Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Backslide, Backslider, Backsliding, etc. not found in N.T.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

To all,

I do apologize for taking so long in providing my second response in this matter.  First, I was away from home for a number of days, wherein I had not access at all to the forum.  Then, after returning home, I had not time available due to ministry and family responsibilities.

Brother "Wretched,"

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:34 PM, wretched said:

Pastor Scott,

Just to be clear, I have agreed in the past that Scripture does indicate the Spirit’s work in the OT, not only in the inspiration of the writing through the human authors God chose but also the fact that the Spirit did on occasion temporarily indwell both believers and those God wanted to make example of (such as Saul). However, I see nothing that indicates true belief equals the new birth (regeneration) generally speaking in the OT including all the way through the Gospels and up to Pentecost in Acts.

Indeed, I was and am aware of these things concerning your position; and I did and do understand them.  (Note: I would simply challenge you to use the phrase "temporarily fill" for Old Testament believers, instead of the phrase "temporarily indwell," in order to maintain a definite distinction between the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit and the infilling work of the Holy Spirit.)

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:34 PM, wretched said:

The passages you site in Proverbs and Psalms are not compelling to me. IMO, they are unclear and do not match the clear explanations of the new birth as given in the NT. I do not discount Psalms or Proverbs but believe that both these books transcend the Testaments and contain doctrine that is applicable to each Testament but not necessarily to both. Both Law and Grace have equal representation without command to either. God’s fundamental principles that apply to all humanity are contained within both (whether believer or not). I have no wonder as to why they are included in most printings of the NT? I cannot be alone in thinking this way and I think you are more than smart enough to understand why I believe it.

I would agree with you that much of the doctrinal teaching in Psalms and Proverbs transcends and is applicable unto both Testaments.  However, I would be compelled to contend that although some of the doctrine in these two Old Testament books may not have direct application to the New Testament, all of the doctrine in these two Old Testament books DO have direct application to the Old Testament, since they were both written during the time of the Old Testament.

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:34 PM, wretched said:

The passages you site in Proverbs and Psalms are not compelling to me. IMO, they are unclear and do not match the clear explanations of the new birth as given in the NT.

I am uncertain how Psalms 19:7 is unclear -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."  The verse present four basic points, as follows:

1.  "The law of the LORD is perfect." -- Do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is perfect truth?
2.  "The testimony of the LORD is sure." -- Do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is perfectly reliable truth?
3.  "The testimony of the LORD" is able to be "making wise the simple." -- Do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is able to make spiritually simple individuals into spiritually wise individuals?
4.  "The law of the LORD" is able to be "converting the soul." -- If you do not find the above three points to be unclear, then how do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is able to convert a sinner's soul from ungodliness and unrighteousness unto godliness and righteousness?

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:34 PM, wretched said:

The passages you site in Proverbs and Psalms are not compelling to me. IMO, they are unclear and do not match the clear explanations of the new birth as given in the NT.

You yourself were the one in a previous posting who indicated that the "conversion" terminology of the New Testament was equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration in the New Testament.  (Note: I myself actually do NOT hold to the position that "conversion" terminology is inherently a reference to the doctrine of regeneration in either Testament.)  Furthermore, you yourself were the one in a previous posting who indicated that such "regeneration" terminology could not be found in the Old Testament, which is the very reason that you presented for denying that regeneration occurred for Old Testament believers.

I simply responded to your presentation by pointing out that "conversion" terminology most certainly DID exist in the Old Testament, as per Psalm 19:7 & Psalm 51:13.  If indeed "conversion" terminology is inherently equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration, as you asserted in your previous posting, then you should be compelled to acknowledge that the doctrine of regeneration, as per the "conversion" terminology of Psalm 19:7 & Psalm 51:13, is an Old Testament doctrine.  On the other hand, you COULD correct yourself by acknowledging that "conversion" terminology actually is NOT inherently equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration in either Testament (which is actually the position that I myself hold).  However, if you did correct yourself in this manner, then you could no longer employ the case of Jesus' statement concerning Peter's conversion as an argument that Peter (and the other apostles) were not regenerated before Pentecost.

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:34 PM, wretched said:

I still believe the term backsliding cannot apply to anyone born again.  The term is synonymous with repentance away from God in the heart and does not apply to mere carnal sins. The reason it was an issue in those days was due to the fact that regeneration of the Spirit, His sealing, security and indwelling did not yet exist. I see nothing clear or nearly conclusive that shows me otherwise in the OT.

Indeed, I am aware that you still do not believe that the doctrine of backsliding has application to the New Testament believer.  Furthermore, I am aware that your position concerning the doctrine of backsliding is firmly founded upon your definition for "backsliding."  Finally, I am aware also that your position concerning the denial of backsliding for the New Testament believer is firmly founded upon your understanding for the doctrine of regeneration.

I myself believe that you have developed an incorrect definition for the doctrine of backsliding.  Indeed, I believe that you have developed this incorrect definition by not considering ALL that the Old Testament teaches concerning the subject.  I myself would contend that spiritually going away backward from the Lord in a pursuit after the lusts of the flesh (carnality) certainly IS a part of "backsliding."  Furthermore, I myself believe that you develop an incorrect understanding for the doctrine of regeneration, even in relation to the New Testament (regardless of our differing views concerning the application of regeneration unto Old Testament believers).  As such, I believe that your view of regeneration for the New Testament believer has moved you unto a type of "perseverance of the saints" position concerning daily sanctification.

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:34 PM, wretched said:

Think of it this way brother Scott and if you still do not understand or agree, I will let it go.

 

Imagine yourself with all you know through the Spirit and the Word because you are born again and indwelt and have the Spirit which guides you in all truth; imagine yourself as one of the apostles walking with Jesus as Peter did for nearly 3 years, witnessing all the signs, wonders and miracles of our Lord first hand. Knowing (not just from sight but because you are born again and Spirit indwelt) that Jesus is God Almighty….could you possible deny Him as Peter did? Think hard on that please.

 

In addition, please consider the end of each Gospel. Consider how these apostles who walked with our Lord and witnessed all they witnessed first hand, who then hid themselves when Christ was buried. The Bible makes it pretty clear that every single one of them thought in their hearts it was over. Every single apostle believed He was dead and the hopes of the kingdom were shattered. They were all in shock, perplexed and lost their faith almost immediately. Not one of them even believed the Marys when they came and told them the tomb was empty.

