form of the negative: “οὐ µή (ou mē) is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.” Thayer adds, “The particles οὐ µή in combination augment the force of the negation, and signify not at all, in no wise, by no means; . . .”

However, when this combination is attached to an Aorist Subjunctive, what occurs is what has been termed the Subjunctive of Emphatic Negation. As was pointed out above, the Subjunctive Mood indicates the probability of an event, and the Aorist Tense emphasizes an action as simply occurring, without any specific reference to time, apart from the use of an adverbial modifier (e.g., that which would describe when, where, how much, or how often). Thus, when you have οὐ µή (ou mē) in combination with the Aorist Subjunctive, what occurs is the absolute and unequivocal denial of the probability of an event EVER OCCURING at any moment or time in the future.

The following quote helps to summarize this quite clearly:

Emphatic negation is indicated by οὐ µή, plus the aorist subjunctive or, less frequently, ouv mh, plus the future indicative (e.g., Matt 26:35; Mark 13:31; John 4:14; 6:35). This is the strongest way to negate something in Greek.

One might think that the negative with the subjunctive could not be as strong as the negative with the indicative. However, while οὐ µή + the indicative denies a certainty, οὐ µή + the subjunctive denies a potentiality. The negative is not weaker; rather, the affirmation that is being negatived is less firm with the subjunctive. ouv mh, rules out even the idea as being a possibility: “οὐ µή, is the most decisive way of negativing someth. in the future.”

Emphatic negation is found primarily in the reported sayings of Jesus (both in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse); secondarily, in quotations from the LXX. Outside of these two sources it occurs only rarely. As well, a soteriological theme is frequently found in such statements, especially in John: what is negatived is the possibility of the loss of salvation.

Therefore, what we are going to be looking at and examining in this study is the usage of οὐ µή (ou mē) combined with the Aorist Subjunctive in the Greek New Testament, and in doing so, we will discover emphases in the Greek that are oftentimes not all readily seen in the English, but which are unequivocally there for our benefit in order to be encouraged, enlightened, and strengthened in the Truth of God’s Living and Abiding Word! The way we are going to do this is by looking in context at various passages in the English text that use οὐ µή (ou mē) with the Aorist Subjunctive, and the English text I will be using primarily is the New American Standard Text of 1977, as I view the NAS being the closest to the literal translation of the Greek as any English translation available. However, at times I may also quote the NKJV for the purpose of pointing out textual variants, and I will explain those when we come to them. In the written quote of the passage we are looking at, I will embolden and underline the οὐ µή (ou mē) and Aorist Subjunctive in the English so that you will know exactly how it fits in the passage and the emphasis it is bringing to what is being said. I pray that the Lord will greatly bless and encourage you as we go through this study as we all look to Jesus, “the author and perfecter of (our) faith” (Hebrews 12:2).

Comments

  1. Good Morning!

    I am very much looking forward to this study! I did have a quick question on today’s information, though. You wrote, “denies the thought of the thing, or Insert sub-point: Moods of Actuality Insert sub-point: Negative Particles the thing according to the judgment,….” I’ve read this several times, and I am just not getting what is being said. What does “insert sub-point” mean? What does “Negative Particles the thing according to the judgment,…” mean? I’m thinking, here, that if I can’t even understand this, I’m not going to do so well with the rest of the study! 🙂

    Thank you very much, and God bless you!
    Barbara

      • Chris~

        This is very strange, but I can’t find it either! Whatever it was, it really disrupted the meaning of the text, but as long as it’s gone, I’m good to go. Thank you so much for checking!

        God bless you and all your work. It is appreciated!
        Barbara

        • I saw it too, yesterday morning. It looked like formatting information and it has now been corrected. It confused me too.

    • Looks like it must have been part of the HTML underlying code to format the paragraph that for some reason showed up on your computer screen momentarily.

  2. I am looking forward to this study as well. There is so much to be learned by examining the original languages of Scripture. I find it brings much clarity and greater understanding. This type of learning is very encouraging and strengthens my faith and also helps me to be able to explain Scripture to other people better, especially my children. My daughter (age 10) is learning Greek, so this will be a very helpful resource for us.

  3. Chris,
    Thank you for explaining the various moods. I have taken several courses in Koine Greek, using Mounce’s grammar book, but I have never seen it so clearly and simply described as you did.
    Thanks, Odo

  4. Rather than studying the Greek, wouldn’t it be better to study God’s Word in English, believing God’s promise to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7)? That way, you would be studying God’s Word, rather than studying a different language.

    • As with any foreign language there are often words that have no equivalent in another language, so you gain insight and deeper understanding through word studies. This is why I like expositional preaching. Not only do you get the WORD, but you have it explained in terms of the nuance of meaning intended in the original language. It doesn’t change the WORD but gives a deeper understanding.

    • I forget who made this comment once in one of the books I was reading but it went like this although not verbatim, “philology is the eye of the needle that all of our theology must pass” Everything we learn about this great and awesome God that spoke all of creation into existence is condensed down to language in front of us.

  5. I just discovered this as I was teaching in church about the permanence of salvation. As I read the transliterated Greek of John 4:14, 6:35 (on BLue Letter Bible online!) I was curious about the structure of the double negative and discovered the power of Jesus using it in this teaching. Wow. This should settle the matter forever. Salvation is eternal.

    J

    • Yep, no doubt about it. It is a present possesion for all who were born of God. Whether we fail to grow as we ought(carnal christians) or whether we grow and mature as we should. We are all one “in Christ” This is the witness of scripture. Now that is security and we are free to love God as we should and serve him not out of fear but in great love for him.

      • Barbara, with our disagreement over the doctrine of eternal security I still respect your views. There are other people I know that hold to your views and those who hold to mine. I feel you are as sincere in your opinions as I am in mine. I mean absolutely NO disrepect to you in not responding to your questions. I get a little overwhelmed with all the scripture you cite as it takes a great deal of reading as to rightly divide the word. We are probably much alike and unfortunately on different sides of this doctrine, which is fine cause I can still accept you as a sister in Christ. You emphasize our responsibilty (which is a good thing) I see more of the Sovereingty of God (which is another good thing). Actually I’m with you on the majority of what you say its just seems that you are missing the sovereignty part. Anyways, God bless you and please forgive me if I have come across wrong. My views and really anyone elses views are really of little significance, what is important is the truth of God’s word. We all will eventually end up there in the end but in life maybe we all move at different speeds so to speak. Gob bless you as you study. I will tell you what I think of every scriptures meaning if you will confine it to one passage so I can study the context.

        • Frank~

          To be honest, I am a little leery about responding to your post, but I am going to give this one more try. I don’t think that you intentionally try to disrespect me, but when you engage people in a dialogue, allow them to spend their time answering the questions that you have asked, and then totally ignore what they have written, it’s a little hard not to take it personally. That said, I appreciate and accept your apology. We are a brother and sister in Christ, and I don’t want to give the enemy any place as I am sure that you don’t.

          I do have a few other thoughts if you will bear with me for a minute. I think what is frustrating to me is that I don’t think you truly just take me at my word. For example, no matter how many times I’ve said that we are not saved by works, you insist that I hold to that belief, and I would like you to just consider what I have actually written without putting your assumptions on it, that just maybe there is another perspective through which you could interpret what I am saying. Also, although I do accept that maybe there are times that I need to further clarify a point or two, anyone who has read my posts can see that I go to great lengths to explain exactly what I mean, and I do so for the express purpose of communicating exactly what I mean. That’s why I don’t understand, for example, why you have written that I “emphasize our responsibility” because I don’t. What I emphasize is that both God and believers each have a responsibility to uphold their respective part of the covenant about which I wrote in my response on May 21 (May 18 blog). All I have ever asked is that you look at what I have written with fresh eyes, and if I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but I want to know exactly why.

          I agree with you that “what is important is the truth of God’s word,” but that is why our “individual views” are of great significance, not of “little significance,” especially as they pertain to understanding whether the truth of God’s Word supports or opposes the idea that a believer can or cannot lose his or her salvation. When you write that “We all will eventually end up there in the end,” that only holds true if your viewpoint is biblical, but what if it isn’t? What if my viewpoint is the one that is biblical? Then it very much makes a difference what our individual views are, wouldn’t you agree?

          I apologize if my writings overwhelm you or anyone else. Certainly that is not my intent. I just try to offer enough evidence to support what I am claiming is the meaning in God’s Word. I wish you had said something because I have no problem looking at one specific verse or passage. You wrote, “I will tell you what I think of every scriptures meaning if you will confine it to one passage so I can study the context.” Okay. I will take you at your word. I gave seven examples on that last post. You can choose any one of those that you want. I would also like to know specifically why my interpretation is wrong, though.

          I look forward to hearing from you, and I pray that we will both seek God’s wisdom as we study His Word.

          Your sister in Christ~
          Barbara

          • Barbara, I could not find the May 21st post? not sure where it is? Thanks for your response back though. My eternal destiny was settled for all time when I was saved as a boy. I did not make a commitment and I did not say a prayer allthough I did walk forward in front of the other teens as the Holy Ghost was bringing me forward. When I sat down in the folding chair the Holy Spirit fell on me (Acts 8:16). This is when the new birth took place. It was supernatural and not of this world. This is when I was saved and I was made a new creation in Christ and was made ready for heaven. I really don’t understand when you say that we both have a part? I recieved the Spirit yes (john 1:12)but it is the “call of God” that was extended to me. God dealt with me since as a son. When I drift away he has chastened me severely at times (Rev. 3:19, Heb. 12:6) but his grace has always brought me back over the years. Its God who keeps me saved not me keeping myself saved that is why I am eternally secure. See if you can find that post you were speaking of and let me know, have a good day, gotta go. FZ

          • Hi Frank~

            We’ve discussed how we each came to the Lord in previous posts, and I’ve also shared what I mean by fulfilling our part in keeping the covenant. You wrote that you didn’t address my posts because you were overwhelmed by all that I wrote, so I would prefer if we just stayed focused on the one passage or verse that you said you would explain as you suggested.

