Question #1:
Hello,
I had a Greek question:
Are the terms "apostrepho" and "epistrepho" interchangeable? It seems
the word "apo" denotes some sort of separation which seems to be
permanent in some contexts. Does the usage of "apo" necessarily imply
something permanent or unchangeable?
I also have made note of the term "apoplanao apo" but elsewhere "planao
apo" (indistinguishable in the English) - is this just the phrasing of
the writer and therefore interchangeable, or does the extra "apo" in "apoplanao
apo" imply something deeper or permanent?
Thank you for your time,
In Jesus.
Response #1:
Dear Friend,
Prepositions in Greek (of which apo and epi are two) have a basic
geographical reference but also variety of meanings qua preposition
depending on the case with which they are employed; but they also often
mean something different "in composition", that is, when affixed to a
verb or noun. In this case, apo usually means "away from" while
epi
usually means towards. The other complication here is that words "mean
what they mean" in any given language. That is to say, one cannot deduce
meaning for certain merely from etymology. One has to see how the words
were (in this case) used in the language at the time. This may or may
not comport with what we might expect based upon the etymology. In the
case of the two verbs you ask about, strepho means "to turn" (cf.
"strophe"); apostrepho means "to turn away from" and
epistrepho means
"to turn towards", at least most of the time in both cases. These words
are common and go back to classical times so that the likelihood of them
having been employed differently in the Bible is very low. Also, they
are not interchangeable, and I note that the former (strepho with
apo)
is generally used in the New Testament for turning away from God and the
latter (strepho with epi) for turning towards Him (when used in a
relationship sense rather than in a purely geographical sense).
Re: "Does the usage of "apo" necessarily imply something permanent or
unchangeable?" No, there's nothing in the this preposition – or any
preposition – which contains anything like this. Prepositions were
original directional adverbs, and that is seen clearly in both apo and
epi, being direction away from and direction towards respectively. As
mentioned, one would have to consider the individual words to which they
are attached to say more.
In terms of apoplanao apo versus planao apo, it is typical of Greek to
use the preposition twice, once in compound on a verb and then also
before the object of the preposition. Sometimes they do; sometimes they
don't. So yes, in general, I would call this a stylistic thing. However,
every context is different and every writer is different, so I wouldn't
want to make any general kind of rule for this. I would want to read the
passage in question rather than making a rule.
If you mean 1st Timothy 6:10 (both uses of apo) versus James 5:19 (only
one apo), I will note that there is a slight difference in the verbs
because apoplanao is not exactly the same as planao, the former being
slightly more intensive (that is another thing prepositions can effect
"in composition", i.e., when prefixed; compare strophe vs. catastrophe).
But the ideas are similar in both cases, namely, that of turning someone
away [from deception] (active in James); but of being turned away [from
faith] (passive in 1Tim.).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
I appreciate your response.
Apo = away, Epi = towards makes sense, only I have noted that Hebrews
12:25 uses “apostrepho” while 2 Peter 2:21 uses “epistrepho” while both
seem to imply the same meaning.
Is this a “stylistic exception” as “epi” here obviously refers to
turning away from God?
As far as 1 Tim. vs James, I was guessing that the “double apo” used by
Paul was meant to emphasize some sort of “intensity” as you put it.
James gives hope for those he describes as “planao apo”, is Paul on the
contrary trying to imply that the people he describes have gone too far
and fully apostasized and beyond what James describes by his expression
of “double apo”?
(I'm not sure of a distinction in English, but when I saw the “double
apo” in Greek, I wondered…)
If not, what purpose would there be for the “double apo” intensity?
(Paul also uses the word “astocheo” in his Epistles to Timothy in pretty
much the same context and is indistinguishable in English, would you
also call this word and its usage an interchangeable
expression/stylistic compared to the other expressions?)
Also, Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22 seem to use planao and apoplanao I'm
not mistaken? Stylistic?
Response #2:
Hello Friend,
Epistrepho doesn't occur in 2nd Peter 2:21.
In regard to the "double apo", as mentioned, that is a very typical
thing in Greek. It would be a mistake to try and make much of anything
out of it. It's just the way Greeks say things.
Paul does use astocheo on several occasions for turning away from the
faith and the truth; I would consider it a bit more intensive; it means
to miss the mark as opposed to turning away – visible action versus
change of direction – but the ideas are synonymous. Again, one has to
examine an entire context. One cannot say "this word means precisely X
and so we can always draw conclusion Y from its use".
On Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22, these passages are relating the same
event only they are written by different authors who chose different
vocabulary, so, yes, they mean the same thing (i.e., potential
apostasy). One would have to get into the stylistic differences between
Matthew's style (written earlier and for a Hebrew audience) and Mark's
style (written later and for a mixed Jewish/gentile audience in Rome) to
explain different word choices.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hello again,
I see "epistrepho" used in the term "turn from" in 2 Peter 2:21 in both strongs
and blueletterbible?
Just to sum up this correspondence which I appreciate, regarding Paul, would you
say his word choices of "double apo" and "astocheo" in 1 Tim. 1:6, and 6:10 and
21 are "intensive" in order to communicate an example of ultimate apostasy - or
rather to emphasize the seriousness of the matter and therefore said people
could be along the lines of 1 Tim. 1:19-20 where there was hope in spite of
shipwreck?
Lastly, you are saying that Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22 are not expressing a
different meaning - but the same thing regardless of the word choice, and are
therefore interchangeable, correct?
Response #3:
1) In 2nd Peter 2:21, epistrepho is what the Textus Receptus reads, but
it is incorrect. None of the ancient manuscripts has this (it is a
mistake found only in some late versions of the text).
2) The language is very clear. I don't think, however, that the double
use of apo is significant (as mentioned, this is common usage in Greek).
3) The passages relate the same conversation of our Lord with His
disciples and thus mean the same thing even though expressed marginally
differently.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Thank you again for your time.
From this I get that in Scripture the same words sometimes carry the
same meaning, but aren’t necessarily locked to one meaning and can be
used in different ways throughout Scripture, I'm curious as to how you
interpret those Timothy passages from a Greek perspective.
I’ve understood them to be examples of a place someone wouldn't want to
end up, but sometimes I check which words are used in Greek, and
wondered if the strong language in Greek is implying something further.
In your Greek reading, do you believe these people Paul refers to in the
verses I quoted are “lost cases”, or simply “scenarios to avoid” where
“the Lord knows those that are His”?
Sorry to press you, just wanted a Greek perspective on all these uses
and appreciate the opportunity to ask.
Response #4:
On 1), yes and no. Words mean what they mean. Our job as Bible teachers
with the gift thereof and preparation in the languages is to discern
what the precise meaning is in any given context. On the one hand, a
word does not have one inflexible English equivalent that never varies
(for one thing, the semantic scope of any word in any foreign language
is very unlikely to be identical to any one word in English); on the
other hand, just because Strongs or a lexicon has meaning "X" listed for
word "Y", does not at all mean that I can plug "X" in anywhere "Y"
occurs and be correct. Context and the subtleties of the language and
the particular grammar play out-sized roles. As one person once quipped,
"How long you been in this country? Three miles only?" There's nothing
technically wrong with this, but any native English speaker can easily
tell that it's not been said by a native speaker. In other words,
translation is first and foremost a matter of really knowing the
language well; secondarily of knowing the subject matter well.
On 2), re: the Timothy passages as "examples of a place someone wouldn't
want to end up", I think that is very clear from any reasonable English
translation. As to "something further", obviously these are "scenarios
to avoid" but in terms of "lost cases", if you mean the impossibility of
repentance, we'd have to take them one at a time. 1st Timothy 6:21 is
speaking of apostasy. So the individuals in question there who have
departed from the faith are on their way to hell . . . absent
repentance. Now when it comes to apostasy, I can't think of any biblical
cases where anyone has reverted to unbelief (which is what apostasy is),
and then come back to the faith. But I also don't know of any passages
which proclaim that to be impossible – and there are plenty of
Christians, genuine believers, who, in their own experience, are unsure
as to whether in their own "prodigal son" experiences of the past their
faith had completely died out or "the seed remained in them" (1Jn.3:9).
Personally, I think that in most if not all of such cases, it is a case
of the latter, but it is of no matter because all who believe in Christ
are saved; only unbelievers are not saved (Jn.3:18). Christ died for all
sin, and the Father wants all to be saved, so while it seems unlikely
and while I know of no biblical example of it happening, I would be
loath to pronounce recovery from apostasy impossible. That's not
something that can be deduced one way or another from the use of the
Greek prepositions (if that is what you are asking). Here is a link
which might be helpful: in
BB 3B: "Apostasy and the Sin unto Death".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Thank you for the explanation.
It is helpful, only sometimes I know believers can “err from the
faith/truth” and then come back before going to far being they still
have some faith in them.
I was thinking that these instances Paul mentions can potentially be
such cases where only God knows if they came back or not (nonetheless a
strong warning to us of a dangerous game to play) - unless again the
“intense language” suggests a true full apostasy as you seem to think
about 1 Tim. 6:21.
I think those examples can be either or, unless you say that the Greek
“intense language” denotes it can be a true full apostasy in question?
Also, 1 Tim. 6:10 to me seems like again, they can be people who went
astray after their lusts and as a result reaped the negative
consequences, but are not necessarily full apostates, perhaps some
retained some faith and eventually turned back as a result of the “many
sorrows”…is this out of the question in your view based on the Greek and
the word “astocheo”?
Response #5:
My pleasure.
It is the case that it is all about faith. Loss of faith in Christ is
apostasy. This is different from getting involved in gross sinfulness,
although that can lead to apostasy. The ins and outs of this issue are
covered at the link: in
BB 3B: Hamartiology: "Apostasy and the Sin unto
Death".