 

These men were not born again yet my friend. I know it in my heart.

As far as your above question -- YES, I believe that if I were to give myself to walk after my own selfish, sinful flesh, I certainly COULD as a regenerated believer deny my Lord just as Peter did.  Indeed, in my daily walk now, when I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT deny myself, and take up my cross, and follow my Lord.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I DO deny my Lord (in my heart), and take up my own desires, and follow my own way.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT savor and set my affection on the things that be of the Lord, of His kingdom, of His righteousness.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I savor and set my affection on the things that be of myself and of this world.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT yield myself unto God and my members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I yield myself unto sin and my members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT walk as a child of light, in righteousness, godliness, and true holiness.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I walk as the children of darkness walk, in the vanity of my mind, fulfilling the desires of my flesh and my mind.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT fulfill the righteousness of my Lord's law; and I am NOT transformed by the renewing of my mind unto the righteous image of my Lord.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I am a rebel against my Lord and against the authority of His righteous law for my life.  Indeed, my spirit may be willing; but my flesh is spiritually weak and wicked.  Indeed, these two are contrary the one to the other, so that I cannot do the things that I would.

As far as Peter is concerned, he did NOT have to fall in that denial.  The Lord Jesus Christ warned him exactly as to the way in which he might prevent his downfall.  Yet the Lord's counsel to him was not that he needed to be regenerated.  Rather, the Lord's counsel was that he needed to pray so that he not be overcome by the temptation, that he needed to quit depending upon himself, but that he needed to depend rather upon the Lord God his heavenly Father.  On the other hand, Peter did NOT heed the Lord's counsel; therefore, he was overcome by the temptation, just as the other disciples were overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
50 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

To all,

I do apologize for taking so long in providing my second response in this matter.  First, I was away from home for a number of days, wherein I had not access at all to the forum.  Then, after returning home, I had not time available due to ministry and family responsibilities.

Brother "Wretched,"

Indeed, I was and am aware of these things concerning your position; and I did and do understand them.  (Note: I would simply challenge you to use the phrase "temporarily fill" for Old Testament believers, instead of the phrase "temporarily indwell," in order to maintain a definite distinction between the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit and the infilling work of the Holy Spirit.)

I would agree with you that much of the doctrinal teaching in Psalms and Proverbs transcends and is applicable unto both Testaments.  However, I would be compelled to contend that although some of the doctrine in these two Old Testament books may not have direct application to the New Testament, all of the doctrine in these two Old Testament books DO have direct application to the Old Testament, since they were both written during the time of the Old Testament.

I am uncertain how Psalms 19:7 is unclear -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."  The verse present four basic points, as follows:

1.  "The law of the LORD is perfect." -- Do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is perfect truth?
2.  "The testimony of the LORD is sure." -- Do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is perfectly reliable truth?
3.  "The testimony of the LORD" is able to be "making wise the simple." -- Do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is able to make spiritually simple individuals into spiritually wise individuals?
4.  "The law of the LORD" is able to be "converting the soul." -- If you do not find the above three points to be unclear, then how do you find this to be unclear in teaching that the truth of God's Holy Word is able to convert a sinner's soul from ungodliness and unrighteousness unto godliness and righteousness?

You yourself were the one in a previous posting who indicated that the "conversion" terminology of the New Testament was equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration in the New Testament.  (Note: I myself actually do NOT hold to the position that "conversion" terminology is inherently a reference to the doctrine of regeneration in either Testament.)  Furthermore, you yourself were the one in a previous posting who indicated that such "regeneration" terminology could not be found in the Old Testament, which is the very reason that you presented for denying that regeneration occurred for Old Testament believers.

I simply responded to your presentation by pointing out that "conversion" terminology most certainly DID exist in the Old Testament, as per Psalm 19:7 & Psalm 51:13.  If indeed "conversion" terminology is inherently equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration, as you asserted in your previous posting, then you should be compelled to acknowledge that the doctrine of regeneration, as per the "conversion" terminology of Psalm 19:7 & Psalm 51:13, is an Old Testament doctrine.  On the other hand, you COULD correct yourself by acknowledging that "conversion" terminology actually is NOT inherently equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration in either Testament (which is actually the position that I myself hold).  However, if you did correct yourself in this manner, then you could no longer employ the case of Jesus' statement concerning Peter's conversion as an argument that Peter (and the other apostles) were not regenerated before Pentecost.

Indeed, I am aware that you still do not believe that the doctrine of backsliding has application to the New Testament believer.  Furthermore, I am aware that your position concerning the doctrine of backsliding is firmly founded upon your definition for "backsliding."  Finally, I am aware also that your position concerning the denial of backsliding for the New Testament believer is firmly founded upon your understanding for the doctrine of regeneration.

I myself believe that you have developed an incorrect definition for the doctrine of backsliding.  Indeed, I believe that you have developed this incorrect definition by not considering ALL that the Old Testament teaches concerning the subject.  I myself would contend that spiritually going away backward from the Lord in a pursuit after the lusts of the flesh (carnality) certainly IS a part of "backsliding."  Furthermore, I myself believe that you develop an incorrect understanding for the doctrine of regeneration, even in relation to the New Testament (regardless of our differing views concerning the application of regeneration unto Old Testament believers).  As such, I believe that your view of regeneration for the New Testament believer has moved you unto a type of "perseverance of the saints" position concerning daily sanctification.

As far as your above question -- YES, I believe that if I were to give myself to walk after my own selfish, sinful flesh, I certainly COULD as a regenerated believer deny my Lord just as Peter did.  Indeed, in my daily walk now, when I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT deny myself, and take up my cross, and follow my Lord.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I DO deny my Lord (in my heart), and take up my own desires, and follow my own way.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT savor and set my affection on the things that be of the Lord, of His kingdom, of His righteousness.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I savor and set my affection on the things that be of myself and of this world.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT yield myself unto God and my members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I yield myself unto sin and my members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT walk as a child of light, in righteousness, godliness, and true holiness.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I walk as the children of darkness walk, in the vanity of my mind, fulfilling the desires of my flesh and my mind.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT fulfill the righteousness of my Lord's law; and I am NOT transformed by the renewing of my mind unto the righteous image of my Lord.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I am a rebel against my Lord and against the authority of His righteous law for my life.  Indeed, my spirit may be willing; but my flesh is spiritually weak and wicked.  Indeed, these two are contrary the one to the other, so that I cannot do the things that I would.

As far as Peter is concerned, he did NOT have to fall in that denial.  The Lord Jesus Christ warned him exactly as to the way in which he might prevent his downfall.  Yet the Lord's counsel to him was not that he needed to be regenerated.  Rather, the Lord's counsel was that he needed to pray so that he not be overcome by the temptation, that he needed to quit depending upon himself, but that he needed to depend rather upon the Lord God his heavenly Father.  On the other hand, Peter did NOT heed the Lord's counsel; therefore, he was overcome by the temptation, just as the other disciples were overcome.

I will address the rest of this at a later date but will say this my friend.

If what I bolded above is true of you then you have a problem:  2Ti 2:12, If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: There is a myriad of other passages that match this, some our Lord said of the future while on earth, others the apostles reiterated. I believe it is clearly impossible for a born again child of God to deny the Lord regardless of the circumstance.

Just a quick edit, the passage we are disputing was that of Peter's verbal repeated denial of the Lord Jesus and not carnal sins or laziness.

I assume nothing of strangers so if you meant something other than this, you should clarify.

Some of your other responses are unrecognizable to me because they don't match what I said in any way but I will get to them.

thanks for you time

Edited by wretched
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As far as your above question -- YES, I believe that if I were to give myself to walk after my own selfish, sinful flesh, I certainly COULD as a regenerated believer deny my Lord just as Peter did.  Indeed, in my daily walk now, when I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT deny myself, and take up my cross, and follow my Lord.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I DO deny my Lord (in my heart), and take up my own desires, and follow my own way.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT savor and set my affection on the things that be of the Lord, of His kingdom, of His righteousness.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I savor and set my affection on the things that be of myself and of this world.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT yield myself unto God and my members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I yield myself unto sin and my members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT walk as a child of light, in righteousness, godliness, and true holiness.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I walk as the children of darkness walk, in the vanity of my mind, fulfilling the desires of my flesh and my mind.  When I am walking after my flesh, I do NOT fulfill the righteousness of my Lord's law; and I am NOT transformed by the renewing of my mind unto the righteous image of my Lord.  Rather, when I am walking after my flesh, I am a rebel against my Lord and against the authority of His righteous law for my life.  Indeed, my spirit may be willing; but my flesh is spiritually weak and wicked.  Indeed, these two are contrary the one to the other, so that I cannot do the things that I would.

20 minutes ago, wretched said:

I will address the rest of this at a later date but will say this my friend.

If what I bolded above is true of you then you have a problem:  2Ti 2:12, If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: There is a myriad of other passages that match this, some our Lord said of the future while on earth, others the apostles reiterated. I believe it is clearly impossible for a born again child of God to deny the Lord regardless of the circumstance.

I assume nothing of strangers so if you meant something other than this, you should clarify.

Brother "Wretched,"

I said exactly what I meant to say. 

Concerning 2 Timothy 2:12, 2 Timothy 2:11-13 is the entire sentence; therefore verse 12 should not be removed from the whole -- "It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."

1.  Who is the "we" throughout this entire sentence?

2.  In what way does the Lord "deny us," if we "deny him"?

3.  What does it mean that the Lord "abideth faithful" and "cannot deny himself," even if we "believe not"?

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As far as Peter is concerned, he did NOT have to fall in that denial.  The Lord Jesus Christ warned him exactly as to the way in which he might prevent his downfall.  Yet the Lord's counsel to him was not that he needed to be regenerated.  Rather, the Lord's counsel was that he needed to pray so that he not be overcome by the temptation, that he needed to quit depending upon himself, but that he needed to depend rather upon the Lord God his heavenly Father.  On the other hand, Peter did NOT heed the Lord's counsel; therefore, he was overcome by the temptation, just as the other disciples were overcome.

29 minutes ago, wretched said:

Just a quick edit, the passage we are disputing was that of Peter's verbal repeated denial of the Lord Jesus and not carnal sins or laziness.

Indeed, that is correct.  Yet before the temptation to deny the Lord actually happened, the Lord had counseled and warned Peter while they were in the garden of Gethsemane, "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (See Matthew 26:41, which is only six verses after Matthew 26:33-35)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Earlier in this thread (here), I presented An Introduction to the Doctrine of Backsliding in the Old Testament (Prior to its reference in the Old Testament prophets).

In this posting I wish to add a second part, as follows:
 

A Continuation to the Doctrine of Backsliding in the Old Testament
(As per its reference in the Old Testament prophets)

 

Isaiah 1:2-4 “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.  The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.  Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” is to rebel against the Lord, and thereby to forsake the Lord.  Furthermore, we learn that “backsliding” is to pursue the way of sinful iniquity, and thereby to become doers of corruption and evil.  Finally, we learn again that “backsliding” provokes the all-holy Lord God unto anger.

Isaiah 50:5 – “The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.”

Herein again we learn that “backsliding” is to rebel against the Lord.

Jeremiah 2:19-20 – “Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.  For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” is the wickedness of not walking in the fear of the Lord, but of forsaking the Lord and of following after gods other than the Lord.

Jeremiah 2:26-27 – “As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets, saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” involves turning one’s back against the Lord and pursuing after other gods than the Lord.

Jeremiah 3:6-15 – “The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done?  She is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.  And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me.  But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.  And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.  And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.  And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.  And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.  Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.  Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: and I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” involves pursuing after other gods than the Lord, which is to be viewed as an adulterous cheating against the Lord.  Furthermore, we learn that the Lord will separate those who “backslide” from His fellowship.  Yet we also learn that those who “backslide” do not cease to be the Lord’s people, but are called by the Lord to return unto Him.  Finally, we learn that those “backsliders” who repent of their “backslidings” and turn back unto the Lord will be mercifully forgiven of their sins by the Lord and will be mercifully restored unto the fellowship of the Lord.

Jeremiah 3:21-22 – “A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God.  Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings.  Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God.”

Herein we learn the “backsliding” is to pervert one’s way and to forget the Lord.  Yet we also learn that those who “backslide” are called by the Lord to return unto Him.  Finally, we learn that those “backsliders” who do repent and return unto the Lord will be spiritually healed of their “backslidings” by the Lord.

Jeremiah 5:6 – “Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased.”

Herein we learn that the Lord our God will judge the “backslider” for his “backslidings.”

Jeremiah 7:22-28 – “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.  But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.  Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.  Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.  But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.”