            Although my response with the examples is dated May 21, I posted it on the blog for May 18, so that’s where you’ll find it.

            Have a blessed day~
            Barbara

          • Barbara, sorry I only saw 2 comments so I must be missing something. Anyways I do remember that we had discussed Hebrews 6. So I will offer my thoughts concerning this text. Hebrews 6 has always been used to point out that one can be saved then lost, most of which is derived at by a superficial reading as I once was guilty of. One of the most basic things you must do while studying a passage is to identify the personal pronouns. Now, keep in mind the context is maturation and not salvation (verse 1-3) In verse 4 he says “for it is impossible for THOSE” so here he is identifying a group of individuals parenthetically (cause he stops the flow of the narrative) to comment on the people he calls “those”. Now if you move forward in the narrative to verse 9 he says” but beloved we are persuaded better things of YOU and things that accompany salvation” The “those” of verse 4 are different than the saved of verse 9 identified as “you”. The “those” whoever they were not allowed to press onto maturity because they did not get saved. They participated to a point but were not born again. Also a gentile could never be guilty of verse 6 because none of us have been instructed in the sacrificial system of offering blood sacrifices for sin. The mindset of a Jew was totally different than a gentile and when reading the book of Hebrews and dealing with the “warning passages” you must understand that. Remember all scripture is FOR me but not all scripture is TO me. I’m aware of the many insights that people have regarding this passage and I’ve looked at them all but feel good concerning these conclusions. Also if I may add this thought, a good student of scripture should never let the more difficult passages changed his understanding of the very clear passages. John makes it clear that Jesus’ sheep will never perish. So with the clear in mind I can move into some of the meatier portions of scripture and draw good valid conclusions. Some have called this the “parts-whole spiral”. i.e. as we read we bounce the words, clauses etc. off of the entirety of the 66 books of the Bible and that is what makes us a better student of the scripture. Also, sometimes knowing what something does not teach is as important as knowing what it does. By that I mean the writer in these passages had these specific individuals in mind, we do not know who they were or any details about them. To come 2000 years into the future and make an interpretation for gentiles losing their salvation from this text is really a stretch. FZ

          • Hi Frank~

            Thank you for your response on Hebrews 6. Although I don’t agree with you :), I appreciate it that you gave a point by point analysis so that we have a starting point for a dialogue.

            I have some things to do today, so if I don’t get something posted by tonight, I should be done by tomorrow sometime.

            I hope you have a blessed weekend~
            Barbara

          • Frank
            As to Hebrew 6 whoever THEY were author of the letter identify their status in front of God. He says of them: that THEY are to be renew again, which means they had something, they had something they lost, they were enlightened – have to be in knowledge of God which is only in Christ because there is no other light in these world; They tested heavenly gift – What other heavenly gift could it be than justification which is in Christ through His blood and how could you taste it if you are not justified and how could you be justified if you were not born again. Christ Himself is also the heavenly gift from heaven the Lamb of God who was to be sacrificed for our sins, He is this life which origin from the Father from heaven to make alive them who believe. How could you test it you didn’t believe and havn’t been made alive? How could they have tasted it if they haven’t been partakers in Him. And in the end they were partakers of Holy Spirit and have tested Word of God and they also experience the power of the age to come. They having all that fallen away. How do you think we experience the power of the age to come? How could we be Partakers of Holy Spirit which is breathed by God to make us alive – Like Christ said once: Spirit is which gives life. And this rule is shown in creation of first people when God breathed breath of life in they nostrils and they became alive. If you are partaker of holy spirit you have to be alive. And maturity and being born there are different thing by nature. Don’t you think? I do not think it have to be so big streach to identify THEM who they were. By the way in my opinion a very big streach is to avoid all these biblical evidences Barbara gave you in that blog from May 18th.

          • Hi Frank~

            Before I give my interpretation of Hebrews 6, I would like to make a few general comments. I almost hesitate bringing them up because I don’t want them to become the focus of this particular discussion. As you can see, this is a pretty long response, and I would rather specifically address our opinions of Hebrews 6 and leave these other things for another time. However, I’ll leave it to your discretion. If you do decide to discuss them, I’ll just wait to respond until after we are through, so don’t think I am ignoring what you have to say. I just want to stay focused.

            You wrote, “Remember, all scripture is FOR me but not all scripture is TO me.” Because the point of this discussion is to determine whether this particular passage teaches that believers can lose their salvation, then wouldn’t that mean, according to your statement, that this passage is, indeed, FOR you although, as you believe, it was not written specifically TO you? In other words, even if this passage were written TO the Jews, wouldn’t its truth also be FOR you, according to what you wrote? It just sounds a little like your statements disagree with each other. Correct me if I have incorrectly understood what you have written.

            You wrote, “John makes it clear that Jesus’ sheep will never perish. So with [this] clear in mind I can move into some of the meatier portions of scripture and draw good valid conclusions.” I agree with you that we “should never let the more difficult passages [change our] understanding of the very clear passages,” but we must also guard against a practice that interprets the whole of Scripture by one or two verses, no matter how clearly they are written. I’ll give you two examples. If, as a Christian, you have ever voiced your opinion that homosexuality is a sin and that those who practice it will spend eternity in hell and not heaven, then you have also been told that you are a hypocrite because the Bible tells you that you are not to judge. These people, of course, are referencing Matthew 7:1, a verse that is extremely clear to read, but does its clarity truly reveal the heart and truth of God’s entire Word? We both know that it doesn’t. We know that it is not judging per se that is forbidden but judging hypocritically and condemningly, and in fact, we are given John 7:24 which says, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” My second example is the verse that Mormons use to justify their doctrine that they will become Gods of their own world. It is John 10:34 which says, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods” (also Ps. 82:6)? Although “gods” is written in lowercase, which signals that this is not referring to Almighty God but to human or demonic rulers, this doesn’t faze the LDS. For one reason, the Hebrew language never uses capitalization, and the Greek language uses it only rarely and never with the word ‘theos.’ Consequently, Mormons are able to use this verse, which is extremely clear to read, to prove the most heretical and blasphemous doctrine there is.

            You also wrote a couple of things that seem to me to disagree with each other, so perhaps you could give me clarification. You used John’s writing that “Jesus’ sheep will never perish” as an example of clear writing by which you can confidently go on to “meatier issues” because you believe that it, alone, because of its clarity, can be used to prove that believers cannot lose their salvation. In other words, what it appears to me that you are saying, here, is that no other Scripture is needed to prove your opinion. However, you followed this assertion with another idea, the “points-whole spiral,” which you define as “i.e. as we read we bounce the words, clauses etc. off of the entirety of the 66 books of the Bible and that is what makes us a better student of the scripture.” To me, your second statement, which is scriptural (Ps. 119:160, II Tim. 3:16) doesn’t agree with your first statement because your first statement disallows the inclusion of your second statement when formulating doctrine, meaning that if this verse in John is all that is needed (first statement) which is, as you imply, why you have used it, then we don’t need the rest of Scripture (second statement). Again, if I have misunderstood, let me know.

            I think my response addresses most of the concerns you brought up, but I will give a brief explanation of a few things here, too.
            ~The “those” in verse 4 as well as the “you” in verse 4 are all believers, and the writer hasn’t inserted any parenthetical information; it is a smooth progression of events.
            ~Where is the scriptural evidence that supports your conclusion that “they were not allowed to press onto maturity because they did not get saved” or that they were “not born again”?
            ~ We (Gentiles) have most certainly have been instructed “in the sacrificial system of offering blood sacrifices for sin.” It’s the gospel message, the story of the sacrificial Lamb, Jesus Christ, shedding His blood for our sin. It’s the same message and instruction that God has used from Adam on down. Man’s sins are covered by sacrificial blood, and man is saved through faith in God’s grace alone. The only difference is that in the OT, the sacrifices were ongoing while in the NT, only one was needed (Heb. 10:10).
            ~While I understand that the passage develops the idea of maturing, I believe it also speaks to the consequences of both succeeding and failing at it.

            The rest of this response is my analysis of Hebrews 6. I wrote this originally for a group that holds to your opinion about losing salvation. My first response was brief, only the first two paragraphs. Later, I added the rest in response to an article I read online. Because I go into more depth in the second portion, you might be tempted to start asking too soon the questions that I do eventually answer in my second response, so just hang in there.

            Hebrews 6:1-6 This passage was cited to show that we can fall from grace but that we can’t lose our salvation, but I believe Scripture says the opposite, that believers cannot fall from grace,* but they can lose their salvation, and I think this particular passage is one of the strongest scriptural proofs in support of this. Before I write about that, though, I have a few thoughts on why we can’t fall from God’s grace. As we all know, the covenant that believers have entered into since the time of Christ is the covenant of grace (Jn. 1:17). The only purpose for grace is to give us favor before God when we sin, but if a believer can fall from grace merely because he or she sins, then there really is no grace. There are two scriptures that are strongly support that we cannot fall from grace. The first verse is I John 1:7 which says that “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin” (bold mine), and the second verse is James 2:10 which says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.” This, of course, doesn’t mean that if a person covets that he or she is also guilty of adultery, only that that law of God is a whole, and as such, to trespass even one point of it is to breach the whole of it. The point that I want to make here, then, against one being able to fall from grace is that even if we commit a sin that IS covered by God’s grace, we are still, according to this verse, “guilty of all,” meaning guilty of those sins that are NOT covered by grace (if there were such a thing) because we have broken the whole of God’s law, regardless of how. If this is true, then there is no grace for any sin.