Every passage has to considered on its own terms. In the case of 1st
Timothy 6:20-21, the individuals Paul is talking about are evangelizing
for evil, specifically for Gnosticism, which was (and continues to be
under other names) one of the devil's more virulent attacks on the
Christian faith (see the links: "Gnosticism" in Hebrews One; and in
Peter #39: "Jude on Gnosticism"). Also, since Paul contrasts this threat
with his injunction to Timothy to "guard his deposit" (meaning his
salvation and the reward connected to it), it seems clear that it's a
moot point: this behavior on the part of these individuals is at the
very least the road to perdition and needs to be avoided regardless of
how far along it these individuals have gone along it, whether all the
way to the loss of faith (which seems clear to me), or still hanging on
by their fingernails.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Got it.
I have read your “sin unto death and apostasy” and the I'm generally and
very close in agreement and I appreciate it.
Again, Hymaneus and Alexander also went into/were teaching doctrinal
error yet there was hope for them to repent (perhaps they also had
gnostic influence for all we know), that said, do you dogmatically
believe that the Greek implies 1 Tim. 6:21 individuals are complete
apostates, or rather perhaps as you said “on a road to perdition” BUT a
case by case basis of said individuals as to whether or not they’ve
ultimately lost their faith and are therefore lost?
Likewise I'd really appreciate you're perspective on 1 Tim. 6:10
regarding my question as phrased in the previous email.
I understand these concepts, but really want your opinion regarding
these cases/verses from this angle with a Greek reading in mind.
Hate to be monotonous, but again, I appreciate the continued
correspondence as I press on these questions.
Response #6:
Here's what I read:
. . . holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1st Timothy 1:19-20 NIV
Paul says that Hymenaeus and Alexander are "among those" who have "rejected" (lit., "pushed away") their "good conscience" and as a result have "suffered shipwreck" concerning their faith. This is why Paul has handed them over to Satan. He did this also with the incestuous Corinthian young man who did turn around, and that is the object of the "sin unto death" which Paul, as an apostle, had the special right to administer himself. We know that this was his purpose on the other occasion because he says so:
. . . [to] hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
1st Corinthians 5:5 NIV
Here he does the same so that they might be "taught not to blaspheme". These two were enlisted in the devil's service, so I'm not sure if Paul knew for certain whether or not there was still a spark of faith left in them (he may have been given special insight that we, not being apostles, don't have). But "suffering shipwreck" concerning one's faith from a defiled conscience is not a good sign at the very least. If it is not representing being in complete apostasy, certainly it means being well on the road to it. As mentioned, that is how I interpret it. We find Hymenaeus coming in for more criticism in 2nd Timothy:
Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
2nd Timothy 2:17-19 NIV
Not only has he (and P.) "departed from the truth" but they were
"destroying the faith of some". Again, if this is not apostasy, it's
behavior that apostates would engage in and not consistent with being a
believer.
I'm a bit reluctant to say so absolutely one way or another because, as
the above discussion suggests, when we are talking about apostasy versus
those under the sin unto death, it's essentially "a difference without a
distinction" in terms of how the individuals behave and how we believers
following Jesus as we should need to behave towards them. It does make
huge difference to their eternal future, but the very possibility of the
former versus the latter status ought to "scare straight" any believer
tempted to follow in their footsteps. Also, since one cannot be
dogmatic, in my view, about whether or not it's possible for someone who
once believed and definitely apostatized to ever come back to the faith
thereafter (since Christ died for all, it's difficult to put up an
unbendable theological objection to this in principle, in my view), it
wouldn't matter either way. If they are lost, perhaps they might come
back. If they're not lost, they are headed that way so completely and
swiftly that it also might not matter in the end.
The practical point of this is that we, as believers in this world,
fighting this fight, often cannot tell the exact spiritual status of
others. So we need to be very careful about making judgments (e.g.,
Matt.7:1; 1Cor.4:5). We get indications from what they say and what they
do as to whether or not they are believers and as to what their level of
spiritual maturity is, but only God knows the heart. If we were living
in the first century, we might say of Paul before his conversion, "I'm
not sure about some of those Pharisees, but that fellow Paul is going to
hell for certain!" That was not a case of apostasy, of course, and, as
mentioned, I don't know of any biblical case of someone who was once a
believer and then apostatized and then came back to the faith. I don't
think we can say it's impossible (even if it's never happened). We can
say that it is VERY unlikely at best – and we need to resolve NEVER to
let ourselves get anywhere near that crossroads.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Hello,
Im sorry for such a late response, its been rather hectic for me, but I
do want to respond oncmore, as this has gotten very deep and I realize
we had to go back and forth on some fine details so that we are on the
same page.
Yes I'm probably in agreement with everything you said about 90 to maybe
even 99%.
As far as "since Christ died for all, it's difficult to put up an
bendable theological objection to this in principle, in my view", I find
it very difficult to understand how those who say otherwise are not
blaspheming the cross of Christ, I believe if the Lord is not holding
them guilty for such a thing it is only because they themselves believe
in Him and therefore in His mercy and will for all men to be saved, he
has mercy on them being that they are ignorant and brainwashed with this
false doctrine - the Bible is crystal clear that Christ died for EVERY
man, amen, and amen!
1 - "Not only has he (and P.) "departed from the truth" but they
"destroying the faith of some". Again, if this is not apostasy, it's
behavior that apostates would engage in and not consistent with being a
believer." - In this you mean the behavior is not consistent with being
a believer, though said person may still have a spark of faith which may
by the grace of God eventually turn him back around, correct?
2 - As far as "someone truly apostatizing and then coming back", while
ill accept your statement to not be dogmatic, I don't think its really
possible to truly and fully apostatize and come back, but I think one
can tragically go very far and still hold a spark of faith and not be
completely lost and eventually come back, by the mercy of God, and I
think this does happen and Scripture does leave room for it, as do these
verses (though its a very dangerous situation). Are we in agreement with
the ladder part of this statement?
3 - "If they are lost, perhaps they might come back. If they're not
lost, they are headed that way so completely and swiftly that it also
isn't going to matter in the end." - To say "it isn't going to matter in
the end" doesn't sit well with me, wouldn't you agree that concerning
the ladder it CAN matter in the end in that if said persons are not lost
(they retain maybe a spark of faith that perhaps only the Lord cans see)
yet sadly are completely and swiftly heading in that direction - that
"spark of faith retained which only the Lord can see" is enough to
perhaps turn them back at the right moment by Gods grace before that
final spark is extinguished?
4 - Back to my original questions on those verses, I think you are
saying that you cannot be dogmatic even in the Greek as to whether said
people described as " apoplanao apo" or "astocheo" are ALL ultimately
apostates as opposed to some perhaps not being full blown apostates but
are nonetheless on that path and in imminent danger of officially
becoming one - in the sense that some may be tragically on that path yet
retain "a spark of faith" that perhaps only the Lord can see, which
hopefully in turn will bring about repentance before its too late.
Therefore the verses in question aren't meant to rule out this
possibility but rather to warn of the dangers of apostasy AND/OR the
dangerous path to it. Are you in agreement with this even in the Greek
reading? This is really my only question, I hope you can simply answer
it head on, as this is what I believe on these verses and wanted either
a verification or otherwise from a Greek perspective.
5 - I think the church regularly experiences (though its an exception
rather than a norm) where people "depart from the faith" in the sense
that they leave fellowship and "live in the world" for a season due to
one lust or another, yet retain some faith and eventually repent.
Wouldn't you agree or have you not seen this phenomenon?
In such cases, serious as they are, couldn't such people have fit Pauls
description of whom he describes as "apoplanao apo or astocheo" for a
season - yet be some who didn't ultimately become apostate?
(I am not personally aware of such cases who "departed or strayed" for a
season to pursue riches - but I don't think there is dogmatically a
difference between such and those who did so for some carnal lust)
Thank you.
Response #7:
On what I consider the false doctrine of limited atonement (the "L" of
TULIP), I certainly agree.
1) I'm not saying it's impossible. But if someone is serving Satan
energetically, I think it beyond unlikely that they could be a believer
still, not only because of the behavior but also because of the Lord's
policy of taking believers out of this world by the sin unto death once
they are about to pass the point of no return if indeed they are the
type to retain "a spark" otherwise (cf. 1Jn.3:9; and see prior link).
2) These are hard things to parse theologically when scripture doesn't
(see prior answer).
3) Same issue as before; if someone is headed to apostasy full tilt, the
only way they are not getting to that final destination is divine
intervention (to which they respond) or if it is God's will to take them
out of life first via the sin unto death. The whole issue here is one of
free will. What does the person actually WANT? Only God can know that.
And He does. In the reality of the plan of God, of which there is only
one, the fact is that person X was saved and person Y was not . . .
because the former wanted to be saved and was willing to be saved while
the latter was not. God knows the difference, and God gives us this life
and the experiences of it to show to us and to all where our true heart
was. It's not a question of theoretical hypotheticals. It did or did not
happen in the actual plan of God according to the free will choices of
everyone created with the image of God.
4) Re: "this is really my only question, I hope you can simply answer it
head on". If you want a yes or no answer you'll have to simplify the
question to be able to be answered yes or no. If you can ask it "head
on", I'll be happy to try to answer it "head on".
5) Of course. There are many "prodigal sons". That is the classical
biblical example of individuals who get out of fellowship but then do
come back. The question we are asking above, however, it seems to me is
one of faith, not of behavior. This is a critical point that most
evangelicals seem not to understand. People go to hell because of lack
of faith, not because of sin. Sin does influence faith, weakening it.
But Christ died for our sins and all believers are saved (Jn.3:18).
There is a lot about all that at the prior links.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Hello again,
You replied:
4) Re: "this is really my only question, I hope you can simply answer it
head on". If you want a yes or no answer you'll have to simplify the
question to be able to be answered yes or no. If you can ask it "head
on", I'll be happy to try to answer it "head on".