Herein we learn of various characteristics in “backsliding.”  First, “backsliding” is to disobey the authoritative voice and commandments of the Lord.  Second, “backsliding” is to walk after the counsels and desires of one’s own evil heart.  Finally, “backsliding” is to harden one’s self stubbornly against the correction of the Lord.

Jeremiah 8:5-6 – “Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding?  They hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.  I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying,  What have I done?  Every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” involves a stubborn refusal to repent of wickedness and to return unto the Lord.

Jeremiah 14:7-12 – “O LORD, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee.  O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?  Why shouldest thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save?  Yet thou, O LORD, art in the midst of us, and we are called by thy name; leave us not.  Thus saith the LORD unto this people, Thus have they loved to wander, they have not refrained their feet, therefore the LORD doth not accept them; he will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins.  Then said the LORD unto me, Pray not for this people for their good.  When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” is to wander away from the Lord in the ways of sinfulness.  Furthermore, we learn that the Lord our God will certainly judge “backsliders” and will not hear their prayer for help and deliverance.

Jeremiah 15:6 – “Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting.”

Herein again we learn that “backsliding” is to forsake the Lord and that the Lord will certainly judge “backsliders.”

Hosea 4:16-17 – “For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now the LORD will feed them as a lamb in a large place.  Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” involves pursuing after other gods than the Lord.

Hosea 11:7 – “And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” is to not exalt the Lord’s authority in one’s life.

Hosea 14:1-4 – “O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.  Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.  Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy.  I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.”

Herein we again learn that the Lord our God will spiritually heal the “backslidings” of those “backsliders” who repent and return unto the Lord.

Zephaniah 1:4-6 – “I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests; and them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by the LORD, and that swear by Malcham; and them that are turned back from the LORD; and those that have not sought the LORD, nor enquired for him.”

Herein we learn that “backsliding” involves not seeking after the Lord’s fellowship or enquiring after the Lord’s will.  Furthermore, we learn that “backsliding” involves pursuing after other gods than the Lord.  Finally, we learn that the Lord our God will certainly judge “backsliders” for their “backslidings.”

 

Now, although this Bible study reveals that “backsliding” in the Old Testament involved a pursuit after other gods than the Lord is some cases, it also reveals that “backsliding” did not involve such a pursuit in every case.  On the other hand, this Bible study reveals that “backsliding” in the Old Testament involved in every case a departure from obedience unto the Lord’s authority in order to pursue one’s own way.  This then reveals the essential definition of spiritual “backsliding.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 3/26/2016 at 3:56 PM, wretched said:

It is pretty clear Peter was unconverted prior to Pentecost because Christ had not yet ascended and He had not yet sent the Spirit.

If anyone could have been born again prior to this then CHRIST DIED IN VAIN but the false traditions of men keep reasonable people from seeing these things for some reason.

Agreed,brother Wretched.

On 3/26/2016 at 3:56 PM, wretched said:

Since you bring up Peter, lets see what Jesus said to him: I disagree with your commentary in regard to Peter my friend from a sequential Bible perspective.

Luk 22:32, But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Peter's conversion did not occur until after Christ's ascension, ie. Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out upon the earth.

Although Peter and all the apostles had eye-witnessed Christ's Power for nearly 3 years, they were still unregenerate. Their faith was by sight only and not from the new birth yet. Hence as soon as Christ was out of sight, so was Peter's faith.

Agreed, brother Wretched. 

Psalm 19:7 and Psalm 51:13 also speak of conversion, however I would contend it is not the same conversion Peter experienced after Jesus' ascension, and after the Holy Spirit indewlt him... else why would he have had to be converted (if he already WAS)? So again I also contend that the Holy Spirit did not indwell believers in the same fashion in the OT as they do in the NT (after Christ's ascension). That is a topic already discussed. However, it bears mentioning again since it is another example of the difference in the relation of the Holy Spirit in the age of grace. Paul tells us we are "sealed unto the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30) and while I am there in that verse it also tells me something else we can do... "grieve" the Holy Spirit. This may be what in today's terms many would call "backsliding", but it IS a different terminology and for a different reason. I agree with brother Wretched's conclusion as to why this is different.  We certainly CAN sin still even after accepting/believing upon Jesus for salvation. Romans 7:15 "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." and we see that the Holy Spirit is not the ONLY presence dwelling within us: Romans 7:"Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." But it is clear it is no license TO sin. When we sin we grieve the Holy Spirit, it is not something to take lightly.

When Israel "backslid" to go whoring after other false "gods" He called them backslidden. Jer. 2:19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts. 20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot. Jer. 3:6 "The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot." We know from study that the "high hills" and tree groves were used for idol worship/the worship of false "gods". Jer. 3:14 "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion" He uses the terminology of being "married" to Israel, this proves also that the "backsliding" He is referencing is in direct correlation to "adultery" against the one true God by their false idol worship/false "god" worship. God WILL eventually HEAL their "backsliding" as Hosea 14:4 declares, BUT what first must be noted is what He is calling backliding in the first right above (14:3) 3 "Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy." 4 "I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him."

2 Cor.1:22 "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." We have His Holy Spirit in our hearts, we grieve the Holy Spirit when we walk contrary to what He leads us to do. But again, I agree this is not the same terminology used as was used for Israel, when they "backslid", because it's a different offense, even if it does have similar characteristics,  and even if today's churches refer to ALL offenses against God (once saved) as backsliding, it's different for all the reason brother Wretched brought out,  AND it's different because of Luke 22:32. If Peter had already been converted (by the Holy Spirit's indwelling guidance) he would not have need to BE converted. Peter would not have been able to "grieve the Holy Spirit" before Christ's ascension. I would contend that the proper terminology of what most churches call "backsliding" in the age of grace, SHOULD BE termed "grieving the Holy Spirit". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Take for granted that I did not have time to read all the posts here, and someone may have already said what I am about to say.

Hebrews 10:38,39 says if we draw back he would not have pleasure in us but 'we are not of them who draw back unto perdition'.

Those who draw back are backslidden.

Those who drawback unto perdition were never his to begin with.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sister Ronda,

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:39 PM, Ronda said:

Psalm 19:7 and Psalm 51:13 also speak of conversion, however I would contend it is not the same conversion Peter experienced after Jesus' ascension, and after the Holy Spirit indewlt him... else why would he have had to be converted (if he already WAS)?