            *Because I have just claimed that we cannot fall from grace, I need to explain exactly what I mean because Galatians 5:4 says, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” I believe the key to interpreting this passage can be found in understanding the two ways in which grace is expressed within God’s Word. The first way is the grace we receive when we sin. It is this expression of grace from which we cannot fall because, as I wrote earlier, the only purpose for grace is to give us favor before God when we sin, but if a believer can fall from grace merely because he or she sins, then there really is no grace. The second expression of grace is defined as a covenant. As John 1:17 says, “For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Rather than merely receiving the grace with which God has always blessed His creation, believers are now bound to God in the covenant of grace rather than the covenant of law. It is this grace, this covenant of salvation, from which we can fall, and the evidence of this claim can be found by reading verses 1-10 and by asking which of the graces is Paul addressing. As verses 3 and 6 state, the issue at hand is circumcision and how it fits into the justification of a believer before God. As we know, circumcision, in and of itself, is not a sin; it does not violate the moral and eternal law of God; therefore, Paul’s admonition to them in verse 1 has nothing to do with the grace believers receive because of sinning because circumcision is not a sin. This only leaves the other expression of grace, the covenant itself, in which Paul is warning that “to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (3b) and that those who “are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (4b). In other words, each person chooses whether to be justified by the covenant of the law or justified by the covenant of grace but those people who “are justified by [the covenant of] the law; ye are fallen from [the covenant of] grace.”

            Although a person cannot fall from God’s grace, a person can certainly walk away from it, either by committing the unpardonable sin, by rejecting it, or by not growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (II Pet. 3:18), but this is very much losing one’s salvation. In verses 1-2 of the Hebrew 6 passage, the writer admonishes believers to move beyond the foundational tenets of Christianity, of which he gives several examples, and calls them to maturity (perfection) in Christ. In verses 4-5, the writer gives several descriptors of those to whom he is calling to perfection, and each one of them describes a person who is saved. Verse 6 summarizes what happens: “If they [the saved people of vv. 4-5] shall fall away [because they haven’t gone on perfection and moved beyond the elementary teachings listed in vv. 1-2], …it is impossible [v. 4, ital. mine] to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.” In other words, a person can legitimately be saved but not grow beyond the fundamentals and into the deep things of God, and this passage is warning believers that initial salvation is only the beginning, and if they think they can refuse to grow and continue to live life as the “old man,” then they can’t expect, at the end, to be able to call upon the salvation of Christ because they rejected that by their apathy. By doing so, the writer says, the person who would actually do this is crucifying Christ again for himself and putting Christ into open shame rather than fully walking in humble submission to the spiritual life for which Christ willingly gave Himself. Therefore, God will reject this person.

            Over the years, I have listened to people and have read articles that attempt to disprove the point of view that the writer of Hebrews is actually saying that born-again believers can lose their salvation. The most prevalent reason given is that they believe that this passage is actually hypothetical because of the word “if” in verse 6. The following excerpt is indicative of this view, and it is from the site bible-truth.org/FAQ-Assurance.html. To avoid confusion, I’ve capitalized this author’s comments.

            ~”THEREFORE GOD IS NOT SAYING THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO BE SAVED AND LOSE THEIR SALVATION, BUT SAYING THAT “IF” IT WERE POSSIBLE THEN CHRIST WOULD HAVE TO BE CRUCIFIED ALL OVER AGAIN. IT IS NOT SAYING IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE SAVED AND THEN LOST, BUT SHOWING WHY IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOSE SALVATION. THE PASSAGE IS ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE LOST ONCE CHRIST HAS SAVED US, BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT CHRIST WOULD HAVE TO BE CRUCIFIED AGAIN IN ORDER FOR A PERSON TO BE SAVED AGAIN IF THEY WERE LOST. CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED ONCE FOR ALL AS HEBREWS 10:10 SAYS, ‘BY THE WHICH WILL WE ARE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL.’ NOTE IN VERSE 12 THE WORD, “SLOTHFUL” WHICH COMES FROM A DERIVATIVE OF WORD “ILLEGITIMATE” AS AN ILLEGITIMATE SON, OR OF UNCERTAIN ORIGIN. HE IS SAYING, ‘DO NOT ACT LIKE AN ILLEGITIMATE SON (LOST PERSON), BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW YOU ARE A CHILD OF GOD, DO NOT BE LAZY OR UNCERTAIN.’”
            Note: Later in the article, the author refers to this sentence in verse 6 as being a “hypothetical statement.”

            There are several things on which to comment. In the first place, we know that, while each Scripture may have many applications, it has only one meaning, and we are not to manipulate Scripture to extract meaning but to interpret it in its plainest sense, so my first concern regarding the hypothetical argument is “why?” Why would God include a hypothetical scenario at all in His Word to believers? All prophecy (II Tim. 3:16) was recorded by holy men (II Pet. 1:21) so that believers would absolutely know God’s will and purpose and would be able to learn and grow in the “knowledge” of Jesus Christ as commanded in II Peter 3:18, and, as anyone who has truly walked with the Lord knows, there is a lifetime of information which we are to study so that the layers of His Word unfold to our understanding as we learn precept upon precept and line upon line (Is. 28:10). Are we to believe, then, that God didn’t think that we had enough on our plates to follow His command to “Study to shew [ourselves] approved unto God” (II Tim. 2:15a) in addition to “work[ing] out [our] own salvation” (Phil. 2:12) by learning and heeding His Word that we also needed to spend our time learning about a hypothetical situation, a scenario that has absolutely no chance of coming to pass?

            Secondly, the problem with this viewpoint is that it takes great liberties with the language of the passage. When reading anything, we understand that meaning can only be correctly gleaned through clues such as format, context, word definition, idiomatic expressions, punctuation, syntax, cultural references, and whether the language used is figurative or literal. For example, we know that the phrase, “Once upon a Time” does not precede an historical account but a fairy tale, and we know that the phrase, “The kingdom of heaven is like” precedes information that is not to be understood literally but only as an analogy written as a parable that puts forth a literal spiritual truth. Not to interpret Scripture according to accepted language conventions contradicts God’s command to us, that of “rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Tim. 2:15b). One thing to consider is context. The train of thought used by the writer of Hebrews does not even begin with Hebrews 6:1 but in the passage preceding it, in Hebrews 5:ll-14, wherein he briefly discusses spiritual immaturity in contrast to spiritual maturity, charging believers of being “dull of hearing” (v. 11). He continues in verses 12-14, criticizing them for their spiritual immaturity because, although they should be actual teachers of the Word, they have not moved beyond the milk; they are “unskilful [sic] in the word of righteousness” in contrast to those partakers of “strong meat” who have their “senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” This is the context in which the writer of Hebrews introduces a clear pattern of thought that follows through to verse 8 of chapter 6.

            Thirdly, the format through which the author of Hebrews develops his reasoning is expository, clearly meant to define believers’ spiritual standing as well as to convey the process through which each specific end is realized, beginning with the statement of the level of the believers’ maturity in Christ and how it manifests itself as written in Hebrews 5:11-14. The format is further developed in Hebrew 6:1-6, illustrated through a list of topics that believers are to move beyond in order to “go on to perfection” (maturity) so that they can become skillful “in the word of righteousness” so that they will mature to “full age” so that they will have “their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (vv. 13-14). This list is then followed by another list of five descriptors, defining exactly to whom this warning is given; it is to those people who are saved, those people who are in a true, born-again relationship with God. This list is then followed by the consequence that will result if one does not follow the plan that leads to maturity, ending with the reasoning that holds it all together about which I wrote in the original two paragraphs. That this passage speaks of the truth that believers can lose their salvation is once again driven home in verses 7 and 8, which clearly expand upon the respective ends of those who do or do not heed the warning given beginning in Hebrews 5:11. After studying what is plainly written, are we now to believe that God had one of His holy men expound upon a progression of events in clear and exacting detail about something that has no reality within the lives of believers?

            Fourthly, the problem with approaching this passage as a hypothetical statement is in its meaning. Why would God, who is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33), inspire one of His holy men to write about a topic that is second in importance only to the initial salvation message itself in such a way that its intended “hypothetical” meaning is the exact opposite of what is plainly written? In addition, hypothetical writing is speculative in nature, ‘what if’ scenarios through which thought processes are developed and abstract ideas are explored, and the language used will clearly reveal that. What is written in Hebrews 5 and 6, however, is completely devoid of any language that could lead one to interpret them as an imaginary scenario, proven by the literal phrase, “And this will we do, if God permit” (v. 3). This phrase is included to put forth an express action by God, and it is not going to be used in such a confusing manner as to link the literal information of Hebrews 5:11-14 to 6:5 to the supposed hypothetical information of 6:6, rendering a nonsensical doctrine.

            That brings us to the biggest word of contention in this passage: “if” (v. 6). Some people to whom I have talked about the meaning of this passage have forced a hypothetical meaning from this verse by rewriting this sentence, as the above author has done, to read, “… “if” it were [even] possible [for believers to lose their salvation] then Christ would have to be crucified all over again” (ital. mine). The problem with this interpretation is that it is completely erroneous. In the first place, there is a big difference between how one is to understand meaning as written in a “hypothetical” statement as contrasted with the meaning as written in a conditional “if-then” statement. They are completely different language vehicles, so for the author to attempt to prove his point that believers cannot lose their salvation by simultaneously offering up these two differing methods as his proof illustrates that his understanding of the meaning in this passage and, especially verse 6, is wrong. Secondly, if one is going to insist that verse 6 is, indeed, a conditional “if-then” statement, then where is the “then” in the Hebrew’s passage? I can certainly see the word “then” that the author included in his statement; however, it nowhere to be found in the Scripture itself, and it is to the Scripture alone that we are to look to derive meaning. The fact is that this author and other well meaning people have unwittingly changed the structure of the sentence so that it appears as though they have just written a paraphrase of it, which is biblically ‘legal,’ but, in actuality, what they have done is to add to the word of God, which is not.

            Fifthly, we need look no further than Strong’s Concordance to determine what the real meaning of the word “if” is in this verse. It is the Greek word ‘Kai’ (G2532), and it means “and,” again disproving the existence of any hypothetical or conditional statement. Inserting the meaning from the original Greek, the sentence reads, “For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, [AND falling-aside AGAIN], to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame” (Heb. 6:4-6). Whether the passage is read with “if” or “and” inserted, there is only one meaning that can be garnered from this passage and that is that believers can fall away again; they can return to their old life. We can know this as a certainty because the language conventions employed illustrate the literal intent of the passage.