I reply:
Concerning 1 Tim 1:5-7, 6:9-10, 6:20-21, particularly the verses in
chapter 6, in the past I have without a second thought believed these to
be full blown apostates, but over time as my knowledge and insight
increased I'm not so sure its that simple, I now believe that these are
a lump sum of people who have "erred" and gone off the right path one
way or another...i believe this "lump sum" is a place every believer
should fear and strive to avoid even getting close to, YET I believe
this "lump sum" contains BOTH full blown apostates AND people who are
not yet completely apostate but are heading in that direction and who
may indeed turn out to be prodigals - but the emphasis here being a
warning against the dangerous path of error and going astray...i think a
prodigal who is not yet returned is often definitely in question as to
whether or not he is still saved among the community of those who have
not gone off the right path, and therefore fit the description/example
in the verses stated...
This is my interpretation and I believe it to be correct.
Therefore, I don't believe the intent of Paul is necessarily to state
that said "lump sum" are definitely all lost, but rather to lump all
such people together as an example of error and a warning to stay far
from such a scenario as it is dangerous and may end tragically and
definitely has for some.
My only concern with this interpretation which I believe to be correct
is noticing the Greek language to be seemingly "heavy" as discussed.
"apoplanao apo" and "astocheo" seemed even to my unlearned observation
to be heavier than for instance James' simple "planao". So again I am
left to conclude based on this that there are 2 possible reasons for the
"heavy language" used by Paul:
A - to emphasize and depict these people as a tragic and sobering
example of becoming fully apostate and "twice dead"
or
B - to intensify the seriousness and warning of this terrible path and
its consequences for the whole "lump sum" since it is the same path only
the apostates have went all the way down it - and therefore for the
emphasis of intense language to also make sense for describing such as
are not fully apostate, it would have to be in highlighting that they
have gone onto such a dangerous path that even now there is consequence
(surely an erring child who is still a child "pierces himself through
with many sorrows") and very possibly may end apostate if they don't
repent, and in such cases it usually really is a case of "the Lord knows
those that are His" - and such cases do qualify as being worthy of a
warning alongside apostates saying "look at the path these people ended
up on who knows if they'll repent look how far they've gone, do you want
to end up twice dead or on the very brink of it where only the Lord
knows if you're still His?!?!" - (and therefore reason B would not be to
communicate an ultimate example of apostasy - at least not exclusively)
...again yet even more simply, such strong language in Greek could be:
A - to communicate that these people are apostate
B - to emphasize the severity and seriousness of both apostasy and the
horror of those in error who are now on the path to apostasy and in
danger of losing their salvation if they don't repent
If my interpretation is correct, the reason for the strong language in
Greek would have to be reason B, and for this to be true it would have
to be that the Greek language does not necessitate a meaning of true and
full separation from God and the faith by the phrases/word choice
mentioned, which is really my question.
Simplified question "to be answered yes or no":
Is my interpretation acceptable and even possible considering the heavy
Greek language (Yes),
or does the heavy Greek language "apoplanao apo - astocheo" not allow
for my interpretation (No)?
I have truly done my best to be articulate and precise and to conclude
my question in a simple yes or no format and I hope that you can answer
it so.
I know every verse is important so it would mean a lot to me to have
this answered as its that Greek that's making me scrutinize my
interpretation.
Please excuse any redundancy.
Thank you very much.
P.S. Not sure what you mean by serving satan energetically, perhaps
someone teaching error is being hard-headed/hearted for one reason or
another and/or deceived/self deceived for one reason or another, yet
still retains some faith in Jesus and will yet repent of the doctrinal
error eventually, if this was not the case and not possible I don't
think the Holy Spirit would have included the "giving over of Hymaneus
and Alexander to satan (obviously so they would repent)" in Scripture,
this surely shows one can recover from "shipwreck of faith".
P.S.S. After rereading your earlier response I realize you meant
something different by what I reacted to regarding unlimited atonement,
but I rejoice in your standing on the truth of the matter which many
people twist and turn upside down beyond my comprehension, so praise
God.
In Jesus.
Response #8:
Good to hear back from you.
In terms of 1Tim.1:5-7 (turned aside and gone astray), and 1Tim.6:9-10 (strayed
from the faith), if I'm understanding you correctly, I would agree that these
express dire situations without at the same time proclaiming absolute (now) or
unrecoverable (then) apostasy. "If the shoe fits, wear it" (and only "if"). In
terms of 1Tim.6:20-21, evangelizing for evil is a further step. There is a point
of no return – because the individual is so set in his ways so as not to ever be
willing to return no matter what, not because of any lack of mercy on God's
part. In short, there is a difference between a prodigal and a servant of Satan.
To start with the end: the men who were teaching error were not akin to
pastors/groups today who/which are putatively and possibly Christian while
confused (willfully or not) on certain points of doctrine. By that I mean, there
is a difference between Calvinists and Roman Catholics, between Baptists and
Mormons. The first of the two in each case are generally saved; the second
generally not (if ever) saved. Someone who wrongly teaches limited atonement is
different from someone who teaches that you can't be saved unless you are RC.
Someone who wrongly teaches water-baptism is different from someone who teaches
a materialistic god and the possibility of becoming one as well. The former pair
of each set is "teaching error" but the second is teaching a complete
abandonment of faith. From the contexts and also from what we know about
Gnosticism, it is clear those who are proselytizing for "what is falsely called
knowledge" are analogous to the "all in for Mormonism" group, etc. There is no
way I can see whereby someone who is teaching and evangelizing for a heresy that
is destructive to faith can be saved. But whether or not those doing such things
still have a spark of faith or not if previously saved is something only God can
know. I take your point about the reason for the "handing over to Satan", but
scripture actually says "so that they may be taught not to blaspheme"; that is
substantially different from the reason Paul adduces for handing over the young
man in Corinth: "so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus"
(1Cor.5:5).
There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.
1st John 5:16b NKJV
What is true of involvement in gross sin is doubtless true of willful turning
away from the Lord as well. Only God knows the heart, but John, above, suggests
that a well-informed mature believer is able to draw reasonable conclusions
based upon observation of behavior (gross sin embraced and not repented of for
the sin unto death; serving the devil in proffering lies for apostasy); we are
not "the Judge"; we have to allow for the possibility that we are wrong; but we
do have eyes in our head, spiritual informed if we have grown to spiritual
maturity, and we are responsible for acting accordingly (as in not associating
with either type or expecting anything in their case from prayers or
intervention).
So I'm not exactly clear about what you mean by "lump sum"; also, there are some
other aspects of your interpretation which, while perhaps clear to you, are a
bit confusing to me. I've done my best to address the main points here. Do feel
free to write back.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Hello,
Thank you, as this is quite a deep and stretched out exchange. Forgive
me for not responding to all your points at the moment, I just want to
focus in on my main point so as not to get off topic.
I believe you answered my question in your first sentence, so let me
just reiterate to make sure:
You said: In terms of 1Tim.1:5-7 (turned aside and gone astray), and
1Tim.6:9-10 (strayed from the faith), if I'm understanding you
correctly, I would agree that these express dire situations without at
the same time proclaiming absolute (now) or unrecoverable (then)
apostasy.
1 - By "lump sum" I mean both those for whom it is "absolute and
unrecoverable" as you worded it - and those for whom it is not absolute
and unrecoverable.
So you are saying you agree that there is room for both in the verses
you referenced, correct?
Again, I just wanted to be clear on if the strong language "astocheo and
apoplanao apo" used necessitate "absolute and unrecoverable" - and
therefore were used for the point of expressing that absoluteness -
that's all - that's what I've been trying to ask?
2 - I also want to respond that "to be given over to satan to learn not
to blaspheme" seems pretty clear to be discipline and a Holy Spirit
inspired possibility of recovery; I'm pretty sure I've even seen you
interpreting it that way somewhere in your writings or emails in the
past.
Why would a full blown apostate need to be taught not to blaspheme since
they are perpetual blasphemers? It does not say "that they may be
punished for their blasphemy" or "that they may stop their spread of
blasphemy", it says "that they may learn not to blaspheme".
I would be really surprised if we could not agree that this is
correction so that the person may repent and recover, regardless of
whether they ended up doing so.
In Jesus.
Response #9:
My pleasure.
1) Yes, I agree: probably apostasy but not necessarily/absolutely (only
God knows the heart), but definitely a dire situation every believers
should wish to avoid.
2) As mentioned, 1st Corinthians chapter five is different because the
reason expressed is different (namely, "that his spirit may be saved").
That means the sin unto death before apostasy – but the man repented as
we know from the next letter. Here there is no indication of repentance
later. In fact, both men (Hymenaeus: 2Tim.2:17) and Alexander
(2Tim.4:14) are described in what seems to be "unbeliever" terms in the
next epistle to Timothy. Why taught not to "blaspheme"? The word has
special connotations in English which are not necessarily present in the
Greek. It means "to speak evil" about someone. In the context, it seems
clear that the "blasphemy" or "bad speaking" is against the truth,
leading believers astray; i.e., teaching Gnosticism in the service of
Satan. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the above is mine
(given twice now, at least). On the other hand, there is also
Philippians 1:12-18 where those said by Paul to be believers are
"preaching Christ" but doing so in an "unholy way".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Hello,
Well thank you very much.
1 - And just to kind of drive the point home, forgive me as I think its
clear we're clearly on the same page (its not everyday I am able to
check things with someone fluent in ancient Greek):
1) Yes, I agree: probably apostasy but not necessarily/absolutely (only
God knows the heart), but definitely a dire situation every believers
should wish to avoid. - This would mean that "astocheo and apoplanao apo"
do not force an interpretation of being absolute and werent used here
for the intent of expressing absoluteness, correct? (even though in your
view 1 Tim. 6: 20-21 are absolute where "astocheo" is also used)?
