Heb. 6:6

From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Sat Aug 19 1995 - 16:48:44 EDT


David Willis here,

I figured out how to read the MIME encoded file attached to the digest #827.
 If you associate .mme files with Windows Write you can read it. Here is the
part that was missing:

-----------------------

------------------------------

From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:55:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6

>David Willis here responding to Rod Decker who wrote,
>
>>>
>2. The shift in form from aor. to present is prob. significant. Note that
>the first group is linked by a 'kai...te...te' sequence. The ptcp. 'fall
>away' is most directly affected by this link as it would argue that it is
>parallel with the earlier ptcps. and is not conditional (as some Eng.
>versions transl.). I think that the pres. ptcps. ff. can only make good
>sense as causal and not temporal. (There would have to be some
>other indication in the context to make them temporal, not just the pres.
>tense,
...
>I think you have that "other indication" in the use of the adverb "once" in
>6:4.

I'm not sure how you think that "once" (= hapax) in v. 4 affects the
temporal nature of the ptcp. in v.6. Could you be more explicit? In v. 4,
'hapax phwtisthentas' is an alternative way of saying 'regenerated'
('phwtizw' is almost a tech. term for regeneration in the NT). I.e., once a
person has been regenerated, if he then 'falls away' v. 6 (which I
explained in my orig. post), it is impossible, etc. BECAUSE this is the
significance of what they have done: 'anastaurountas, etc.' To make it
temporal would be like saying that you can't stop pouring water while
you're pouring water. I.e., 'you can't stop falling away while you're
falling away.' A temporal explanation sounds good at first glance, but it
is tautological. If I'm missing something as to how 'once' in v. 4 changes
this, please clue me in.

Rod

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
                                        Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

From: David Coomler <davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 16:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: J 1:1

On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:

KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
>
> Anyway, Colwell argued that THEOS in J 1:1 has a greater probability of
being
> translated "God" (definite), not "a god" (indefinite), since 87% of
definite
> predicates preceding the verb in the GNT are anarthrous.

My understanding is that neither is really accurate, and that when
translating it into English it becomes descriptive--in other words, "god"
with a small g. The word was neither completely identical with God (big
G), nor simply an individual god ("a god"), but rather god in an
adjectival sense--or as some translate it, "divine." I think "the word
was god" or "the word was divine" are both more accurate than either of
the two extremes of making the word absolutely identical with God or a
separate god.

David

------------------------------

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6

Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com> wrote:
Re: Heb. 6:6

>In v. 4,
>'hapax phwtisthentas' is an alternative way of saying 'regenerated'
>('phwtizw' is almost a tech. term for regeneration in the NT). I.e., once a
>person has been regenerated, if he then 'falls away' v. 6 (which I
>explained in my orig. post), it is impossible, etc. BECAUSE this is the
>significance of what they have done: 'anastaurountas, etc.'

        It doesn't look as though the data on FWTIZW supports your
assertion for a t.t., Rod. But no matter how one understands FWTISQENTAS
in v. 4, IMO, one must take into account the larger context of what the
New Testament says about the unpardonable sin in order to understand what
is being said in Heb. 6:4-8 about this matter.

        The context in which Jesus pronounced sin against the holy Spirit
to be unpardonable, was the ocasion of the Pharisees tactic of claiming
that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the prince of demons.
By pointing out that the Pharisees were aware of the kind of power that
was needed to cast out demons (Mat. 12:27-29; Lu. 11:19,20), Jesus
illustrated that they were not slandering out of ignorance but with full
knowledge that they were resisting and blaspheming the work of God.

        Something similar also appears to be the case with those mentioned
in Heb. 6:4-8. Their sin had not been for lack of understanding, of
experience, or of power. Rather, their sin had been committed with the
full light of understanding. If we take Hebrews as most interpreters do,
believing it was written to Jewish believers who were facing strong
temptation to deny Christ and return to the Jewish cultus, we might expect
that the _sin_ referred to in this passage is some sort of radical and
public reject ion of Christ.

        Then, there is the matter of the previous state of those souls
referred to here who have fallen beyond hope. (That is the implication of
PARAPESONTES since the compounding of PESONTES with the preposition PARA
serves to intensify of the verb's meaning and to imply enduring results.)
We know, from what is said of them, that they have had some fairly close
relation to the things of God. But we also know that they are destitute
of eternal life. It may be that they have had some form of temporal faith
as we find in the parable of the sower typified in two of the types of
soil that produce no fruit. (Cf. Heb. 6:7,8.) Is it necessary to be more
specific?

        We should not overlook that the verses following this passage
sound a contrasting note of hope, essentially holding out the certainty of
salvation to those whose lives show the sincerity of their faith.

David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education

------------------------------

From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:25:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6

David Willis here responding to Rod Decker,

RD<<. (There would have to be some
>other indication in the context to make them temporal, not just the pres.
>tense,
...
DW>I think you have that "other indication" in the use of the adverb "once"
in
>6:4.

RD<<I'm not sure how you think that "once" (= hapax) in v. 4 affects the
temporal nature of the ptcp. in v.6. Could you be more explicit?>>

I simply was pointing out (as you requested) something else in the context
that would indicate that a a juxtaposition of the time (in relation to the
leading verb, ~adunaton~"it is impossible") of the participles was what was
intended rather than a causal relationship. To show a temporal adverb is
used in the series of aorist participles which are followed by present
participles would be further evidence (besides the shift to the present
participle) that there was intended a temporal significance by this shift.

Although I did not (and do not) choose to dispute this point in our language
forum (as opposed to a doctrinal forum), I do not accept your
"non-soteriological" explanation for "falling away." I take the words to
mean (as they seem to mean when understood in their most natural
interpretation) that a person who is once spiritually saved, can indeed
become spiritually lost.

<<To make it
temporal would be like saying that you can't stop pouring water while
you're pouring water. I.e., 'you can't stop falling away while you're
falling away.' A temporal explanation sounds good at first glance, but it
is tautological. If I'm missing something as to how 'once' in v. 4 changes
this, please clue me in.>>

While it is true that many of these participles are only different terms to
express the same concept of "falling away", I don't accept that this temporal
understanding is a mere tautology. I would say that it is not a tautology to
say of someone, "once you have fallen into the water, it is impossible to dry
off, so long as you are remaining in the water." This seems quite similar
to what is expressed here. At least in my opinion. Thanks for the reply.

David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858

------------------------------

End of b-greek-digest V1 #827



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT