From: rowland@tne01.tele.nokia.fi
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Eternal Security?
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:54:15 GMT
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.

< REX writes: >

[deleted introductory comments]

>1. 	These readers had "once been enlightened." In 10:32, the term "being
>enlightned" is also used, where regeneration  of the readers is clearly
>stipulated. The author was equating enlightenment with the reception of the
>full knowledge of the truth. This argues strongly for the view that the
>enlightenment refers to regeneration. "This is a natural way to refer to the
>conversion experience (cf. 2 Cor. 4:3-6). The writer's only other use of the
>verb 'enlightened' (10:32) is used where the reference to true Christian
>experience can hardly be doubted."

This goes too far since it is implied that enlightenment is synonymous with
regeneration which it is not.  Regeneration is a unique work which admits
no degrees (you are either regenerate or you are not).  The Ephesian 
christians were without a doubt regenerate but Paul prays that they may
receive further enlightenment (Eph 1:18).  It does not necessarily follow
that profession of faith means possession of Christ. 

>2. The second fact about these readers is that they had "tasted the heavenly
>gift" (6:4). The verb "to taste" is to be understood in v.4 in the sense of "to
>come to know something." The same word is used of Christ, who "tasted" death
>for everyone, (2:9). It is inconsistent to have 2:9 mean "drink it all" and 6:4
>mean "sampled," as some suggest.  It is not inconsistent to understand the term
>"gift" (v.4) in the technical sense to mean grace.

Is this as clear cut as it is here suggested ?  Check out Matt. 27:34 where
"tasted" is one step short of "to drink" (i.e. one can taste something and
yet not digest and derive nourishment from it).  I do not for a moment
suggest that Christ did not die.  He did die.  But, the point here is that
to hang the whole exegesis on this one word has its problems.

> 3.	The writer then referes to them as "partakers of the Holy Spirit." The
>concept of being a "companion" (metocos) resurfaces. In 3:1 it is used of a
>"partaker" of the heavenly calling. Here in 6:4 the individuals are seen as
>"partners" in the Spirit's activities. If they are no longer metocos, it is
>because they are no longer dependent on the Holy Spirit's power. This is not
>the same as losing salvation, it is simply a failure to depend on and minister
>with the Holy Spirit.

I've nothing to contribute on this point.

>4. The readers are stated as having "tasted the good word of God and the powers
>of the age to come" (6:5). The term "good word of God" deals with the present
>age of the readers (which is continuing to this day) and "powers of the coming
>age" directs the audience to the future. The "good word of God" may refer to
>Jesus' teaching about the kingdom (2:3). The signs, wonders, and miracles of
>2:4 were a foreshadowing of the "powers of the coming age" (i.e. the millennial
>kingdom). The readers had "tasted" or "experienced" this power in their
>assembly.

Bear in mind that Mark 6:20 states that even Herod enjoyed the preaching of
John the Baptist !!  I've yet to read of anyone who argues that Herod was
at any point a true believer.

>5. The ominous expression "and have fallen away" (kai parapesontas) now
>appears. The participle parapesontas is governed grammatically by the single
>article "those" (tous), which also governs the previous 4 participles.
>Apparently certain individuals had actually fallen away (cf. 10:25); the
>warning is not "hypothetical."  The sober teaching is about a regenerated
>individual's apostasy.

[deleted remaining text]

The point of course is whether, as Rex says, this passage actually 
teaches that a regenerated individual can fall into apostasy.
I think not for two reasons :

1.  this is contrary to the many clear texts which teach otherwise 
John 10:27-29 being a case in point.

2.  this very passage goes on to present the opposite case.  Heb 6:17-20.
Read it for yourselves.  Isn't it so that the 'heirs of the promise' have
hope, and that this hope is 'an anchor of the soul', 'sure and steadfast'.
Heb 6:9 should alert us to the fact that there is a contrast here.  How
could the Apostle say that he is 'convinced of better things concerning
you, and things that accompany salvation...' salvation....' if atheirs
could 'fall away' ?

The inevitable conclusion must be that the subjects of Heb 6:4-6 were
never regenerate.  

Kevin Rowland

2 Peter 1:10

>Rex