2 - With respect, this is your answer to someone on a question, perhaps
your view has changed...:
Response #21:
In 1st Timothy 1:20, Paul states that his purpose in initiating the "sin
unto death" for these two (for that is what apostolic "handing over to
Satan" amounts to; compare 1st Corinthians 5:5) was to "teach" these two
a lesson . . . so that they might respond, turn from their wickedness,
and thus be saved (as in the case of the incestuous Corinthian: "that
his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"). However, God is
sovereign in all things and He also honors the free will of every human
being. I like to think that Hymenaeus did respond to this pressure (or
at least that he did not desert his faith even if he did die as a
consequence of his actions), for he is never mentioned in scripture
again. Alexander, however, is mentioned again, in Paul's final epistle:
Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him
according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly
resisted our words.
2nd Timothy 4:14-15
The way Paul phrases this leads me to believe that instead of responding
positively to the duress of being "handed over to Satan", or leaving
this life through the sin unto death (but still with his faith "by the
skin of his teeth"), Alexander abandoned his faith entirely in the face
of this pressure. That, after all, is what apostasy usually amounts to,
namely, reacting to divine discipline or some other troubles or
tribulations which one finds "unfair", blaming God, being unwilling to
respond to God's corrective actions or bear up under testing, or being
unwilling to let go of sin, and then in a desire to escape the
consequences abandoning one's faith along with any and all allegiance to
Jesus Christ.
3 - Lastly, and I think this should sum up our discussion, regarding
your comments in the email before last about true Christianity which
teaches error vs completely false Christianity in relation to 1 Tim. 6:
20-21 (while obviously catholicism and mormonism are I think black and
white), let me comment back with an example:
I know of someone who had a powerful conversion to the Lord, changed
their whole life and put much effort into loving the brethren and
evangelizing for the Lord with his capacity, knows the Bible well,
understands and preaches the cross and salvation by grace through faith,
his testimony shows he experienced and understands grace and salvation.
After some years he got mixed up in some very sketchy circles who have
tremendous error, and I'm not even sure whether such circles are even
truly saved people based on their doctrine. This individual is of the
mindset that because the end time church will be apostate we are to
leave churches and form home groups, and basically every established
denomination is "bad" and wrong period and are lacking endtime
revelation. Said person has started to lead his own private Bible
studies and is very zealous, he seems to really love the Lord, but among
his teaching is an aggressive "dietary reform" beyond Torah based
restrictions, no meats - some form of veganism, elevation of mandatory
sabbath keeping (he says God is gracious and long suffering - but that
ultimately this will be a dividing line of apostasy, particularly "end
time apostasy"). Such things are taught to be "endtime
revelations"...these are very sad and grievous stumbling blocks, 1 Tim.
4 comes to mind...
If I were a pastor I believe I would be obligated to warn the flock
about such a person by name. Yet I'm confused whether said person is
completely apostate and twice dead, as I believe this individual has a
strong zeal and love for the Lord and the cross, I believe He really
understands Gods grace and salvation by grace through faith and preaches
it correctly. Yet once people get saved, he emphasizes those heresies as
important and expected of us to do "by Gods grace" and even as a pathway
to sanctification. I believe he also started incorporating dietary
reform/sabbath keeping as an apologetics tool in his evangelism" as a
claim to disproving truly false versions of Christianity like
catholicism/orthodoxy and how they went off the path and influenced the
rest. All this is of course "an endtime revelation" which the
established denominations are blind to.
This is scary stuff. But being that he still preaches a sound
Gospel/salvation message, and seems to still really trust in the Lord
and love Him, I wonder if its possible he still has "a few sparks of
faith in Him" by which he is kept saved - though in tremendous error and
even teaching it to others.
Do you think its possible such a one is still saved?
All our discussion and my questions have been for my own personal
understanding, this story only now came to mind as an example regarding
your interpretation of 1 Tim. 6:20-21.
I think such an individual most definitely fits those verses as an
example and warning to others, but is said person beyond coming around
by Gods grace through the faith he seems to retain in the Lord?
And if hes not beyond coming around, wouldn't that make said verses "not
absolute" also, but rather a "lump sum" of "absolute in some cases" and
"direly dangerous with uncertain outcome" in others?
In Jesus.
Response #10:
1) Unless there is a direct equivalent between a Greek and Hebrew word
and a theological condition / doctrine, then we have to judge from
context what is meant. For example, apostasia in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3
means "apostasy", leaving no doubt. But astocheo, "to
miss the mark"
and "apoplanao", "to wander away from" are not defined by scripture in
such absolute terms. They are figurative usages (a person miss a target or wander from home; here we are talking about faith, so
without a context we should assume that coming back is a possibility).
2) Two sides of the same coin. If we are not sure, then it could be
heads or tails. There is evidence both ways in the case of these
individuals as mentioned several times before. There is difference in
the language between the two cases of apostolic "handing over" with the
one more confident of positive result than the other. If someone is
under "the sin unto death" it doesn't mean it's impossible for them to
recover, but John does say, " There is a sin unto death: I do not say
that he shall pray for it" (1Jn.5:16 KJV). If there is no point in
praying at that point, what does that tell us?
3) Regarding "completely false Christianity", I wouldn't want to put
things that way. There is false teaching and there are systems of false
teaching which are anything but Christian. The Gnosticism which the
individuals in our examples had embraced was a system of lies as bad as
Mormonism or Roman Catholicism, so bad that it's hard to see how anyone
embracing it could be saved. Rather, it prevented salvation for those
who accepted it as long as they did – in the same way that paganism
does. If a person starts preaching Hinduism would you say that they
might still be saved? Especially since they are leading others into
eternal damnation?
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what we conclude. God knows
the truth. And we know enough truth to stay away from such people. Your
friend is an example of the devil's clever tactics. Indeed, it's
virtually impossible to grow spiritually in any present-day denomination
and in most churches because 1) their understanding of the truth is
limited; 2) they are not interested in finding the truth or teaching it;
3) they substitute works or experiences for what the Lord wants. But
breaking away from what is bad and embracing what is worse (rank
legalism and aggressive false teaching) is a terrible bargain. But that
is the way Satan works. He is happy to have people stay in lukewarm
places and mindsets, and happier still when they are dragged into some
cult or cult-like situation so as to serve him all the better. Are any
of these people saved? No doubt some; possibly many. But what does our
Lord say?
"So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
Revelation 3:16 NIV
That is Laodicea, the present and final era of the Church Age. We can
only hope that once the Tribulation begins, some, at least, of these
lukewarm will be – finally – motivated to heat up. The alternative is
"the Great Apostasy".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
1 - So to your understanding the fact of the strong language choice by
Paul (stronger than elsewhere in Scripture for similar situations) is
not meant to express absolute terms, correct?
2 - Again, my point was that in your past email response to someone
which I referenced, what you said clearly agreed with me that what Paul
did was an act of discipline and that there was hope of their
repentance, whether it happened or not, regardless of where you stand
now, so I was surprised that you no longer believe that.
3 - I wouldn't call this person a friend necessarily, I don't know him
that well but I do know him. But while I agree with just about
everything you said, my point was just that such a person I think fits 1
Tim. 6:20-21, (and I think you agreed that such a person may still be
saved, though by a thread so to speak, and in danger of being "spit
out"), and this would therefore be an example to show that those verses
aren't absolute in every situation...
Please forgive me pressing you for the sake of my own clarity, and know
that this has been helpful in spite of the back and forth.
In Jesus.
Response #11:
1) It's not the strength so much as the meaning and the context (since,
as mentioned, there is no one-for-one theological reference for these
verbs).
2) Again, I don't see it that way. As mentioned. Two sides of the same
coin. All discipline even to unbelievers can be seen as merciful because
there is always "a chance" if a person is still alive. We are only
estimating the possibilities here as best we can from context and what
is said elsewhere about these individuals – in the same way we are
making applications in the world when confronted with incomplete
information as is always the case.
3) Understood. There are degrees of all of these things. There are
people of whom we are pretty sure they are saved but just off on the
wrong track; there are others of whom we are pretty sure they are lost
because of their service to the devil. But we have to have the humility
to understand that only God knows for certain. Practically speaking, we
may give a lifeline to the former, but with care (Jude 1:23); we should
stay away from the latter, even if it's possible they are not lost yet.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
1 - Thank you again for all your correspondence on these questions. As
per your previous reply: "1) Yes, I agree: probably apostasy but not
necessarily/absolutely (only God knows the heart), but definitely a dire
situation every believers should wish to avoid." - we agree on this, and
I understand your angle of interpretation, and all of your comments are
appreciated and helpful.
Only initially, you had said that those Greek word choices are rather
strong or "intense", that established, I just ask once more, for the
sake of putting to rest my speculation on this, simply: do those
"intense" word choices in this context force or intend to express
absolute terms? (I'm pretty sure the answer is no based on your reply I
quoted, I just want to be completely sure)
Response #12:
You are reading me correctly.
Question #13:
So the answer is no, the words "apoplanao" and "astocheo" do not require a
definition of absolute, neither did Paul choose these words in order to make his
statement absolute, correct?
Please excuse my redundancy on this sir...
Response #13:
As mentioned, the vocabulary items express a strong turn from faith but do not say or necessarily mean that faith has been abandoned. They don't mean it hasn't been, either. You have to get that from the totality of the context; you can't reduce the vocabulary words to a formula.
Question #14:
The way you worded it is exactly what I figured from the beginning - so
again please tell me if this is correct (I'm really sorry, this is just
my logic):
Paul didn't use those words in order to make the statements/examples
absolute (meaning irreversible and apostate - "faith abandoned" as you
put it), nor are the words themselves absolute forcing that meaning,
neither in and of themselves nor theologically as a pattern (even though
we can be sure that in many cases such individuals were/did become
apostate/"abandon faith").
Is this correct?
I'm driving you crazy at this point, but I really thank you for your
patience with me and my questions and digging.
I'm not sure if you celebrated “ I'm personally neutral, but if you did
I hope you had a blessed day.
In Jesus.