Because the terminology of "conversion" is NOT strictly equivalent in either New Testament or Old Testament with the doctrine of regeneration.  In fact, the verb "be converted" simply means "to be turned back from one directional way unto a different directional way.  As such, the terminology of "conversion" can be used both concerning the lost sinner's being turned from spiritual darkness and death unto spiritual light and life, as per Matthew 13:15, 18:3, Mark 4:12, John 12:40, Acts 3:19, 15:3; 28:27, and concerning the sinning believer's being turned from the ways of carnality and unrighteousness unto the ways of repentance and righteousness, as per Psalm 19:7, James 5:19-20, and I would add the case of Peter in Luke 22:32.
 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:39 PM, Ronda said:

So again I also contend that the Holy Spirit did not indwell believers in the same fashion in the OT as they do in the NT (after Christ's ascension). That is a topic already discussed. However, it bears mentioning again since it is another example of the difference in the relation of the Holy Spirit in the age of grace. Paul tells us we are "sealed unto the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30) and while I am there in that verse it also tells me something else we can do... "grieve" the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, I agree that God the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell Old Testament believers.  Furthermore, I would agree the "sealing" work of the Holy Spirit is to be views as equivalent to the "indwelling" work of the Holy Spirit, as per the teaching of Ephesians 1:13-14 (wherein the "sealing" work of the Holy Spirit is made equivalent to "the earnest of our inheritance") & 2 Corinthians 1:22 (wherein that "earnest" is made equivalent to "the Spirit in our hearts").

On the other hand, I would contend that the "regenerating" work of the Holy Spirit is NOT directly equivalent to the "indwelling/sealing" work of the Holy Spirit.  Now, I would certainly grant that the "regenerating" work of the Holy Spirit is that which initiates the "indwelling/sealing" work of the Holy Spirit for the New Testament believer.  However, I would contend that there is a different between one work being the initiation of the other work, and one work being equivalent to the other work.  Indeed, I would put forth a challenge to you (and to any others who contend with me on this matter) to present Biblical evidence that the "regenerating" work of the Holy Spirit actually is equivalent with the "indwelling/sealing" work of the Holy Spirit, and not just the initiating work for the "indwelling/sealing" work of the Holy Spirit.
 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:39 PM, Ronda said:

. . . And while I am there in that verse it also tells me something else we can do... "grieve" the Holy Spirit. This may be what in today's terms many would call "backsliding", but it IS a different terminology and for a different reason. I agree with brother Wretched's conclusion as to why this is different.  We certainly CAN sin still even after accepting/believing upon Jesus for salvation. Romans 7:15 "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." and we see that the Holy Spirit is not the ONLY presence dwelling within us: Romans 7:"Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." But it is clear it is no license TO sin. When we sin we grieve the Holy Spirit, it is not something to take lightly.

Indeed, the New Testament passage of Ephesians 4:30 does speak about grieving the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Yet this is the one and only time that the idea of grieving the indwelling Holy Spirit is specifically referenced in the New Testament.  Now, I do not mention this in order to discount the truth of this one reference; for a truth needs only to be referenced once in God's Holy Word to be very truth.  However, I mention this in order to point out that there are also many other phrases of terminology that are used in the New Testament concerning a New Testament believer's walk away from the fellowship of the Lord unto the ways of carnality and unrighteousness.  Seeking to narrow the entire teaching of the New Testament on the matter to this one phrase would seem to be an error.  Even so, I would contend that when a New Testament believer sins that believer is thereby going away backward from the Lord's fellowship, and as such grieves the indwelling Holy Spirit, since the indwelling Holy Spirit loves righteousness and truth holiness and strives always to direct us unto glorifying the Father and the Son.
 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:39 PM, Ronda said:

When Israel "backslid" to go whoring after other false "gods" He called them backslidden. Jer. 2:19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts. 20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot. Jer. 3:6 "The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot." We know from study that the "high hills" and tree groves were used for idol worship/the worship of false "gods". Jer. 3:14 "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion" He uses the terminology of being "married" to Israel, this proves also that the "backsliding" He is referencing is in direct correlation to "adultery" against the one true God by their false idol worship/false "god" worship. God WILL eventually HEAL their "backsliding" as Hosea 14:4 declares, BUT what first must be noted is what He is calling backliding in the first right above (14:3) 3 "Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy." 4 "I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him."

Indeed, Jeremiah 2:19-20, Jeremiah 3:6-15, and Hosea 14:1-4 are all Old Testament passages that communicate the doctrine of "backsliding" in the Old Testament.  However, I have presented a two part Bible study in this very thread (here & here) which reveals that there are at least 20 different Old Testament passages to be considered concerning the doctrine of "backsliding" in the Old Testament.  So then, as we consider this doctrine, is it wiser for us to consider only a few of the passages that apply to the doctrine; or is it wiser for us to be more thorough in considering all of the passages that apply to the doctrine?
 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:39 PM, Ronda said:

2 Cor.1:22 "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." We have His Holy Spirit in our hearts, we grieve the Holy Spirit when we walk contrary to what He leads us to do. But again, I agree this is not the same terminology used as was used for Israel, when they "backslid", because it's a different offense . . . .

Indeed, the most foundational point of conflict in this discussion and debate concerns the correct definition for the doctrine of "backsliding," even as I presented in an earlier posting:

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 4:19 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  In order to discern correctly if the doctrine of "backsliding" is found in the New Testament, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary that one begin with a determination of the Biblical definition for "backsliding."  Since the doctrine of "backsliding" is first found in the Old Testament, and since the specific terminology of "backsliding" is only found in the Old Testament, it also necessary that an individual discern and determine the Biblical definition for "backsliding" from the Old Testament teaching on the subject.

3.  The discussion and debate of the matter itself actually is over the correct definition, for in this is the differing premises upon which the two opposing sides are built.  The side which holds that the doctrine of "backsliding" IS found in the New Testament for the New Testament believer will define "backsliding" simply as a turning away backward from the Lord in an individual's daily walk and service unto any way that is not the way of the Lord.  The side which holds that the doctrine of "backsliding" is NOT found in the New Testament for the New Testament believer will also define "backsliding" as a turning away backward from the Lord, but will indicate that it is a turning unto a way that is not at all possible for a genuine New Testament believer to engage.  (Note: Brother "Wretched" has indicated this in his definition for "backsliding" as a turning unto idolatrous worship of a false god.)

(emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

How then can we discern the correct Biblical definition for the doctrine of "backsliding"?  We must do so through diligent, disciplined Bible study.  Yet this brings us to a choice for our method of Bible study -- Either we can follow (1) the pick-and-choose method of Bible study, wherein we only consider a few of the applicable passages on the matter; or we can follow (2) the complete method of Bible study, wherein we seek to consider all of the applicable passage on the matter.

As for myself, I believe that it should be fairly obvious which method I desire to follow, since I am the one who has sought out the extended number of Old Testament passage on the doctrine, compiles those passages in an organized format, and presented them for others to consider also.  Furthermore, I would contend that if ALL of these passages do not teach that pursuing after another god than the Lord is involved in "backsliding," then that characteristic should NOT be viewed as an absolutely inherent part of the definition for the doctrine of "backsliding."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

With two previous postings (here 7 here), I have presented a more thorough compilation of passage concerning the doctrine of "backsliding' in the Old Testament.  With that more thorough compilation, we are able to discern a more thorough listing of the terminology for "backsliding, as follows:

1.  Turning back from following the Lord. (1 Samuel 15:11; Psalm 78:57)

2.  Not performing/keeping the Lord’s commandments. (1 Samuel 15:11; Psalm 78:56; Jeremiah 7:28)

3.  Casting the Lord behind one’s back. (1 Kings 4:9; Jeremiah 2:27)

4.  Doing evil in pursuing after other gods. (1 Kings 4:9; Psalm 78:58; Jeremiah 2:20, 27; 3:6, 8-9, 13; Hosea 4:16-17; Zephaniah 1:4-6)

5.  Turning back our heart from the Lord. (Psalm 44:18; Proverbs 14:14)

6.  Declining our steps from the Lord’s way. (Psalm 44:18)

7.  Dealing unfaithfully with the Lord. (Psalm 78:57)

8.  Rebelling against the Lord. (Isaiah 1:2; 50:5)

9.  Forsaking the Lord. (Isaiah 1:4; Jeremiah 2:19; 3:21; 15:6)

10.  Pursuing after the ways of sinful iniquity. (Isaiah 1:4; Jeremiah 2:19; 3:21; 5:6; 14:7, 10; Hosea 14:1)

11.  Not walking in the fear of the Lord. (Jeremiah 2:19)

12.  Walking after the counsels and imaginations of our own heart. (Jeremiah 7:24; 8:6)

13.  Hardening the neck against the Lord’s reproof. (Jeremiah 7:25-26, 28; 8:5-6)

14.  Not exalting the Lord in one’s life. (Hosea 11:7)

15.  Not seeking after the Lord or enquiring after His will. (Zephaniah 1:6)

So then, do we find any of this terminology also in the New Testament in relation to the New Testament believer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Because the terminology of "conversion" is NOT strictly equivalent in either New Testament or Old Testament with the doctrine of regeneration.

Brother Scott,

I see your point here... However, that still doesn't answer the question as to why Peter would have needed to be converted (Luke 22:32)  If he already had been converted, there would be no need to yet BE converted.

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

concerning the sinning believer's being turned from the ways of carnality and unrighteousness unto the ways of repentance and righteousness, as per Psalm 19:7, James 5:19-20, and I would add the case of Peter in Luke 22:32.

So if this was the "conversion" Peter was yet to have in Luke 22:32, why had he not yet already BEEN "turned away from the ways of carnality and unrighteousness"? I also still do not agree that Psalm 19:7 would at all be the same type of "conversion" at all... "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."  I don't see the law in play in Luke 22:32  Instead, I see in Luke 22:31 " And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat". Had the law been capable of "converting" Simon (Peter) he would not have denied Jesus thrice. 

I also must respectfully disagree that "turned their back" and "turning back" doesn't mean the exact same thing as "backslidden".  I DO comprehend that most churches now days do USE the word "backslidden" to encompass just about any sin in which a person commits willfully after salvation. For instance, one might say "Jane" had "backslidden" when she started drinking alcohol again, or one might say that "Joe" has "backslidden" when he stopped going to church in favor of watching football... for a couple of examples, and I would understand what they meant. However, I did contend that "backslidden" was most relevant to Israel whoring after other Gods (one could make the case that alcohol and/or football could take the place of an idol... anything we put above the Lord). But I do agree (again) with brother Wretched's statement that the term "backslidden" is an old testament term and was used in conjunction with Israel's adulterous relationship with the Lord. 

I also agree that Ephesians 4:20 is the one place that states "grieve not the Holy Spirit of God..." We don't see Peter (for example) grieving the Holy Spirit in John 21:17, we see that Peter himself is grieved because Jesus asked him the same question for the 3rd time. "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas,lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" What is it about Peter and the number 3? He denied the Lord 3x, he was also shown 3x in a vision pertaining to gentiles (as well as dietary LAWS no longer being in effect)  in Acts 10:15 "And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven." Just wondering if anyone else has wondered about Simon Peter and the repetitive "threes" pertaining to him??  

But back on point... I do not believe Peter (nor any of them) COULD have grieved the Holy Spirit prior to having been converted (BY the Holy Spirit's indwelling... I was going to say "permanent residence" but I should say "permanent while we are yet in corruptible bodies") or any time prior to that. I also think that's why it would be much different to "backslide" and also different to grieve ourselves, rather than to "grieve the Holy Spirit".  

I see we disagree on this matter. I can agree to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Ronda said:

Brother Scott,

I see your point here... However, that still doesn't answer the question as to why Peter would have needed to be converted (Luke 22:32)  If he already had been converted, there would be no need to yet BE converted.

So if this was the "conversion" Peter was yet to have in Luke 22:32, why had he not yet already BEEN "turned away from the ways of carnality and unrighteousness"?

Sister Ronda,

I believe that you misunderstanding somewhat here the point of my position.  As I indicated above, I believe that the terminology of "conversion" is NOT strictly equivalent in either New Testament or Old Testament with the doctrine of regeneration; and I recognize that the verb "be converted" simply means "to be turned back from one directional way unto a different directional way.  As such, I believe that the terminology of "conversion" can be used in two primary ways with each being in relation to a different group of people, as follows:

1.  The terminology of "conversion" can be used concerning the lost sinner.  In this case it DOES refer to the work of regeneration, wherein the lost sinner is turned from spiritual darkness and death unto spiritual light and life.  I believe that Matthew 13:15; 18:3; Mark 4:12; John 12:40; Acts 3:19; 15:3; 28:27 are examples of this usage.  Now, since the work of regeneration is an eternal work that occurs immediately upon the lost sinner's faith in Christ for salvation and remains valid forever, this aspect of "conversion" would occur only ONCE for an individual.

2.  The terminology of "conversion" can be used concerning the sinning believer.  In this case it does NOT refer to the work of regeneration, since it is applicable to an individual who is already a believer.  Rather, this case is necessary when a believer-already becomes wayward in the ways of unrighteousness, errs from walking in the truth, walks in spiritual darkness, is overtaken in a fault of unrighteousness, goes away backward from the Lord's fellowship.  Even so, in this case the wayward, sinning believer would need to be converted from wayward ways of carnality and unrighteousness in order to return through broken-hearted repentance and confession unto the fellowship of the Lord and the ways of righteousness.  I believe that Psalm 19:7; James 5:19-20; and the case of Peter in Luke 22:32 are examples of this usage.  Now, since a believer can be wayward in unrighteousness, walk in darkness, and go backward from the Lord's fellowship multiple times throughout his entire Christian life, this aspect of "conversion" could occur MULTIPLE times for an individual believer.

So then, how would this second case apply unto Peter in Luke 22:32?  By that time Peter was already a believer, and as such was not of this world, even as Christ Himself was not of this world. (See John 17:14-16)  (Note: I myself would contend that this "not of the world" terminology IS regeneration terminology; and if anyone desires further explanation for this, I am willing to provide it.)  Yet in Luke 22:31 our Lord Jesus Christ warned Peter that Satan desired to sift him and the other apostles as wheat, and thereby to undermine their ministry as apostles.  Even so, in Luke 22:32 our Lord Jesus Christ informed Peter that He was praying specifically for Peter in order that Peter's own faith might not completely fail.  Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ expected a positive answer unto His prayer; therefore, He prophesied unto Peter that when Peter WAS converted from his waywardness, he should in turn strengthen the other apostles from their waywardness.  So then, in what manner would Peter need to be converted from waywardness?  Our Lord Jesus Christ provides the answer through His prophetic utterance of Luke 22:34, wherein He prophecies of Peter's three-fold denial.  Did Peter deny the Lord thrice before that night was complete?  Yes, he did.  Yet the need for his conversion from this waywardness was even greater.  Because of his fleshly failure (the spirit being willing, but the flesh being weak) in denying the Lord, Peter became somewhat discouraged and decided that he was no longer worthy to be an apostle.  Thus he decided to quit his calling as an apostle and to return back unto his profession as a fisherman. (See John 21:3)  In fact, Peter even influenced some of the other apostle to join with him in this matter.  However, our Lord Jesus Christ caught up to him, confronted him, restored him to fellowship, and renewed his calling as an apostle. (See John 21:15-19)  This was Peter's conversion from his waywardness.  He had been overtaken in a fault and was erring from the truth; therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ converted him "from the error of his way" and restored him unto the calling of feeding the flock.

(Note for all who may be interested: The pronouns in Luke 22:31-32 are worthy of special notice.  At the present time, the 2nd person singular personal pronoun is "you;" and the 2nd person plural personal pronoun is also "you."  This makes it somewhat difficult to distinguish singular and plural in some contexts.  This usage of the same pronoun "you" for both the 2nd person singular and plural personal pronouns was also true for the English of 1611 (which actually is Elizabethan English, the same as present day English with some drift for time).  However, in the classical English period before 1611, there did exist two different sets of pronouns to distinguish the singular and plural for the 2nd person personal pronoun usage.  Even so, in order to be more accurate in translating the Greek singulars and plurals for the 2nd person personal pronouns, the translators of 1611 employed this archaic usage.  As such, the "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine" usage of pronoun in the King James translation is NOT just for exalted language, but is specifically for ACCURACY.  Indeed, the "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine" are the singular usage of the 2nd person personal pronoun; whereas the "you," "ye," "your," "yours," is the plural usage of the 2nd person personal pronoun.  How does not matter for Luke 22:31:32?  In Luke 22:31 our Lord Jesus Christ employed the plural pronoun "you" in speaking concerning Satan's desire to sift as wheat.  "You" is the plural pronoun; therefore, our Lord was NOT just speaking about Peter in this statement, but was speaking about the whole body of the apostles.  However, in Luke 22:32 our Lord Jesus Christ employed the singular pronouns "thee" and "thy" in relation to His praying; therefore, our Lord was specifically and singularly praying for Peter himself that Peter's own faith not fail.  Indeed, I present a point of information -- Throughout the King James translation the "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine" is ALWAYS singular, and the "you," "ye," "your," "yours" is ALWAYS plural.  Such grammatical details matter for "rightly dividing" God's Word of truth; therefore, we need to learn and understand them.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Scott, Thank you for clarifying your position. I respectfully do not agree with your position, but I see now how you arrived at your position.

As for Luke 22:32, I was not aware that there was a  difference in the wording of this verse (previous to 1611 rendition). I do hold to the KJV (1611) and believe it is complete/inerrant. But I admit I had never done a Greek word search on this particular verse. I concede it IS possible that the term "you" could refer to more than JUST Peter... but I would garner that from reading the KJV as is.  I did not realize that the rendering of "you", "your" et.al was ALWAYS plural. I knew that often it COULD be plural. But I do thank you for pointing it out, because it has edified my studies. I am going to have to do much more digging now with this nugget of information, and again it has edified my studies. 

Thank you for your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/12/2016 at 9:14 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

(Note for all who may be interested: The pronouns in Luke 22:31-32 are worthy of special notice.  At the present time, the 2nd person singular personal pronoun is "you;" and the 2nd person plural personal pronoun is also "you."  This makes it somewhat difficult to distinguish singular and plural in some contexts.  This usage of the same pronoun "you" for both the 2nd person singular and plural personal pronouns was also true for the English of 1611 (which actually is Elizabethan English, the same as present day English with some drift for time).  However, in the classical English period before 1611, there did exist two different sets of pronouns to distinguish the singular and plural for the 2nd person personal pronoun usage.  Even so, in order to be more accurate in translating the Greek singulars and plurals for the 2nd person personal pronouns, the translators of 1611 employed this archaic usage.  As such, the "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine" usage of pronoun in the King James translation is NOT just for exalted language, but is specifically for ACCURACY.  Indeed, the "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine" are the singular usage of the 2nd person personal pronoun; whereas the "you," "ye," "your," "yours," is the plural usage of the 2nd person personal pronoun.  How does not matter for Luke 22:31:32?  In Luke 22:31 our Lord Jesus Christ employed the plural pronoun "you" in speaking concerning Satan's desire to sift as wheat.  "You" is the plural pronoun; therefore, our Lord was NOT just speaking about Peter in this statement, but was speaking about the whole body of the apostles.  However, in Luke 22:32 our Lord Jesus Christ employed the singular pronouns "thee" and "thy" in relation to His praying; therefore, our Lord was specifically and singularly praying for Peter himself that Peter's own faith not fail.  Indeed, I present a point of information -- Throughout the King James translation the "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine" is ALWAYS singular, and the "you," "ye," "your," "yours" is ALWAYS plural.  Such grammatical details matter for "rightly dividing" God's Word of truth; therefore, we need to learn and understand them.) 