            Lastly, while it is true that believers have the “hope” that is “an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast” as verse 19 states and that we have this hope because God is faithful as shown in the text, we cannot understand these promises outside of their context. From Hebrews 5:11-6:20, there is an idea being developed that is linked by Hebrews 6:9 which says, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” In speaking to his “beloved,” the followers of Christ, the writer of Hebrews is “persuaded” by two things, “better things of you” and “things that accompany salvation.” With regard to the first phrase, the writer is saying that he trusts in “better things of you,” that is, of a more excellent end than befalls those believers who neglect their spiritual growth, “whose end it is to be burned” (v. 8b), which he explains in explicit detail in the preceding section to ensure absolute understanding. With regard to the second phrase, the writer is saying that he also trusts in the “things that accompany salvation,” that is, in the promises of God for believers who are “not slothful” (v. 12), which means “dull” (nothros, Strong’s, G3576), ironically the exact word used by the writer of Hebrews back in 5:11, and that it is these people who will, through “faith and patience inherit the promises” (v. 6:12b), which he also explains in explicit detail through the rest of chapter 6.

            Well, that’s about it. I know it is a lot, so I don’t expect a quick reply. As I wrote in a recent post, I am very leery about getting into a dialogue, but because you told me that you “respect my views” and you promised, “I will tell you what I think of every scriptures meaning if you will confine it to one passage so I can study the context,” I trust that you will take the time to thoroughly study what I have written before you give me your answers. Because I had originally written this for another party, there are verses included other than what is in Hebrews. You can either ignore them and stick to what is written specifically about Hebrews, or you can support your interpretation of Hebrews with other verses, too. I just didn’t want to go through it and delete all the references because I would have had to rewrite the whole paper for it to make sense. I also think Maciek brought up some excellent points that need to be addressed.

            I will be praying that God will open all of our eyes anew and that we will all receive the promised increase as we study and grow in His precious Word!

            Be blessed~
            Barbara

    • John~

      I don’t know if you’ve read the blogs for the last week, but I have offered my ideas on why I don’t think the doctrine of eternal security is scriptural. I would be very interested in your thoughts regarding what I wrote if you have the time and desire to do so. Rather than repost it here, you will find my response on the May 18 blog. I wrote it to Frank, and it is dated May 21. I have given only seven of the scores of examples that I have found over this past year.

      If you do decide to address what I have written, I would appreciate it if you pay particular attention to paragraph two in which I explain what I don’t mean by losing one’s salvation because if that isn’t taken into account, it appears that I am saying something that I am not.

      If I am wrong with the Word of God, I truly want to know, but I don’t merely want verses that appear to contradict what I have written. I want the verses that are usually given in support of not losing one’s salvation to be reconciled with the ones I’ve given, and I want to know exactly, through logical reasoning and scriptural citation, why the verses I have used and the explanations I have given are wrong because, as you know, we are told that we are to consider “All scripture” (II Tim. 3:16).

      I believe that this is an extremely important doctrine, second only to the salvation message itself, for the simple reason that if I am wrong, no one is the worse for the wear, and everyone who made an initial commitment to Jesus will be in heaven. However, if I am right, then there are going to be many people who will be standing before God in judgment rather than in salvation.

      Whatever your decision, I pray that you will be blessed in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior.

      Barbara

      • John~

        My last sentence should read, “However, if I am right, then there are going to be many people who will be standing before God in judgment rather than in salvation because they failed to correctly interpret Scripture and to act upon its truth.”

        Barbara

      • Barabara, how much do you know today about the “those” mentioned in verse 4. The writer was addressing something we just don’t have enough information about to make a crazy jump to say it means a born again Christian can become un-born again, that a justified person becomes unjustified, and that a child of God becomes a child of the devil. That somehow Jesus was unable to intercede for them or the price he paid just was not enough. And although a Christian is kept by the power of God, something greater than that was able to remove us from the Almighty’s hand. God keeps you saved, I repeat, God keeps you saved. Salvation is in the perfect tense. I was saved, I am saved, and I one day will be ultimately saved in the sense only of my body being glorified like Jesus.
        You need to read the book “Grasping God’s word” for more info about the parts- whole spiral. Also it will aid you in your interpretive process.
        It is extremely tough in Hebrews 6 to know what was in the mind of the writer exactly. When Jesus is speaking of his sheep it is crystal clear what he means. “They will never perish”. Now either Jesus didn’t know that he would lose some or he was not able to keep them because of some reason. Jesus always does the will of the Father, right? Johns gospel makes it clear (and the contexts to which I’m referring are all about salvation) That of all which the Father gives him he should lose what? Nothing! but should raise the up on the last day. The sheep are not becoming goats and then sheep and then goats etc. Now If Hebrews 6 is talking about Jesus’ sheep losing their salvation and ending up in an eternal hell we can not trust the Word of God. You can not have it both ways. Jesus said “other sheep I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring” If the people in the 7 churches are losing their salvation then we have the same huge problem. When the LORD JESUS CHRIST says they will never perish he says that with the authority as the Son of God, with all the omnipotence and omniscience that God has. There is a better chance of the sun not coming up tomorrow than one of his sheep going to Hell.
        I know what you are saying about the homosexual comment. We are told not to judge to condemn not to be discerning. Actually I’m witnessing to a gay guy now and got him a NIV NEW. T and we are reading through together. His boyfriend died and he is really struggling with just making it through a day. Remember Jesus died for straights and gays; there is one Gospel for all. Some of the Corinthians were gay in 1 Cor. 6 by the way.
        I did read all your thoughts on what you think about Hebrews 6 though but disagree as I’m sure you knew I would.
        Oh, you made a comment about a warning in Romans 8. Wow that is a huge stretch. For you and Maciek the whole chapter is about security, the whole thing. How He could get eternal insecurity from that blows me away.
        I’ve never met anyone including you Ms Barbara that could articulate in a clear presentation the doctrine of unjustification. If Paul was so detailed in articulating this doctrine in Romans and he clearly does with justification, imputation, and sanctification. You always point here and there to an obscure passage then make a quick jump to it. Not good theology. It’s bad enough that people are lost and going to Hell you really describe an even worse state getting saved and then losing it! If that were true then it would definitely be mentioned in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians with all of their issues. Paul doesn’t mention it just confirms them in the faith e.g. verse 8 “who shall confirm you to the end blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” NASB.
        Romans 8:29; God causes all things to work together for good. They are not just working themselves out but God is behind it. They cannot work out for bad because he is working them for good. Oh boy I feel a sermon coming on!
        “them that love God” mark of the Child of God, keep in mind flesh is still there and will be in this life. See end of Romans 7.
        “to them who are the called” God has to call you and not all people are called. See 1 Cor. 1:26 “for ye see your calling brethren how that nor many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called” This inward call of the Holy Ghost was extended to me when I was 15 years old at summer camp. This is the “drawing” Jesus talked about.
        This “call is based upon not our faith but God’s purpose. “According to his purpose”.
        Eternity past: foreknows and predestinates.

        Present time he extends the call.

        What happens then “he justifies”
        What is next on the agenda “He glorifies!!! It’s a done deal in the mind of God!!

        Verse 31 through the end of the chapter build on this. It is overwhelming the truth that Paul is stating. No one gets lost, no one falls through the cracks. All people who have been born-again by God’s Holy Spirit God will 100 percent bring them trough to ultimate glory, every single one.
        God is the one that is active here not us. He is accomplishing all his will and his purpose that is the truth of the Word of God. Absolutely no question about it.
        If anyone reads this and has been born of God you will one day be in Heaven guaranteed and God wants you to know that. This is why he gave us this great chapter. You should never doubt your salvation or let people persuade you to the contrary. Now remember though you have been called unto liberty but don’t use that liberty for an occasion to the flesh though because judgment for the child of God is on this side of the grave and not on the other. All sin is judged even in the life of a Christian not in the sense of our eternal destiny but because God wants us to be holy! We have been called unto holiness remember.
        Eternal Security is a truth of scripture no question about it. I have grandkids today and taking them fishing have a great day everyone. One last verse, one of my all time favorites, 2Tim.2:19 “nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure having this SEAL The Lord knoweth them that are his” God knows who has been given the Holy Spirit, He knows and the individuals know, (Gal 4:9) do a word study on the word “know” cause thers gold in them thar hills as my old professor used to say.
        Barbara, I’m not moving from this truth, so I am leaving this discussion of eternal security, have a good day. FZ

        • Frank~

          I just don’t know what to say. I am both surprised and disappointed. I am surprised because I logged on this morning to find that you had already posted your response, but when you wrote that you had just “read all [my] thoughts” rather than study them, I can see why it was there. I honestly didn’t think that I would hear from you for at least 3-4 days or maybe even a week because there was so much that I said that needed to be studied and reconciled. I am also disappointed that you were unable or unwilling to fulfill your promise that you would tell me “every scriptures meaning” of the passage. I was very much looking forward to a thoughtful, yet spirited, discussion with you.

          I have nothing more to say regarding my thoughts on Hebrews 6 either. However, If any other person who is reading this has ideas about why my interpretation is unsound, I welcome any comments. Again, I would appreciate it if what I specifically wrote, point by point, was the focus of the discussion.

          You did, however, write something with regard to my comments on homosexuals that I am going to comment on. You wrote, “Remember Jesus died for straights and gays; there is one Gospel for all. Some of the Corinthians were gay in I Cor 6 by the way.” The implication, here, is that I am unaware of these facts, that I believe that homosexuals are outside the realm of forgiveness, that I believe the gospel does not apply to them, and nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t know whether you meant it this way or not. All I ask is that you be more careful in how you interpret and comment on people’s comments.

          As always, I pray that God’s truth will be opened to each one of us.