Response #14:
No worries, my friend.
Yes, I think what you have written here is correct. But of course it's
not the whole story. One can't read what he wrote (in English or in
Greek) and not get the impression – Holy Spirit empowered – that if
these individuals were not lost they were certainly headed that way,
absent repentance.
Hope you had a nice Easter too! To your point, I remember the cross and
the resurrection daily.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Hello,
Oh of course, I completely agree, my point was just trying to be sure
that my understanding was correct (that the verses and Greek wording
aren't giving/necessitating a strict example of only individuals who are
absolutely lost).
So if I have it right, what I stated is correct - but only with the
addition of keeping in mind that it is implied by the Holy Spirit in
those verses that any such individuals who are/were not yet lost,
are/were seriously heading towards/in danger of being lost...(and unless
such repent, they too will be lost), correct?
Thank you, I also personally prefer the idea of "Easter" being a daily
thing for a Christian as opposed to a big once a year thing, but I have
become neutral as I observe that many are sincere in their commemoration
and I believe the Lord honors it.
In Jesus.
Response #15:
Re: ". . . are/were seriously heading towards/in danger of being lost" .
. . or of dying the sin unto death (here's the link again where this
distinction is discussed).
It's a matter of faith in the end, not behavior. Behavior influences
faith – and vice versa – but all believers are saved; only unbelievers
are lost (Jn.3:18). And if they apostatize and abandon faith in Christ
completely, they are lost even if they had faith in Christ once upon a
time.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Understood, and I take it your addition to my comment means my summary and statement on the verses/Greek words etc. etc. is correct, and that there is room in the verses for "not yet lost cases", correct?
Response #16:
Correct!
Question #17:
Thank you.
Please excuse my late responses, and know I appreciate your consistency,
its a blessing to have access to a ministry which takes the time and
care to consistently respond to questions.
I know my questions have been rather meticulous, I hope that as a
teacher who strives to be precise and make sense of things you can
understand.
You had said earlier that "I think what you have stated is correct", but
you have now affirmed that with the additional comments you added, it is
correct - so you are definitely confirming that with your additions it
is correct yes?
If you have the nerves after all the time you've already given me, I
hope for just a brief answer on 2 more questions...
I'm curious if the words discussed in our exchange "apoplanao apo,
astocheo" are interchangeable with the words we mentioned earlier in the
discussion "apostrepho, planao" (as I've noted they often seem to mean
the same thing and are even translated as the same English word or
idea)?
You had stated that you prefer not to say"true vs false Christianity",
and I was just wondering why as I personally refer to catholicism,
mormonism etc. as false Christianity which masquerades as true
Christianity when it is not.
In Jesus.
Response #17:
I agree with paragraph #2 here.
The words are synonymous when applied to spiritual issues but they are
different words, after all, and have different connotations however
small – just as their English equivalents/translations do. Paul doesn't
use these in a technical sense the way he does "mystery" or
"redemption", for example.
I suppose it is because they are NOT in fact Christians or believers.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hello,
1 - You are affirming this as "paragraph 2" and as correct? (Just making
sure): You had said earlier that "I think what you have stated is
correct", but you have now affirmed that with the additional comments
you added, it is correct - so you are definitely confirming that with
your additions it is correct yes?
2 - The words are synonymous when applied to spiritual issues but they
are different words, after all, and have different connotations however
small – just as their English equivalents/translations do. Paul doesn't
use these in a technical sense the way he does "mystery" or
"redemption", for example. - The words are synonymous when applied to
spiritual issues by the other apostles/writers as well, correct
(meaning, in spite of the use of one of these words here and another
there by the same or even a different writer - we can still conclude
that the same situation is in question/applies, even if this is not the
case every time)?
3 - "I suppose it is because they are NOT in fact Christians or
believers." - I had thought you stated earlier that you prefer not to
use the phrase "true vs false Christianity" which confused me, but here
you seem to approve of that phrase so perhaps we misunderstood each
other.
With that, I do not have any other questions!
In Jesus.
Response #18:
1. I think I've answered this.
Important for our purposes is that believers can and sometimes do turn away from
the Lord. Only God knows the heart. That is one reason why it is difficult
sometimes to tell the difference between the sin unto death and apostasy – since
we don't know if the person is/will respond to discipline on the one hand, and
since they are acting like unbelievers on the other. One thing is certain: this
is NOT where we personally want to be.
2. Apolanao is only used one other time in the NT: Mk.13:22. In that context,
the word is in the active voice and it means "to deceive", referring to
antichrist and the devil attempting to lure even believers into apostasy.
Astocheo is only used by Paul in the NT (1Tim.1:6; 6:21; 2Tim.2:18). Apostrepho
is only used in the metaphorical sense (i.e., spiritual rather then directional)
by Paul and Luke (who wrote under Paul's authority).
3. I'm not sure this has any spiritual importance; it's a matter of personal
tastes. The word "Christian" has come to mean "a believer in Christ" (though it
is not, technically speaking, a biblical word;
see the link), whereas
"Christianity" is often used to refer to the religion in general and to many
manifestations of it which are not close to the truth and in some cases have
nothing to do with the truth.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
1 - Understood, I just wanted to know for sure after such a lengthy
exchange whether or not you were definitely confirming that as correct
(with the additional insight you added).. I think you confirmed it, I
just would appreciate being sure after all this commentary. I will quote
my summary one more time for sake of clarity:
(Concerning 1 Tim. 1:5-7, 6:10 and the words astocheo/apoplanao apo)
Paul didn't use those words in order to make the statements/examples
absolute (meaning irreversible and apostate - "faith abandoned" as you
put it), nor are the words themselves absolute forcing that meaning,
neither in and of themselves nor theologically as a pattern (even though
we can be sure that in many cases such individuals were/did become
apostate/"abandon faith").
Is this correct? + Such who are not yet lost are emphasized by the Holy
Spirit as in danger of being lost/on the path to being lost, and unless
they repent they too will be lost (or suffer the sin unto death).
If this is definitely correct, I just want to be sure you are definitely
confirming it as correct.
2 - I think the question is can we conclude 2 different words to mean
the same thing in Scripture and apply them to each other even though the
words are different - for instnace Paul says "some have apoplanao apo/astocheo"
- James speaks of bringing the wayward back but he uses "planao".
Further still, Paul says some are "apostrepho" from him (2 Tim 1:5). (I
understand that in such instances the emphasis may or may not be
different, and that there may or may not be layers also where perhaps a
certain layer does not apply, but can we still conclude/apply such
things to each other even though the words are different)
3 - Again understood, I just believe the phrase is true and productive
to make clear to unbelievers (and even believers who might not be clear
on this) that such religions are not true Christianity but a false
version - and I feel like refraining from that phrase gives room to the
idea that such religions are only "heavily faulted but not false
Christianity" or "wrong on a lot but not false Christians".
In Jesus.
Response #19:
1) That's right. In my reading of scripture, as long as someone is
alive, they have the opportunity to repent. Only God knows for certain
that they won't – if they won't. That fact is not inconsistent with any
of these or other scriptures such as 2nd Peter 2:20-22 which portray
such individuals as lost. The major exception to this rule would be
those who take the mark of the beast. Scripture is clear that this is a
definitive sign that they will never repent but are lost (Rev.14:9-11).
Again, I would say that this is not limiting God's power or grace or
mercy; rather it is a recognition that the "universe" of individuals who
take the mark but then think better of it and repent will turn out to be
a "null set" in fact. None of these individuals will ever attempt to
repent.
2) Every scripture's context is different. In properly interpreting the
Bible, everything (ideally) must be taken into account. The precise
meaning in the original language, the context of the passage, the
historical/cultural context, the (biblical as opposed to traditional)
theology/doctrinal implications of the verse(s), and what the Bible says
everywhere else about the points concerned. That said, it's not possible
for someone without a) the gift of pastor-teacher and b) the training
and experience necessary to hone and refine the gift, to make serious
progress in developing doctrine from scripture. The Spirit uses gifted
and prepared individuals . . . who are willing to do the work.
3) I don't have a problem with you using this terminology if you're
comfortable with it. I was only explaining my own feelings. As long as a
pastor-teacher defines his terms to make himself clear, that is all that
is really necessary when it comes to non-biblical issues. The word
"Christian" doesn't actually occur in scripture (see the link), far less
the word "Christianity". The Bible speaks of "the Church of Jesus
Christ" and "believers".
May I point out that there are a great many important topics in
scripture besides this one? I would strongly recommend leaving this one
for now and to begin reading through Bible Basics (at the link); despite
its name, it is a fairly detailed systematic theology. Spiritual growth
requires a broad-based approach giving attention to everything the Bible
has to say.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hello,
Thank you. Please know that I have pretty good Bible understanding and
have been blessed with good teaching (your site included). I do do my
own digging though as a good berean (which I have both a right and an
obligation to, and with respect, I am not of the opinion that only those
with the calling/gift of teacher can develop and understand doctrine -
though they do have authority and a gift of communicating it and I do
believe they should be treated with respect and as having authority -
and should be consulted).
For the record, I came across your site some time ago and have spent a
decent amount of time on it, and I appreciate it, sincerely, so again, I
am familiar with your beliefs and am in pretty close agreement
generally.
These questions were not a matter of a lack of theological understanding
or unfamiliararity with doctrine (perhaps it seems like that), rather
they were just a couple of specific questions on specific verses ONLY
for/to confirm my own personal logic on those verses specifically - I
was just a little uncertain in seeing different Greek words as sometimes
I like to check the Greek words out of curiosity...that's why I would
really appreciate just a clear simple answer on my questions as a sort
of confirmation or not - with the original languages wording in mind as
mentioned, as that is outside of my scope.
I don't want to take anymore of your time, and know that I sincerely
appreciate it, and it has been helpful as well as your insight, but that
said, I will attempt one more time to repeat those questions for the
sake of my own logic concerning them (as I believe you have
agreed/confirmed, but I am just a little uncertain as to the way you are
answering), and I don't plan to bother you further.