          Yours in Christ~
          Barbara

          • Homosexuals can be saved see 1 Cor 6 9-11. KJV uses abusers of themselves with mankind. “such were some of you” but they were no longer gay “were”. Still could be a temptation for them later down the road unless thay walk in the Spirit.Sometimes patterns of sin are problems for us even after salvation. I was up at 3 this morning and read your post so you are wrong to think that I didn’t read it.Everyone have a good holiday. God is good.FZ Also I am familiar with Romans 1.

          • Frank,

            Where did I say that you didn’t read my post, and why are you again implying that I don’t think homosexuals can be saved? Please read what I wrote.

            Barbara

        • Yes mam, you are right I misunderstood what you were saying concerning homosexuals, sorry. Face to face communication is so much better, post like these are just not as good as face to face for quick clarification of things. Anyways Barabara you are really stumbling over salvation and grace especially.The people who don’t make it that you are talking about are the people who are throwing up all that they have done for God (but had never been saved(matt 7:21-23) The ones that are allowed to enter are the ones Jesus “knows”. i.e. he has a love relationship with these people. It is their nature (which has been changed at the new birth) to love God and hence in their hearts love and obey him. This is not an external thing but a heart matter. These individuals are the ones indentified as his sheep. Works do not a saved man make but a saved man will do good works, yet not him the Spirit living in him. All of the works that matter are not us doing them but rather God at work in the soul causing us to desire to do these things. The flesh profits nothing at all!!! The scariest position to ever be in is to think that anything I can accomplish can add anything to God’s provision in Christ’s death, burial, resurrection. You are really stumbling over salvation and adding your conduct as a child of God (which is important)as part of the foundation that God has layed for us in Christ. The child of God stands in GRACE and never in works(conduct). Immediately upon conversion you are 100% ready for heaven having been inputed the righteousness of Christ as a gift. Your sins past, present, future are done away with and payed for in totality by the supreme sacrifice of the Son of the living God. In conduct as a child of God sanctification is accomplished by the indwelling presence of the Spirit which and our interaction with the Word of God. FZ

          • Okay, Frank, if I’m the one who is “stumbling over salvation and grace,” please tell me exactly why my interpretation of each of the following verses is wrong:

            Matthew 24:13 In chapter 24, Jesus is telling His disciples of the events that are going to precede His second coming and says that those believers who “endure [remain, abide, persevere] unto the end” will “be saved.” Because nonbelievers won’t be enduring anything with regard to the kingdom of God, the implication, then, is that there will be believers during this time who don’t endure and will, consequently, not “be saved.”

            Matthew 25:14-30 (Parable of the Talents) Because this parable refers to the kingdom of Heaven, we understand the “man” to be the Lord and the “servants” to be believers (v. 1). As lord, the man gave each of his servants a certain number of talents, either five or two or one, “according to his own ability” (v. 15). The servants who were given five and two talents each did something with what the lord had given them (v. 16-17), and they were given additional things because they had been faithful (v. 20-23). However, the servant who had been given one talent did nothing with what the lord had entrusted him (v. 18), and the lord called him a “wicked and lazy servant” (v. 26) and took away what little he had (v. 29). Now, if this were the end of the story, one could possibly conclude that the wicked servant just lost some rewards; however, verse 30 is very clear that what the wicked servant lost was his salvation: “And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” We know that, in Heaven, there isn’t going to be any “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” a phrase that is used five times in the NT (Matt. 8:12, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, and Lk. 13:28) and always refers to eternal punishment. This same thought is also illustrated in Matthew 13:42 and 50 where it is written, “wailing and gnashing of teeth” because the wicked have been cast into the “furnace of fire.” Terms and phrases such as “weeping,” “wailing,” “gnashing of teeth,” “outer darkness,” and “furnace of fire” are not descriptors of loss of reward but of salvation.

            Luke 9:62 
 In this passage (vv. 57-62), Jesus is responding to the concerns of two disciples who have declared their loyalty to Christ (vv. 57, 61) but who have not counted the cost of discipleship. We know from the word “disciple” that these men are saved and, yet, verse 62 clearly puts across the point that those people who have begun the course (“put his hand to the plow”) but who then put the cares and concerns of the world (“looking back”) second to the cares and concerns of the kingdom are not “fit for the kingdom of God.” The word “fit” means “ready for use, fit, well adapted” and literally means, “well placed” (euthetos, Strong’s, G2111). In other words, if one’s heart is not weaned from this evil world, then it will not be prepared or able to enter into God’s heavenly world.

            Luke 13:6-9
 In this short parable, we read of the importance of believers bearing fruit for the kingdom and that those people who don’t, although being given multiple chances, will be cut down. Being “cut out, cut off” (Thayer’s Lexicon) from the vineyard is to be removed, metaphorically, from the body of Christ, which is loss of salvation, not of reward.

            John 15:1-6
 In this passage, Jesus is using the analogy of a vineyard to describe the relationship between believers and Himself. We understand from several references, especially verse 5, that Jesus is “the vine” and believers are “the branches.” In verses 4-5, Jesus says that believers cannot bear fruit unless they abide in Him, but this passage is clear that not all branches do continue to abide in Him and that there are consequences. In verse 2, He speaks of two types of branches that are “in me [Jesus],” believers who bear fruit and believers who don’t. Those branches that do bear fruit are pruned by God in order to bear more fruit. Those branches that do not bear fruit are “taken away,” which verse six explains as being “…cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.” This is loss of salvation, a truth that further underscored by the fact that the word “abide,” is used nine times in chapter 15, four times alone in verses four and six as a warning to believers so that they will not be “taken away” and “burned.”

            I Timothy 4:1

 This verse says that people will “depart from the faith.” To depart means to withdraw, desert, fall away, shun (aphistemi, Strong’s G868). One cannot “depart from the faith” unless one, first, has the faith. These people did believe, but they departed because they considered, believed and, then, followed false doctrines.

            The Seven Churches in Asia (Revelation 2:1-3:22)
            ~The loveless church in Ephesus must repent and overcome, or it will have its lamp stand removed.
            ~The persecuted church in Smyrna must repent and overcome, or it will be hurt by the second death.

            ~The compromising church in Pergamos must repent and overcome so that it will receive hidden manna and white stone.
            
~The corrupt church in Thyatira must repent and overcome, or it won’t receive the power given to all of the saved.

            ~The dead church is Sardis must repent and overcome, or it will have its name blotted out of the Book of Life.

            ~The faithful church in Philadelphia must overcome, or it won’t become a part of God’s holy city.

            ~The lukewarm church in Laodicea must repent and overcome, or it will not wear garments of salvation.

            Barbara

          • Frank~

            I really struggled as to whether I should respond to your last post, so I just want to clarify something so that we don’t spend another round of posts and end up no where. The fact is that I absolutely know, without a doubt, exactly what you are saying with regard to salvation because you have said it many different ways and have posted it many times, so please do not tell me again. I know your opinion, and I know the verses you put forth to support it. You have given the your doctrinal explanations, and you have, many times, told me why you don’t think I believe in a ‘grace’ salvation. I get it, so please don’t repeat it. If you don’t want to tell me why my interpretations of the examples I just posted are wrong, then tell me what they do mean because, obviously, you are reading something quite different than I am. Remember, the issue on the table is not the statement, “Believers can lose their salvation,” and it is not the statement, “Believers cannot lose their salvation.” The issue on the table is the question, “Can believers lose their salvation?” I am assuming that you have read my posts to Tim and Penny, so you know that I have reconciled Scripture and that I have given a reasonable answer to explain God’s Sovereignty and man’s free will with regard to the covenant. You may not agree with them, but then again, you need to give scriptural support held together with logic.

            Again, and I don’t say this to be rude because I truly care about you because you are my brother in Christ; however, I can’t keep offering Scripture and explanations, only to have what I say ignored. If you want to address the specific verses and passages that I have given and either tell me why I am wrong or tell me what they mean, then I will continue. If you are just going to tell me, again, that I believe in a works-based salvation and that I just don’t understand grace, then I won’t respond. I will leave you with one final point which I wrote to Tim and Penny: If I’m the one who’s wrong, then why am I the one who can reconcile Scripture?

            I love you, my brother~
            Barbara

  6. Thanks for this breakdown of the Greek it really assists me as an up and coming minister of the gospel of our LORD. May the LORD bless your work and establish the work of your hands at blb!!!

  7. Emphatic negation? Ain’t no way we got that in our modern language…

  9. Not only is one’s salvation eternal, it is not even possible for GOD to have the idea/thought of removing it at anytime!
    This is exactly what I needed at this time in my walk! I don’t doubt my salvation, but it’s not about me or my doubts or lack thereof, but about GOD’S great love and compassion!
    Consider: We were once slaves to sin. We are now,’bought/redeemed with a price.’ We are still slaves, but oh what a MASTER! Once bound by iron fetters, but now bounded (encompassed) with bonds of infinite love!

    • Tim~

      You wrote, “Not only is one’s salvation eternal, it is not even possible for GOD to have the idea/thought of removing it at anytime!” Will you please explain, then, the point of Jesus warning each of the seven BELIEVING churches in Asia (Rev. 2:1-3:22) that unless they repent (except Philadelphia) and overcome something that they would reap a consequence that negatively affects their very salvation?

      ~The Persecuted Church must repent and overcome, or it will be hurt by the second death.
      ~The Compromising Church must repent and overcome so that it will receive hidden manna and white stone.
      ~The Corrupt Church must repent and overcome, or it won’t receive the power given to all of the saved.
      ~The Dead Church is Sardis must repent and overcome, or it will have its name blotted out of the Book of Life.
      ~The Faithful Church in Philadelphia must overcome, or it won’t become a part of God’s holy city.
      ~The Lukewarm Church in Laodicea must repent and overcome, or it will not wear garments of salvation.

      I am especially interested in how you interpret the “Dead Church” in Sardis having its name “blotted out of the Book of Life” if that doesn’t mean loss of salvation.