As a teacher knowing Greek, I come to you in Jesus pleading, please
simply confirm these questions if they are correct, as it would be very
helpful to me and to my logic concerning these verses specifically (and
I really don't want to end such a lengthy effort on both ends in a I'm
still confused as to my questions) - if they are correct, just a simple
yes would bring much clarity:
1 - Is the previous summary I wrote with your additions a correct
statement concerning those verses and the Greek words/usages therein.
Please, simply is it correct concerning those 2 verses, words, and
usages themselves?
2 - Can we cross apply words and therefore verses such as I suggested
even if the Greek words are slightly different. (I am not asking to make
a hard rule, just can we do it). Can it be done and is the example I
suggested acceptable in spite of the Greek words mentioned being
slightly different (and perhaps the emphasis being different/slightly
different).
(please reference 1 and 2 from my previous email):
1 - (Concerning 1 Tim. 1:5-7, 6:10 and the words astocheo/apoplanao apo)
Paul didn't use those words in order to make the statements/examples
absolute (meaning irreversible and apostate - "faith abandoned" as you
put it), nor are the words themselves absolute forcing that meaning,
neither in and of themselves nor theologically as a pattern (even though
we can be sure that in many cases such individuals were/did become
apostate/"abandon faith").
Is this correct? + Such who are not yet lost are emphasized by the Holy
Spirit as in danger of being lost/on the path to being lost, and unless
they repent they too will be lost (or suffer the sin unto death).
2 - ...for instance Paul says "some have apoplanao apo/astocheo" - James
speaks of bringing the wayward back but he uses "planao". Further still,
Paul says some are "apostrepho" from him (2 Tim 1:5) I meant to
reference 2 Tim. 1:15 here, my apologies
I ask in Jesus,
Thank you.
Response #20:
I wasn't meaning to insult you. I'm only trying to help you. You could
learn a lot from Ichthys, but if you choose not to, that is between you
and the Lord. I can't help but think that He led you here for a reason,
but we all have free will. That is what life on this planet is all
about, what we do with our time and opportunity. That is the basis for
our eternal reward, or lack thereof.
1) I already answered this one (several time). Honestly, I'm not sure
what you want me to say here. If I say "yes", I'm not sure that is
helpful because it would lack the important qualifications I gave you
before.
2) It depends what you mean by "cross apply".
Language is language. It means something. Planao means "to make
someone wander"; the word "planet" comes from this root – because unlike
stars on repetitive courses the planets seem to follow no particular set
pattern in their travels across the sky (a person would have to have a
very detailed knowledge of celestial mechanics to think otherwise).
Apoplanao means "to make someone wander off [from something]". My
impression is that "to deceive" is thus a good rendering; passive "to be
deceived". The idea is that said persons who are the victims of such
deception have been cut loose from their moorings and are drifting
around, dangerously so, in peril of hitting the rocks and sinking. Paul
compares apostasy to shipwreck (1Tim.1:19). On the other hand,
astocheo means, etymologically, "to miss the mark", to be shooting
for something but to go wide of the target. Interestingly, this is very
similar to what the verb "to sin" means (i.e., in Homer hamartano
means "to miss [the target]"). So the words have different connotations
as is true of English synonyms as well.
Therefore it's not possible to write rules about these sorts of things,
especially as we have different voices, tenses and moods in verbs, not
to mention different contexts. Each passage has to be considered on its
own merits. If by "cross apply" you mean "draw analogies" and/or "use as
a parallel or illustration", I have no problem with that. But language
is intricate. A native speaker of English is intuitively good at
recognizing speech, oral or written, which is produced by non-native
speakers, even if technically correct. It's hard to quantify these
distinctions, so I wouldn't be doing you any good to sign off on some
rule that really doesn't work. In teaching one of my upper division
Latin classes last year, I did a little experiment where I asked an AI
to write a poem in the style of the poet we were studying. The Latin it
produced was not bad (it's a good mimic drawing on already existing
building blocks), but there was one tell-tale place where it had
misinterpreted an English translation of a bit of Latin and made a
howling big error – an error, mind you, that only an English speaker
trying to produce Latin would make. And interestingly enough, the Google
"translate" reproduced the same error when rendering the AI's work. So
these early AI's are "thinking" in English.
What this all means is that while I can tell you some things that might
help, if I personally want to understand a difficult Bible passage I
read it in Greek (or Hebrew), and work on it in those languages,
comparing it to other similar passages in Greek/Hebrew, functioning in
those languages, not in English. Naturally, I then have to explain
things to people in our language, but those are the results, not the
process that produces the product.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #21:
I want again to state that I appreciate your time and effort in your
replies and explanations, I really do.
Not everyone can know Greek and Hebrew, and I am certain that it is not
necessary to understand the Bible on a deep level, I am sure that with
diligent study the Holy Spirit makes things clear even without knowing
the original languages - and I'm not even sure that anyone can fully
understand a language long not in use. That said, I do believe it is
helpful and enriches things, and I am not against it.
In this instance I feel it is helpful to me as a sort of verification,
for instance in my questions I believe I am correct in my interpretation
and I am just trying to verify that the Greek allows for it and doesn't
disallow...i am not confused on the doctrines we talked about, only I
wanted to sort of verify that the way I'm interpreting those particular
verses is correct and not incorrect - specifically in the Greek.
1 - I understand you answered it, but it seems like you have given me a
lot of commentary and doctrine on the matters at hand (which is
appreciated), but not a direct answer to my question (which I assume is
for the purposes of trying to make sure I understand where you stand
doctrinally - and make sure I am not off doctrinally), but that out of
the way (and appreciated), I just simply want to know if i'm correct.
I was pretty confident in my understanding, again I just sometimes
second guess when I see things that look odd or different in the Greek -
so I was just trying to make sure that the Greek isn't proving me wrong.
Again, obviously the emphasis and point of Pauls words in these verses
is a warning and an example of where you don't want to end up, but I
don't think he is giving a strict example of only people who have
definitely become apostate - I think there are definitely apostates in
question, but I think there are also people in question who have not yet
become apostate but are heading down that path.
So really all I'm asking is does the Greek wording/emphasis mentioned in
1 Tim. 1:5-7 and 6:10 imply or force the individuals in question to
strictly be examples of those who have become truly apostate. And I
guess a follow up question would be do you agree with my interpretation.
( Again, I am asking this pertaining to these verses specifically, not
on these matters doctrinally as a whole)
While I think you are saying that "the Greek wording does not imply or
force a strict interpretation of apostates only - and that you do agree
with my interpretation" - the fact that you wont say so directly is
making me feel uncertain, and I feel like what I'm asking is fair and
simple (especially given that we have expounded our positions and are
for the most part in agreement).
2 - (#2 is assuming that I am correct regarding #1)
Let me put it this way (from an English reading): James talks about
bringing a wayward believer back, Paul talks about those who have erred
from the faith in lusting after money (1 Tim. 6:10), those who have gone
into legalism (and/or pride maybe) (probably strictly teachers but maybe
not all of them) (1 Tim. 1:5-7), and those who have turned away from him
at his first defense to avoid persecution (1 Tim. 2:15).
I take James' admonition to apply to all 3 sets of people Paul mentioned
(at least to those among them who are not yet apostate - if the verses
allow for such in those cases which I believe they do):
Those who have erred from the faith after riches in this case, those who
have gone into legalism and/or pride, and those who turned away from
Paul to avoid persecution and therefore in a sense denied Jesus.
I take it James' admonition can be fulfilled in at least some of the
people which are mentioned in Pauls 3 quoted verses (then and now) -
even if doesn't happen immediately but after a time (as such who are not
yet lost may still retain faith and repent at some point).
(Even in the case of those who turned away from Paul - the apostles come
to mind when Jesus was arrested, not to mention Peter who denied Him -
which also brings to mind that Paul told us to "follow him as he follows
Christ" - surely by following the Lord so closely this is an example of
Paul experiencing the same thing that the Lord did, but the apostles
turned back and so did Peter.
I think my interpretation and connecting/applying James to the other
verses is sound. In English I don't think I have a doubt, only when I
see these different words in Greek I wonder, and I ask if these
different word choices disallow my interpretation:
( Again, I am asking all this pertaining to these verses specifically,
not on these matters doctrinally as a whole)
I know from reading many of your Q&A's that you are very particular yet
often carefully broad, and I understand that, you're a teacher and want
to both "dot your i's and cross your t's" - and at the same time make
sure your readers are on the same page and aren't getting the wrong
idea, which I understand and I respect.
But again, I think its clear that we are at least generally on the same
page and I don't think there is any danger in you as a teacher simply
answering my questions head on at this point, rather it would be very
helpful to me as a confirmation if I am correct.
I have put a lot of care into this email, I sincerely have done my best
to proof read and make sure I have covered and explained everything
thoroughly in expressing myself while being sure you will understand me,
and I am confident that I have done so.
So with everything above thoroughly explained, I can compact it into a
couple of sentences and ask (about these verses strictly and not a
broader theological position) simply:
1 - Am I correct that the Greek words in 1 Tim. 1:5-7, 6:10 (and even 2
Tim. 1:15) don't strictly imply/emphasize apostasy, and that it is not
the purpose of their usage to strictly emphasize an example of only true
apostates, and that there is definitely room there and in these verses
for such as are not yet apostate?
2 - Taking into consideration the Greek words in question - can I so
apply these specific verses the way I did (what James says at the end of
his epistle with the above mentioned verses by Paul) in spite of these
different Greek words/emphases?
I don't think its unreasonable at all to ask for a simple yes or no on
these, and if you will not grant I'm not sure it would be productive for
me to go on about it.
I really hope you will.
I hope I don't come off as rude anywhere.
I am asking you in Jesus to please simply confirm these points/questions
if I am correct. Its important to me.
I thank you, and with respect,
In Jesus.
Response #21:
Re: "I am sure that with diligent study the Holy Spirit makes things
clear even without knowing the original languages", yes, for those
with the gift of pastor-teacher who are prepared to teach and who do due
diligence in their studying. Everyone else in the Church is responsible
to submit to the authority system the Head of the Church has set up
(e.g., Heb.13:17). Not any denomination (a sign right there of trouble),
but a ministry through which they can grow. To put things as simply as
possible, everyone in the Church who is actually growing is either a
prepared pastor-teacher or listening to one. There may be a small
element of those who are in transition from one to the other, but even
these individuals are dependent upon what they've learned from someone
else until they are capable of feeding themselves as well as others.
There's a lot about this in BB 6B:
Ecclesiology. A believer is thus either feeding others or being fed,
and the whole apparatus of the Church is set up for this principle.
There are no "independent actors" since we are a body, the Body of
Christ. The fact that the church-visible we see is today in complete
dysfunction does not invalidate this clear biblical principle. It
actually makes it even more necessary for those who see what's right to
do what is right. No one can grow by what I call "smorgasbording", that
is, taking a little from this website, a little from that, a little from
this church, a little from that group, a little from what they've read
in the Bible, a little from what they've read in secondary sources . . .
and get anywhere close to spiritual maturity. That is because only what
is true results in growth and only then if that truth is believed. But
if a person is wandering around and being his/her own referee as to what
is right and what is wrong, they will never really come to know what is
right, only what they don't like. This is a very dangerous and a very
pointless approach.
This is not to say that believer are to be unquestioning. Far from it.
But the main questioning a believer is to do, one who is not a prepared
and functioning pastor-teacher in his own right, is to seek out the
right ministry from which to grow. Believers have the ability to apply
the "fruit test" as our Lord told us to do (link). If the fruit is truly
good, then so is the tree, and we can have confidence that we can grow
from that ministry; if the fruit is rotten, then it doesn't matter how
beautiful and impressive the tree may be, it won't produce growth for
those who partake. Anyone who decides to partake of multiple trees will
end up getting confused about the good and the bad. Even if a person
partakes of a majority of basically good trees, the differences between
them will come to dominate, and said person will end up getting hung up
on largely unimportant theological differences, inevitably coming down
on the side he/she likes rather than the one which is true, with the
result that he/she will end up getting the mediocre and even bad from an
otherwise good ministry.
Bottom line: this comes down to the principle of authority. Believers
who reject any authority but their own never end up getting anywhere
spiritually. Just because the opposite behavior, namely, giving oneself
up uncritically to a bad authority, is clearly going to result in
spiritual shipwreck, doesn't mean that rejecting all authority won't
have equally bad consequences.
Pastor-teachers are responsible to "feed My sheep" (Jn.21:15-17); those
who are not doing that, even those with the gift who are not yet
prepared to feed themselves and others, are responsible to find a good
place to be fed (not multiple places). That doesn't mean it's a sin or a
mistake for believers who receive their main spiritual sustenance from
one place to ever partake of anything else or listen to anyone else. Not
at all. But it does mean that accepting the authority of their "pastor"
is necessary to grow. Because we can't grow through what we don't
believe, even if we are hearing is true. Only if what we hear and listen
to is true AND then only if we believe that truth is it transformed by
the Spirit to "full knowledge" (epignosis) in our hearts (see the
link).
So I have to ask you a question if we are to continue here. What is your
reason for wanting to know what you're asking me?
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #22:
Dear teacher,
With respect, I agree very much with what you said, not 100%, but very
much. I will add that I have yet to see 2 Pastors or 2 teachers (nevermind
a whole denomination) who fully agree and don't drastically differ on
many MANY doctrines big and small, each have their own nuances and each
"good tree" as you put it is generally sound. But even with a "good
tree" one would either have to throw common sense and spiritual radar
out the window to just swallow everything a "good tree" says - or
someone serious can be a good berean, be fed and partake of a good tree
and help others as given opportunity, but meanwhile verifying fine
points on my own with prayer and study while having a "good" and proven
"tree" as a guidepost keeping me in bounds.
But if one is expected to take a Pastors interpretation as infallible
and just "submit" even if I know what they say doesn't add up, and
therefore give my better judgement over just because my Pastor teaches
it (who deserves much much respect and spiritual submission to be
clear), then I might as well follow the pope like the catholics do. Now
if everybody agreed and the apostles were around keeping everyone in
check, then that would be a different story.
I happen to be involved with a sound church, but I do do my own study
also and branch out where the answers I get are not sufficient, and I
somewhat follow a couple of ministries online which I enjoy and have
been blessed through.
This definitely took a turn very contrary to my intention, and I think
you have misunderstood me. I cant imagine the apostles rebuking somebody
for wanting to understand certain Scriptures for themselves.
If you don't want to answer my simple questions that's fine - I cant
force you, but I did reach out humbly and a I'm thankful for all your t
I'm kind of frustrated that you wont answer my questions head on.
To answer your question, I simply wanted to verify if my understanding
is correct on those verses as the only thing that had me second guess is
when I saw that there are different Greek words used. I spend a lot of
time reading through the Bible and praying and making sure I understand
things for myself and not just because a Pastor said something means
something. Sometimes out of curiosity I reference the Greek just to get
an idea of if the same words are being used.
As I was studying through these sections of Scripture I was pondering
these contexts - and as is often the case, another Scripture comes to
mind, then another, and one starts making connections. My reason for
asking is just to verify that my understanding is correct.
You took my questions into broader doctrinal territory, but I wasnt even
going there as I don't really have any questions there.
I am aware of your site and have made use of it and like that you teach
that the church will go through the tribulation as I agree. I am aware
that you know Greek and answer questions. I am not aware of that many
places that I can just email to get a language question answered.
Response #22:
Understood.
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Unlike marriages in the ancient world which were largely arranged by
parents, we believers have a choice as to who will be our spiritual
authority. And unlike marriage today, we are not required to maintain
our position of obedience to spiritual authority if we come to feel
we're in the wrong place. But no believer can grow very far on their
own. Only gifted and prepared pastor-teachers have the ability to "feed
themselves", and only after much experience as well (and much time in
grade learning from others first). Every other member of the Body has a
function and a role too, but they can't "go it alone", not and get
anywhere in terms of spiritual growth. And it's no good "playing
referee" either. Of course there will be times when it's difficult to
accept what one's teacher is teaching about something or other. At such
times, he may be wrong . . . or we may be wrong. At that point we have
two options: 1) find another teacher; or 2) if we are benefitting from
the teaching, then we should "put that bone aside" and not let it ruin
our meal. But if set ourselves up as the arbiter of what is right and
what is wrong, we will no longer get anything much from that ministry –
because we are not trusting it; we are not submitting to it's authority.
For that is what the passage above means.
You're welcome to all the materials at Ichthys, which can all be
accessed anonymously and for free any time.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #23:
You are wrong if you think I'm trying to "go it alone", but I thank you
nonetheless.
If I came off anywhere as rude I apologize, but that was not my intention.
I don't think there was anything wrong with what I was asking.
I take it you will not grant me a head on reply concerning the Greek I
referenced and also just let me know if the Greek posed any issues on my
interpretations in my previous email where I explained my position at length?
(I am just trying to make sure that I correctly understand the word of God,
which is the most important thing to me - this has nothing to do with any "meal"
I received, this is just a personal question regarding personal reading/study)
In Jesus.
Response #23:
Sorry if I misunderstood. If you're following the lead at your church,
well, that is just what you should do.
As to "straight on" answers about Greek, if you ask me a grammar or
parsing question, I'm happy to respond in kind. Your questions are at
least one foot into theological matters and I don't know any way not to
answer them that way.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #24:
I just wanted to know if Paul was meaning to strictly refer to apostates
in 1 Tim. 1:5-7 and 1 Tim. 6:10 (and even 2 Tim. 1:15), or if I am
correct that there is room here also for such as are backslidden and out
of the way and in danger of becoming apostate, but are not yet so - and
specifically if the Greek words here force a meaning of only apostates.
And I I'm correct that James 5:19-20 would apply to the verses/instances
referenced above even though the Greek words are more intensive than
what James used. (In the English I read erred, swerved, turned away from
- I don't see a problem in the application suggested theologically or
contextually, unless Pauls stronger wording disallows).
I will not trouble you further. God bless you.
In Jesus.
Response #24:
As mentioned, you are welcome to the materials at Ichthys any time.
Re: "I just wanted to know if Paul was meaning to strictly refer to
apostates", I hope you can see that "apostasy" is a term we
Christians use to express . . . well, it depends on the group and on the
theology of the group. Personally, I use the term to express complete
loss of faith. This is explained at the link I've given you a few times
now:
Apostasy and the Sin unto Death. I don't think it's possible to
answer a question like this without explaining the theology. A Greek
expert can tell you that a verb is in the aorist or present stem,
whether it's indicative or optative, what the etymology of the word is
and possibly something of its usage, but an unbeliever who has no
interest in the Bible can't tell you anything about apostasy, much less
"what Paul was meaning". These are biblical questions – which the Greek
indeed illuminates. I hope you have gotten some insights into your
questions, at any rate.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #25:
ps - "I hope you can see that "apostasy" is a term we Christians use to express..." - I hope you're not questioning if I'm a true believer.
Response #25:
Not at all.
Just saying that inherent in your question were certain doctrinal ideas
that have nothing to do with the Greek language per se. So when you say
you want help with "Greek questions" that is fine, but your questions
were really doctrinal questions which are elucidated by attention to
Greek exegesis.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #26:
Understood.
I simply wanted to know if the Greek disallowed for my interpretations,
that's all - I considered it doctrinally - and then to conclude wanted
to know if the Greek was disallowing for my conclusion.
I did send 2 emails (a response and then the "post script"), not sure if
you noticed the first one or not which was my response.