      I look forward to hearing from you.
      Barbara

      • Hi Barbara,
        I understand at least part of your struggle. The first thing though is to realize that English is an immpoverished language compared to the Greek of the 1st century A.D. The 2nd thing to realize is that God knew that this would be the case, so He ‘..gave some to be teachers…’ We have greater means to understand the subtle nuances of that Greek language than ever before. 3rd, I think you need to analyze exactly what happened at the cross. What exactly was needed to obtain salvation for man. Here’s a hint. Jesus actually purchased 2 things:1) Redemption for those who accept the gift.2) The right to judge those who reject the gift[White Throne]. I realize this may seem to be counter intuitive at first. I may be wrong, but I think you’re focusing on ‘losing salvation’, without having settled in your heart what salvation actually is.
        Here’s something that perhaps will help with 1)&2) above. A) What is a living soul, who rejects Jesus’ payment, required by God to do to pay for their sins? B) What would that entail for Jesus on the cross? C) The answers to A)&B) are fairly straight forward, although the magnitude is overwhelming. But the questions become, in the context of 1)&2) above; What sins did Jesus not pay for? And…. what can man do to ‘unpay’ them? This is getting a bit lengthy, so not to play 20 questions. There is no sin unpayed. There is nothing man can do to unpay what Jesus payed for. Plus if that payment is ‘once for all’, there is a finality to it.
        Finally as to the ‘churches’ in Revelation, a distinction needs to be made between ‘The Church/Bride of Christ’, and the use of the word church, denoting local congregations. We’re warned repeatedly of those who will ‘rise up from among you’. Satan isn’t worried about the world. His focus is on the church. Don’t forget, we are not made righteous when we are born again, we are ‘declared’ to be so by God.
        God bless,
        Tim & Penny

        • Tim and Penny~

          Thank you for responding, but I don’t think you have answered my question. While Scripture does, indeed, warn of false prophets, false teachers, and wolves in the churches (e.g. Matt. 7:15, Acts 20:29, II Pet. 2:1), we need to be careful that we rightly divide the Word (II Tim. 2:15) when formulating doctrine. We need to be careful that there is an obvious connection, whether through specific words, phrases, ideas, or context that allows us to legitimately declare that any given verse or passage is also applicable to another verse or passage. If you can show me anything that I have missed, then I would appreciate it if you gave me the verses, but I have found absolutely nothing in the passage from Revelation 2:1-3:22 that even suggests that Christ is talking to any group other than those of true believers in the various churches. Christ’s warning was directed to an entire “ekklesia” and spoken through the angel of each specific church, keeping in mind that the “called out ones” can refer to one person, a specific church body (e.g. Laodicia), or the entire world of believers. In addition, He wouldn’t have assigned one of His angels to deliver these particular messages to a non-believing body or even a body that was riddled with wolves and false prophets. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that these seven churches, in any way, considered, believed, or followed the false prophets, teachers, or wolves in the above verses to which you have alluded. In fact, the criticisms brought against the seven churches are clearly those of not growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and walking out these truths as faithful witnesses while what is being exposed in the false prophet/teacher and wolves verses is something entirely different. They are guilty of trying to destroy the church from within, of speaking perverse things, and of teaching damnable heresies.

          The other comments I have are about your first two points. First, English is not, as you suggest, such an “immpoverished [sic] language” that it cannot be trusted to accurately receive the truth from Greek. Although there are meanings and nuances that provide a richer and deeper understanding of Scripture, what you’re referring to is a heresy finding its way into the pure Word of God, and that’s just not going to happen. In your second point, you wrote, “The 2nd thing to realize is that God knew that this would be the case, so He ;..gave some to be teachers…’ We have greater means to understand the subtle nuances of that Greek language than ever before.” I certainly don’t mean to sound insulting, but I have a very hard time believing that the King James translators were so inept at their job that they missed all “the subtle nuances of that Greek language,” leaving us to wonder, not only why the 51 verses that have been passed down to us are utterly void of truth but why no one has seen fit to correct the heresy that makes it into the biggest selling book in the world every year. However, since you imply that you are one of the teachers that God has given to tell us exactly what the Greek means in the Revelation passage, I would appreciate it if you give us the “subtle nuances” so that we will have the correct interpretation. I would also like any resource materials. Lastly, while God did give us teachers, it wasn’t to straighten us all out. In fact, He commands each and every believer to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Tim. 2:15). He commands us to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Th. 5:21). He commands us to “[search] the Scriptures daily [to find out] whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11), and we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth (Jn. 16:13). God told us these things so that we personally know what His Word says in order to grow in it and to be able to recognize false teachings.

          Again, unless you can offer credible proof, along with citations, to support what you have said, I would like you to explain why Jesus warned the seven churches that if they failed to repent and overcome that they would lose something associated with salvation.

          I pray that you will be blessed with all wisdom and discernment.

          Thank you~
          Barbara

      • Hi Barbara,
        In refference to the ‘Seven Churches’. In v7 of chapter two: “…..hear what the Spirit says to the [churches/plural].” Assuming that the plural of ‘churches’ is an accurate translation, then it can only be reffering to congregations. There is only one ‘church/bride of Christ’. Being a local congregation doesn’t impart salvation. The church of Ephesus in Rev 2:1 was likely the one encountered by Paul in Acts 19. In Acts 20:15-38 Paul gives his departing sermon. In v.v.28-30 Paul states that there will be ‘wolves’ coming in, and ‘also from among you’, men will rise up. The external trappings may have still been there, and even true believers, but the power of the Spirit wasn’t. Remember ‘quenching the Spirit’ was a refference to believers. In 2Cor 13, Paul says to check to see if your in the faith. Are you truely saved? In the parable of the tares Mat 13:24-30, it’s quite clear that at times it will be difficult to tell the difference. But nowhere can a case be made for losing the gift once accepted. One can reject a gift being offered though.
        I’ll address being ‘blotted out’ in a different post. But I believe that the context of this series is the perfect place to point out that GOD used specific words and terms for a reason, therefore to try to understand what is being stated it is needful to determine what ‘blotted’ means and what the word picture that the Spirit is painting is.
        In Christ,
        Tim & Penny

        • Tim and Penny,

          I posted my response before I realized that you had posted another one. As to your explanation of churches, of course there is only one “church” or body of Christ. That the Bible speaks of seven churches doesn’t contradict this. Biblically, a church can refer to the body of Christ as a whole, or it can refer to a specific congregation as in the church in Sardis, the church in Philadelphia, and so on. No where have I said or even implied that a “local congregation [can] impart salvation.” Salvation comes from God, alone, and it is God, Jesus Christ, who has told these churches what they would lose, a point I wrote in both of my posts, so I won’t repeat it.

          While I enjoy discussing doctrine with people on this blog, I would appreciate it if you quit questioning my salvation and provide me with a logical and scripturally based answer to my question on the churches in Revelation.

          I will wait for your answer on being “blotted out” as well what you have to say about the other consequences in the passage.

          Thank you~
          Barbara

          • Hi Barbara,
            I’m sorry if I sounded like I was questioning your salvation, Im not. My points are directed to the issue of eternal salvation; whether or not one can lose true salvation. It may be that I’m missing the point of your question.
            I almost missed your 5/25-5:05P.M. Post. I’ll use the date time stamp on all further responses to avoid confusion.
            1)Question? Is your assumption that all of the members of each group addressed a believer accurate? Is ‘….that woman Jezebel,…’, Rev 2:20 a believer? Or, ‘…those who hold & teach the doctrine of Balaam’, in 2:14? While it is certainly possible to have doctrines that are false as a believer, one has to wonder if these individuals are born again. I don’t profess to know for certain, but I would have to say that these are the ‘wolves & men’ Paul warned about.
            2)Question? If there are both saved & lost in each group, is Jesus addressing both?
            3)Question? Perhaps this should be 1). In Rev 1:20 Jesus appears to make a distinction between the stars/angels & lampstands. Currently I hold the angels to be the pastors, elders etc….the local leadership. The lampstands are the membership at large. Together they would constitute the organization that is present in a local community. So the question is, is each letter addressed to both or are portions of each letter primarily to one and secondarily to the other, and is it possible to distinguish?
            4)Question? Why are these letters, addressed to obviously existing groups, found in a book of end times prophecy? Why not have the, ‘Book of The Seven Churches’?
            One of the current veigns of theological thought is that this is a picture of the church age, or rather different periods in it. I can certainly see it in church history, but I can also see almost every one of these things in my personal walk at times. The overall question is then, did Jesus intend this as a warning about losing salvation? I don’t really know specific to chapter two, but I doubt that one can resolve it in chapter 2 without bringing all of the rest of scripture to bear.I’m out of time now, but I’m going to develope the ‘Ballam/Jezebel in another post.
            I’m not prepared to answer the blot out question yet. The word ‘blot’ is a composite of two Greek words, plus it involves the roots of those two words, so it’s a bit involoved and I’m not sure I have a sufficient grasp of it yet. I went through this about two years ago, but I want to do a better study this time.
            In Christ,
            Tim & Penny

          • I missed one point in your response in the above post. I’m not implying that I’m a teacher, but those who are writting these articles seem to fit the definition.
            As far as the KJV translators are concerned, yes they did miss some of the nuances. David Hocking has a good class on it right hear on th BLB Institute. The KJV is however still one of the best.
            You sound a lot like a Five Point Calvinist, are you?
            In Christ,
            Tim & Penny

          • Tim and Penny,

            Thank you for responding and for the apology. You asked a lot of questions which I will be happy to answer, but with Memorial Day and everything else, I probably won’t have it done until Monday. As to your query about my being a Five-Point Calvinist, let me just say, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I don’t believe the Bible supports any of his points. We can discuss this later.

            Have a blessed day!
            Barbara

      • Barbara and Tim, I don’t mean to get into your conversation but I have a few thoughts before I have to get ready for Church. Those who overcome in the verses mentioned are the ones that have been born of God (see 1 John 5:4 ,same writer. As to the blotting out of the book of life, the statement Jesus makes in the greek is I will NOT blot out his name out of the book of life. The not is emphatic by virtue of the greek word order and not the HIS. It is simply an affirmation by Christ that he will absolutely not blot out any of his sheeps names.All saved people will make it because it is God sustaining them and his grace will be sufficient for any thing that he choses to allow us to go through even physical persecution or death. Greater is he who is in us.FZ

        • Frank~

          There is no problem getting into our conversation!

          You are right when you say that “those who overcome” is referring to the ones who have been “born of God.” You are also right when you say that the “not” is emphatic, but why are you separating these ideas? These phrases are to be read and understood together. As a Greek interlinear will illustrate, this verse isn’t saying that those who have been born of God will not have their names blotted out, proving that one cannot lose his or her salvation, but that those who have “overcome” (one-conquering); those are the ones who will be “clothed in white garments,” implying, of course, that those who don’t “overcome” will not receive these garments of salvation, and it is those who overcome who will absolutely not have their names blotted out of the Book of LIfe. This verse isn’t even the complete warning. Verse 3 also tells us that, in addition to the overcoming of verse 5, these believers must also “repent,” and the same call to repent (except Philadelphia) and overcome is given to each of the seven churches.

          Also, since you’re reading this, there was another quick comment that I had with regard to your saying that there was no warning or caveat to the sequence in Romans 8:29-30 that would support the idea of losing one’s salvation. In my study, these were the two verses that gave me the most trouble, but I prayed and asked God to show me, and He did. There is a caveat. It is in verse 28. I’m going to let you find it.

          I’ll have my response on Hebrews 6 posted later this afternoon or evening.

          Have a blessed day!
          Barbara

  10. I recieved your reply. Have a blessed weekend.
    I’m glad to have an opportunity to engage in these exchanges. We do tend to get set in our positions and forget where they’re based. It forces us to go back and dig deeper.
    Be blessed,
    Tim & Penny

    • Tim and Penny,

      I was thinking that maybe we need to back up a little. As often times happens, too many things are brought into a discussion, and nothing gets settled, and I can see this happening in our dialogue. On May 24, you made the comment that “… it is not even possible for GOD to have the idea/thought of removing [our salvation] at anytime!” I responded by giving you a fairly long passage of Scripture that I believe very much contradicts your statement. Over the next two days, you posted many other questions and brought in other issues that aren’t directly connected with the original issue.

      As I said, I will be happy to answer your questions, but I think it would be better if we just took it one issue at a time, so I am going to wait until you provide the evidence that you said you would that shows that I am wrong in my interpretation of the warnings given to the seven churches. At the very least, you were going to correct my understanding of the word “blotted” with regard to the church in Sardis although the consequences for the other six churches should, obviously, also be explained. After these original issues have been explained, then we can both better move on to the other questions and issues that you brought up. Thank you!

      Have a blessed day~
      Barbara

      • Hi Barbara,
        Amen to the ‘backing up’. Penny went back and read from your original response to my 1st post, and all of the subsequent posts. It appears that I’ve missed some of what you’ve asked. It also looks as though Frank is seeing the same thing. Probably mostly my fault. So to make sure I am understanding your primary question/position, I’ll pose one question, and we’ll start from there. And please don’t use any math that goes beyond 20. Anything beyond fingers and toes is over my head. That should dispel any notions of my being a teacher.
        Here’s my question:
        Is your position that a truely ‘born again’ person (John 3:3) can lose their salvation?
        We’ll start there, and then build the case for our responses in later posts.
        Yours in Christ,
        Tim & Penny

        • Tim and Penny~

          Thank you for responding. Yes, that is my position. However, I want to bring some clarification to that. Here is an excerpt from a response to Frank on the May 18 blog. If you want to go into this particular post, do a word search for “advocate.”

          While Scripture very much does support the idea that one can lose his or her salvation, I want to first clarify what I don’t mean by that. First, one doesn’t lose salvation by sinning. We all sin and will continue to do so until we die or until Christ comes, but we know that when we do, we have “an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (I Jn. 2:1b). Secondly, I also don’t mean that just because a person backslides for a time that the person automatically loses his salvation because that is one of the points of the prodigal son (Lk. 15). However, I do believe that these two things, when allowed to go unchecked, can ultimately lead to a person losing his or her salvation because they illustrate a total lack of growth in the Lord, and He is coming for a spotless bride/church (Eph. 5:27, II Pet.1:19). Thirdly, the word that is pretty much always used to explain the phenomenon of going from a saved to an unsaved condition is “lose.” Although the word “lose” has many biblical and secular meanings, sometimes the word can suggest an action of carelessness akin to losing one’s keys or wallet, and when applied to salvation, it might suggest that one can, though some accidental or unintentional action, lose his or her salvation. Fourthly, and this is something that I believe I discussed with both you and PB, I don’t believe that our initial salvation or final salvation is based upon human works although we are warned in James 2 that our works (Eph. 2:10, II Tim. 3:17) do reveal whether we are truly saved.

          It your opinion that a true-born again Christian cannot lose his or her salvation, but wouldn’t you agree that it would only take one Scripture to prove otherwise? I’m asking this because I would really like you to give me your correction on having one’s name “blotted” out of the Book of Life. If you can prove that it doesn’t say what I say it does, then we can move onto other verses. If, however, it does say that salvation can be lost, then that will take the conversation in a different direction. It shouldn’t take you very long to find out what the word means or any nuances that have resulted in an incorrect interpretation finding its way into the Bible.

          I look forward to hearing from you~
          Barbara

        • Tim and Penny~

          You know, I was thinking that I could add some addition information for you to consider. You did write that you (Penny) had gone back and read through my posts, so you will have already read some of what I am posting here, but I thought that all of it on one post would provide a good foundation. I also want to very much thank you for even taking the time to consider the ideas that I am putting forth. I am not alone in them, of course, but there is also some strong opposition to them, some of it even denominational. I don’t mind that people disagree with my views. What I do mind is that people won’t carefully look at what I write and study it out for themselves. As I’ve always said, if I’m wrong, I want to know, but I want to know based upon an honest, scholarly study of God’s Word, and the word that absolutely must govern this study is ‘reconcile’ because, without it, all we are doing is proof texting and not seeking out the eternal truth that God has given us. We have God’s assurance (Ps. 119:160, Is. 8:20, II Tim. 3:16) that no matter what one verse says or doesn’t say, it will not and cannot be at variance with any other Scripture.

          There are many verses that are given in support of the idea that salvation by a true, born-again believer (Jn. 3:3) cannot lose his or her salvation. Some of these are Matthew 28:20; John 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 17:12, 18:9; Hebrews 13:5-6; II Peter 2:9; and Jude 1:24. There are also many passages that illustrate that believers can lose their salvation. I posted these six examples with the passage on the seven churches on a previous day:

          Matthew 24:13
          
In chapter 24, Jesus is telling His disciples of the events that are going to precede His second coming and says that those believers who “endure [remain, abide, persevere] unto the end” will “be saved.” Because nonbelievers won’t be enduring anything with regard to the kingdom of God, the implication, then, is that there will be believers during this time who don’t endure and will, consequently, not “be saved.”

          Matthew 25:14-30 (Parable of the Talents)
          
Because this parable refers to the kingdom of Heaven, we understand the “man” to be the Lord and the “servants” to be believers (v. 1). As lord, the man gave each of his servants a certain number of talents, either five or two or one, “according to his own ability” (v. 15). The servants who were given five and two talents each did something with what the lord had given them (v. 16-17), and they were given additional things because they had been faithful (v. 20-23). However, the servant who had been given one talent did nothing with what the lord had entrusted him (v. 18), and the lord called him a “wicked and lazy servant” (v. 26) and took away what little he had (v. 29). Now, if this were the end of the story, one could possibly conclude that the wicked servant just lost some rewards; however, verse 30 is very clear that what the wicked servant lost was his salvation: “And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” We know that, in Heaven, there isn’t going to be any “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” a phrase that is used five times in the NT (Matt. 8:12, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, and Lk. 13:28) and always refers to eternal punishment. This same thought is also illustrated in Matthew 13:42 and 50 where it is written, “wailing and gnashing of teeth” because the wicked have been cast into the “furnace of fire.” Terms and phrases such as “weeping,” “wailing,” “gnashing of teeth,” “outer darkness,” and “furnace of fire” are not descriptors of loss of reward but of salvation.

          Luke 9:62
          
In this passage (vv. 57-62), Jesus is responding to the concerns of two disciples who have declared their loyalty to Christ (vv. 57, 61) but who have not counted the cost of discipleship. We know from the word “disciple” that these men are saved and, yet, verse 62 clearly puts across the point that those people who have begun the course (“put his hand to the plow”) but who then put the cares and concerns of the world (“looking back”) second to the cares and concerns of the kingdom are not “fit for the kingdom of God.” The word “fit” means “ready for use, fit, well adapted” and literally means, “well placed” (euthetos, Strong’s, G2111). In other words, if one’s heart is not weaned from this evil world, then it will not be prepared or able to enter into God’s heavenly world.

          Luke 13:6-9
          
In this short parable, we read of the importance of believers bearing fruit for the kingdom and that those people who don’t, although being given multiple chances, will be cut down. Being “cut out, cut off” (Thayer’s Lexicon) from the vineyard is to be removed, metaphorically, from the body of Christ, which is loss of salvation, not of reward.

          John 15:1-6
          
In this passage, Jesus is using the analogy of a vineyard to describe the relationship between believers and Himself. We understand from several references, especially verse 5, that Jesus is “the vine” and believers are “the branches.” In verses 4-5, Jesus says that believers cannot bear fruit unless they abide in Him, but this passage is clear that not all branches do continue to abide in Him and that there are consequences. In verse 2, He speaks of two types of branches that are “in me [Jesus],” believers who bear fruit and believers who don’t. Those branches that do bear fruit are pruned by God in order to bear more fruit. Those branches that do not bear fruit are “taken away,” which verse six explains as being “…cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.” This is loss of salvation, a truth that further underscored by the fact that the word “abide,” is used nine times in chapter 15, four times alone in verses four and six as a warning to believers so that they will not be “taken away” and “burned.”

          I Timothy 4:1
          
This verse says that people will “depart from the faith.” To depart means to withdraw, desert, fall away, shun (aphistemi, Strong’s G868). One cannot “depart from the faith” unless one, first, has the faith. These people did believe, but they departed because they considered, believed and, then, followed false doctrines.

          As you know, when we are born again, we have entered into a covenant with God, and as you also know, a covenant is an agreement between two parties. All covenants have caveats, stipulations that are to be fulfilled by each participant, and the same holds true with the covenant between God and His people as is illustrated throughout the OT with numerous and graphic examples. That so many people (e.g. Calvin, Spurgeon) ignore this truth has resulted in an erroneous interpretation of Scripture. As I wrote above, we are to reconcile verses/passages to arrive at truth, so how do we reconcile the Scripture references that appear to be saying that we cannot lose our salvation to the verses that I have provided which support that we can? I believe the answer can be found in understanding exactly what a covenant is. When read through that light, all the verses and passages can be reconciled. I’ve already given my thoughts on the verses that say we can lose our salvation. Here are a few thoughts on the verses that are used to contradict them:

          The main ideas behind these verses are that God loves believers and that He will always hold onto them, guaranteeing final salvation, and both are absolutely true. Nothing will separate us from the love of God; He will always be there, through trials, temptations, tragedies, and right on through to our final salvation. However, the purpose of these verses is not to illustrate that believers cannot lose their salvation but to reveal God’s faithfulness to us over and above anything or anyone in Heaven or on Earth or under the Earth that would, through anything at their disposal, appear to be able to snatch us from His arms, His power, or His love (Num. 11:23, Dan. 9:29, Is. 63:1). These verses are our assurance of both His desire and ability to accomplish what He has purposed and that nothing can stop Him. He will never forsake us; however, we can forsake Him. Satan and his minions will try to separate us from the love of God, but they can’t; however, we can separate ourselves from it, as did Judas. God will always lead us; however, we don’t have to follow. This is why we are given the admonition, “Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering (for he [is] faithful that promised” (Heb. 10:23). Other people may hurt us and try to discourage us, but we are told, “The LORD [is] on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me” (Ps. 118:6). We need only look at the OT to see all of these verses in action. No matter what Israel faced, as long as the people were walking faithfully with the LORD, He kept His hand on them, even in their times of sinning, which we all do. However, when the people rebelled against God, through their own choices, they removed themselves from God’s protective covering, from His provision, and, as the story of the Hebrews wandering and dying in the wilderness proves, even His salvation. It wasn’t that God quit loving them or that evil angels overtook them or that men snatched them from His arms; they had the freedom to choose, and they chose to walk away. Christians have a saying that they like to put forth: “If you feel far from God, guess who moved?” The reason why this is true is because it isn’t God’s fault that we feel distanced from Him; it’s our fault. We have His Word, His guarantee, that He will never “move,” but His creation can move, and there are consequences for that.

          I hope I have provided some further clarity to this discussion and look forward to hearing what you have to say.

          May God bless us as we seek the truth of His Word, and may we be obedient to what it reveals to us.

          Your sister in Christ~
          Barbara

          • Hi Barbara,
            It appears to me that you have established as a doctrine that one who is truely saved, can lose their salvation.
            If you want to live in that fear then that’s up to you.
            You state that scripture “very much” teaches your position. Statements like that are what lead me to ask if you were a Calvinist. I doubt that any further discussion is warranted.
            In Eph 2:5-9 Paul establishes what salvation is and how it is obtained. If you want to ‘work’ to keep it that’s your choice. The simple answer to your position is, ‘Were these people turely saved? Was Judas?’ Judas did all the things the others did, and he was as much an apostle as the others were, but in the end, ‘he went to his place’. Judas was a theif at heart, Peter wasn’t. Peter blew it because he was afraid. He denied Christ three times, the third time in direct eye contact. That certainly would qualify for losing ones salvation ( ‘if you deny Me before men ‘door maids’). The main point is the heart condition of these two men. Jesus the gosple is the only thing that changes a person’s heart, works don’t and can’t. The direction you’re heading is going to lead to a list of things to do, that in your mind shows that one is saved or not. That’s a dangerous place to be.

            Yours in Christ,
            Tim & Penny

          • Tim and Penny~

            In response to your comment that no other “discussion is warranted,” I would like to say that a discussion is very much warranted because, as I’ve written, if I am wrong, then there’s no harm done, and everyone who made a true commitment to Jesus will be in heaven. However, if I am right, then there are going to be a lot of surprised people standing before God in judgment rather than salvation because they failed to interpret and act upon Scripture correctly. What you are really saying is that you don’t want to continue with this dialogue, which is fine, but before you totally dismiss what I have written, I do have few thoughts for you to consider:

            ~Using Peter as an example to prove me wrong is proof texting because you are formulating a doctrine at the exclusion of the rest of God’s counsel in direct opposition to II Timothy 3:16.

            ~Jesus said that He was going to use Peter as an integral part of the foundation of His church (Matt. 16:18), so we know that Peter did not lose his salvation. Because Peter did deny Christ three times (Matt. 26), your interpretation of Matthew 10:33 would make Jesus a liar. Obviously, then, there is some other way we are to interpret the type of denying Peter did with the type of denying to which Christ is referring.

            ~Several times you have compared my opinions to Calvin’s. Please study before you offer your opinions. I have made it very clear that I believe that believers can, through a decision made by their free will, lose their salvation whereas Calvin believed the exact opposite. He believed that people had absolutely no say in the matter, that God, in His sovereignty, predetermined each person to either eternal salvation or eternal damnation and that nothing could change that status.

            ~The one thing that we both know is that people will explain things if they are truly able, so I can only assume that you are not able to offer any reasoning as to why the six examples I gave on May 29 (May 23 blog) are wrong. In addition, you weren’t able to correct my understanding of even one of the seven churches in Asia or even provide a simple correction of my understanding of the word “blotted,” something you said you could do.

            ~When I suggested that we return to the original information so that we wouldn’t get distracted and overwhelmed, your response was, “Amen to the ‘backing up.’” However, once I posted the six examples and my comments in answer to your question to me about whether I thought people could lose their salvation, that’s when you called it quits. My question, then, is when you said that “We do tend to get set in our positions and forget where they’re based. It forces us to go back and dig deeper” (May 26), was that just for my benefit? It seems to me that if you were applying this at all to yourselves, then you would have taken the time to dig deeper into the verses I supplied rather than just disregard them because they don’t fit into your current view of salvation. Let me challenge you, here. You don’t have to continue the dialogue with me. That’s not important. What is important, though, is that you actually follow through on your own advice to “dig deeper.” You can begin by answering something. If I’m the one who is wrong, then why am I the one who can reconcile Scripture? I don’t say this to elevate myself over you or anyone else, but it’s one thing to tell me I’m wrong by citing verses that appear to contradict what I’ve said, and it’s quite another to show me why I’m wrong by taking these same verses and reconciling them with the ones that I have cited. That has yet to be done, by you or anyone else, who has opposed my opinion.

            The truth is, I was where you are now, and I finally got tired of not being able to really justify what I claimed I believed by using logic and Scripture. In fact, it was this very issue that I couldn’t support beyond giving a few verses, and I certainly couldn’t harmonize them with what appeared to be opposing Scripture. In other words, I didn’t know what the Bible really taught. In II Timothy 2:15, we are commanded to “Study to shew [ourselves] approved unto God,” so that each of us will be “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed” because we are “rightly dividing the word of truth.” This doesn’t mean that we are to compile a list of verses that support our view. It means we are to take all relevant verses and let them speak for themselves. God has also commanded us to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Th. 5:21). If He has commanded us to “prove” the truth, then, obviously, it can be proven, and while He has given us teachers to aid in our learning, it is “… the Spirit of truth” who “will guide [us] into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come” (Jn. 16:13). I have cited these three verses scores of times, but I wonder how many people actually take what God has said in them and applied it to their own lives, into their own study of His revealed Word?

            ~I have one last comment, and please receive this in the spirit in which it is given, that of one believer trying to share with another. So much of what makes people’s conclusions wrong is that they don’t know how to argue properly. In my opinion, there is no greater skill, especially when claiming that something is a biblical truth, than that of learning how to formulate a premise and to provide legitimate evidence in support of it. If you are unable to take a college course, there are numerous online sites in which you cannot only learn how to write a logical argument but how to spot a faulty one by understanding the fallacies of argument. Just one example of a fallacy in argument is the all too-common practice of attacking the person rather than the issue at hand. It is a fallacy because it attempts to negate the truth of someone’s claim by putting the focus on some real or perceived characteristic of the person rather than the issue itself. An example of this is when you wrote on your May 30 post, “It appears to me that you have established as a doctrine that one who is truely [sic] saved, can lose their salvation. If you want to live in that fear then that’s up to you.” Whether I live in fear or do not live in fear is irrelevant to the issue at hand of whether believers can lose their salvation; therefore, it is inadmissible as any kind of proof in support of not being able to lose salvation. Also inadmissible is your premise that, because I think that believers can lose their salvation that this equates to a works-based salvation as you phrased, “The direction you’re heading is going to lead to a list of things to do, that in your mind shows that one is saved or not.” It is a fallacy because you provide absolutely no logical reasoning or examples that leads from my opinion to your conclusion. The bottom line is that you just can’t say anything you want and expect it to be taken as truth. You have to offer some credible evidence held together with logic. Again, I say these things, not to find fault with you because we are all part of the body of Christ but so you can take this knowledge and apply it to your study so that you will grow in a greater knowledge of how to approach God’s Word to arrive at truth.

            I pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to open our eyes as we seek first His kingdom and His righteousness.

            Be blessed in all things~
            Barbara

  11. Thanks you brother for such clear explanation on the different moods in the Greek language … very helpful.