I ask that you read it in hopes that you will give me a final conclusion
on the questions and just as a confirmation on what I believe you're
saying.
(I believe you've agreed with my interpretation - and that the Greek
doesn't disallow for it or say otherwise - question 1)
(and I believe you've allowed for the way I was applying those
Scriptures to each other, and that you would agree that those verses
can/do apply to each other, even if not in every case - and that the
Greek words don't disallow there either in spite of different words
being used - question 2)
Thank you for all your time and replies, I do appreciate it. And thank
you for your ministry.
God bless you.
In Jesus.
Response #26:
No, I don't think that the Greek disallows your interpretations (as far
as I've correctly understood them, at any rate). You have my "takes" on
these passages in our chain.
You're most welcome for the help. Apologies if it was not exactly what
you were looking for. I'm often criticized for not answering questions
the way people want them answered. I answer what I'm led to answer for
the sake of the truth (but that often doesn't satisfy people).
Thanks for the good words. Please feel free to visit Ichthys anytime.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #27:
Hello teacher,
Im sorry for not responding sooner.
I understand, and I I accept your closing response, sincerely.
I just want to verify that this is included as well, as you never
commented on this directly. I take it you agree/allow, and that the
Greek doesn't disallow there either.
Namely that I can apply James' admonition regarding those who "err" to
those Paul describes as having "erred/swerved" (to those not yet
apostate) in spite of the different Greek words - that they can be
interchanged as equal in spite of the different words.
"Those have erred, these have erred swerved - if one turns back one who
has planao, if one turns back one who has apoplanao apo/astocheo"
I don't mean to open this back up, I just wanted to make sure this is
included as correct and the Greek not disallowing.
In Jesus.
Response #27:
I'm not prepared to validate any sort of blanket interpretation or
agreement on equivalence between passages. As mentioned more than once,
every passage has its own interpretation, and there is much in every
passage that only comes to light after deep study, not only of the
passage itself in the original language but also in the context of the
book and author and the theology of the Bible generally. In other words,
this is not like math (blessedly) where if x=y and y = z then x = z .
That approach has gotten a lot of people into trouble in the past. It's
called (sadly) "theology".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #28:
Hello Teacher,
Can you at least tell me if the difference in Greek words themselves
here disallows for the application in question?
And also if you would allow for this application?
In Jesus.
Response #28:
Re: Does "the difference in Greek words themselves here disallows for the
application in question?"
Answer: Not in itself. It depends on the context and other issues mentioned
previously.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #29:
Thank you!
And I just wanted to know (Greek and everything considered) if you allow
for my application/interpretation? (James' admonition applying to Pauls
verses in question)
In Jesus.
Response #29:
You're welcome, .
On the rest, you mean that what James says about a person wandering not
meaning that the person is necessarily lost? I think that's obvious
since James commends saving them from death (v.20); so whether it's now
an unbeliever or a believer in a far country the solution is the same
(repentance and change of direction). Only the consequences of failing
to do so are up in the air (i.e., dying the death of an unbeliever or
the sin unto death as a believer).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #30:
Yes,
I agree with you that that's obvious, I guess its clear what I mean in
my mind but not as easy to communicate.
What I meant was - concerning the verses we discussed (1 Tim. 1: 5-7,
6:10...and I even add 2 Tim. 1:15), do you allow that I can apply what
James said to such individuals mentioned by Paul in spite of the Greek
word differences (at least to the ones there who are not yet lost - as I
believe you've agreed there is room in those verses for such as are not
yet lost, but are obviously in danger and out of the way).
I only ask because as discussed and noted James uses different language
compared to Paul in those verses which is not that distinguishable if at
all in English - James says "if one errs (planao) and one turn him
back", Pauls verses talk about individuals who have "erred (apoplanao
apo/astocheo)/be turned away from (apostrepho)" - to me it seems that
the individuals described by Paul as having "erred/be turned away from"
can be understood as the same thing as what James describes as "if one
errs" - in spite of the different Greek words for "erring/be turned away
from".
I'm pretty sure that you would allow for this interpretation and that
the different Greek/Greek words don't disallow for this application.
God willing what I've written will be clear as it would be helpful to me
to verify that.
Thank you.
In Jesus.
Response #30:
If you mean, "Can believers who are not lost be led back to the truth, and do these verses and their vocabulary forestall that possibility?", I would say that it depends on the individual in question. When it comes to those who are not acting like Christians, it may be the case that they are not, either they never were or they have fallen away entirely into unbelief. Or it may be that they have reverted to the world a long distance (like the prodigal son), but have not yet either lost faith entirely or yet been taken out of the world by the Lord. The distinction may be hard for us to see – only the Lord knows the truth. But if you are thinking of any kind of "rescue ministry", please keep in mind what Jude also said about this:
(22) Have compassion on those who are struggling [with their consciences] (i.e., wavering in their faith in regard to sinful behavior). (23) Rescue those you can by snatching them from the fire [of temptation and its consequences]; but exercise [such] compassion in [godly] fear, hating even the smallest part of sin's contamination (i.e., stay clear of, lit., "even the garment tainted by the flesh").
Jude 1:22-23
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #31:
My apologies, also I hope you don't hold these late responses against me
as its sometimes difficult for me to respond immediately.
Just meant regarding 1 Tim 1:5-7, 6:10, and I add even 2 Tim. 1:15 - do
you think that there is room for applying James' admonition to these
verses - as suggested I believe so, only again I noted a difference in
the Greek wording: James' erred vs the words Paul uses as we've
discussed.
Again I say this with the understanding that many of the people
referenced by Paul are lost - yet I believe that James' admonition does
apply to these verses and has in mind such people (the "souls" James
mentions are in danger of "death" after all) - I just wanted to know if
you think there is room for applying what James said to those verses by
Paul specifically - in spite of the Greek vocabulary differences.
In Jesus.
Response #31:
When you say, "applying what James said to those verses by Paul
specifically", specifically all those people are long gone.
Historically, they were either believers or not, apostates or not, came
to repentance or not. Application in my book is taking what the Bible
says and fitting it into our lives and experiences today. As mentioned
more than once, I'm agnostic about whether or not someone who has
actually and completely apostatized would come back if they could come
back, but I don't know of anything in scripture which forecloses the
possibility as a matter of doctrine. As also mentioned, it's a terrible
place to be, that is, in a situation where no one can say for sure
whether or not for any given person "His seed remains in him" (1Jn.3:9).
Many believers have that in their past experience – but anyone who
believe in Christ TODAY is definitely saved TODAY.
Also, no offense, but it would be good to branch out into some other
areas of truth as well. I recommend the Basics series at Ichthys (at
the link).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #32:
I think I misunderstood you:
" ...specifically all those people are long gone. Historically, they
were either believers or not, apostates or not, came to repentance or
not." - I think you are saying that one of these scenarios you stated
happened to the people in question in Pauls verses.
If that's what you are indeed saying, then in response to "Application
in my book is taking what the Bible says and fitting it to our lives and
experiences today." - I would say that, since the Bible is alive and the
words and scenarios therein apply to each generation, then such ones as
are found in those verses I referenced by Paul are found today as well,
so when I asked "do you allow (and does the Greek/Greek language
differences planao vs apoplanao apo/astocheo etc. allow) for applying
James' admonition to those verses I quoted by Paul" I have in mind such
as Paul mentions in the verses I referenced who are alive today and not
just then.
Im pretty sure after reading your response over that I've extracted a
"yes".
In Jesus.
PS - In case you didn't note this is a second response to your last
reply.
Response #32:
Absolutely, we are given the Bible to make applications to our present
experiences and lives today. The "how" is the thing, and that requires a
correct understanding of what passages actually mean (for one thing).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #33:
So, just in closing, if you don't mind, would you allow for applying
James 5:19-20 to the verses referenced (1 Tim. 1:5-7, 6:10, 2 Tim. 1:15
- which of course would mean then and now), and would the Greek/Greek
difference in vocabulary etc. pose any problems for this?
I'm pretty sure you've allowed and that the Greek vocabulary difference
isn't an issue here.
In Jesus.
Response #33:
Again, James 5:19-20 envisions a situation where return is possible. My reading of the historical situations in 1st Timothy 1:5-7; 6:10 and 2nd Timothy 1:15 is that for all the world to see it was not in those specific cases going to happen (even if may hope that it did in the case of Hymenaeus in particular). We are to have discernment. This passage sums up my views on this:
If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.
1st John 5:16 NIV
In other words, we can pray and intervene when, in our estimate of the
situation as mature believers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit such
prayer seems profitable. On the other hand, we are not required to when
as far as we can see it would be pointless.
We are told in James 5:19-20 that it is a wonderful thing to rescue
faltering believers. Jude 1:22-23 tells us to do so with fear, lest we
too be corrupted. And 1st Corinthians 5:11 tells us not even to
associate with believers who are involved in criminality and/or gross
sin (cf. 2Jn.1:9-11).
These passages do not contradict one another. Taken together they mean
that believers have to exercise what I call "spiritual common sense". Of
course our knowledge is imperfect and we cannot expect our analysis of
every situation to be absolutely correct – far from it. But our lack of
complete information and/or doubt about complete certainty in viewing
the statuses of other believers is neither an excuse not to act or a
carte blanche to intervene without consideration of potential
consequences. Scripture does not reduce all this to a mathematical
formula for exactly these reasons. As we grow, we get better at making
these judgment calls – or at least we should (see the links:
Spiritual Discernment in BB 6A; and
Spiritual Discernment in Hebrews 5):
Solid [spiritual] food is for the [spiritually] mature, those who by [diligent] practice have trained their [moral] perceptive faculties to [properly] distinguish between good and evil.
Hebrews 5:14
In Jesus,
Bob L.
p.s., as mentioned, spiritual growth never happens by focusing on one
biblical issue to the exclusion of all others.