I have read/heard about thee and thine etc., and ye - but NEVER you yours etc. only being plural. Ye, yes. But not the rest.

John 3:7 is a great example of the thee singular and ye plural.

I disagree with your thought on Peter (Simon) not being who Jesus was talking that Satan wanted to sift.

I think there are plenty of places where you is single.

And, Bro. Scott, you know as well as most here, that the translators didn't just use Greek when translating. The Epistle Dedicatory to the 1611 said so.

Also the Translators to the Readers section specifically states that they sought the meanings from multiple languages among which was Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch.

So, no, I do not agree that the word you or your is always plural.

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro. Scott,

I really appreciated your explanation regarding the two different sets of pronouns. But I have to disagree in regard to Jesus' use of the word "you" in this verse, meaning the whole body of Apostles. Again, I am not a grammarian, but to me it is obvious that Jesus is speaking directly to Peter and about Peter. I believe this for two reasons.

1. Jesus began his sentence in verse 31 with these two words: Simon, Simon = showing He is speaking directly to Peter. We see the usage of "thee and thine" also in verse 32, which speaks to your example of, " singular usage of the 2nd person personal pronoun ".

2. I believe that verses 32, 33, 34 show that Jesus is speaking only to Peter as shown by Peter's reply in Verse 33 and His instruction to only Peter in verse 32.

Is it not interesting that the text changes to the plural only in verse 35? " he said unto them "

I am in complete agreement with your explanations concerning backsliding in its two different forms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To whom it may concern,

That which I presented concerning the 2nd person singular personal pronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine" and concerning the 2nd person plural personal pronouns "you," "ye," "your," "yours" is NOT a matter of contextual understanding.  Rather, it is a matter of grammatical FACT and grammatical ACCURACY.  This is NOT a matter of my "interpretation."  Rather, this is a matter of the very definition for these English pronouns.
 

10 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bro. Scott,

I really appreciated your explanation regarding the two different sets of pronouns. But I have to disagree in regard to Jesus' use of the word "you," meaning the whole body of Apostles. Again, I am not a grammarian, but to me it is obvious that Jesus is speaking directly to Peter and about Peter. I believe this for two reasons.

1. Jesus began his sentence in verse 31 with these two words: Simon, Simon = showing He is speaking directly to Peter.

2. I believe that verses 32, 33, 34 show that Jesus is speaking only to Peter as shown by Peter's reply in Verse 33 and His instruction to only Peter in verse 32.

I am in complete agreement with your explanations concerning backsliding in its two different forms.

Brother Jim,

I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage in proving my point unto you concerning Luke 22:31-34, not because proof is not available, but because you are likely not in a position to receive it.  Since that which I have presented concerning the 2nd person personal pronouns as used in the King James translation was intended by the translators for precise accuracy in translating the Greek and Hebrew into English, it would be necessary to examine the grammatical usage of the 2nd person personal pronouns in the Greek for Luke 22:31-34.  However, if you are not (as you claim) a "grammarian" in the English language, I assume that you have little understanding (if any) concerning the grammar of New Testament Greek.

Now, if you did have some understanding concerning the grammar of New Testament Greek, I would simply demonstrate that in Luke 22:31 the 2nd person plural personal pronoun "umas" is used in the Greek, which is precisely translated by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun "you" in the English.  Furthermore, I would demonstrate that in Luke 22:32 & 34 the 1st person personal singular pronouns "sou," "su," and "soi" are used in the Greek, which are precisely translated by the 2nd person singular pronouns "thee," "thy," and "thou" in the English.  So then, indeed throughout Luke 22:32 & 34 our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking singularly to and about Peter alone.  Furthermore, in Luke 22:33 Peter alone responded to the Lord Jesus Christ.  However, in Luke 22:31 our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking singularly to Peter ("Simon, Simon"), but pluraly about the whole body of the disciples.  Now, an understanding concerning the grammar of New Testament Greek is not at all necessary, when an individual understands the precise meaning of singular for the 2nd person personal pronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" in the English and the precise meaning of plural for the 2nd person personal pronouns "you," "ye," "your," and "yours" in the English. 
 

11 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I have read/heard about thee and thine etc., and ye - but NEVER you yours etc. only being plural. Ye, yes. But not the rest.

I think there are plenty of places where you is single.

And, Bro. Scott, you know as well as most here, that the translators didn't just use Greek when translating. The Epistle Dedicatory to the 1611 said so.

Also the Translators to the Readers section specifically states that they sought the meanings from multiple languages among which was Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch.

So, no, I do not agree that the word you or your is always plural.

Brother Pittman,

In order to prove that I am wrong in this matter, you simply need to provide a single passage from the King James translation wherein the English pronoun "you" or "yours" is employed, and wherein either the Hebrew or the Greek for that passage employs the singular 2nd person personal pronoun.  (Note: Seeking to use a passage wherein the English pronoun "you" or "yours" is in italics in the King James translation would NOT be valid, since the use of the italics was intended to signal that that given English word does not have a direct correspondent in the Hebrew or Greek.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro. Scott,

You are correct in that I have no understanding of the grammatical structure of the Greek, I consider I have done well if I can even look up a Greek word or passage. As far as grammatical structure of the Greek is concerned, I am totally adrift.

It is plain to see that verses 14-30 are directed at the twelve Apostles as a whole, for the 1611 uses the word,"them" to define plurality of persons.

But I believe that I see a profound shift from plural subjects spoken to, starting in verse 31 and continuing through verse 34. This very much looks like a "side conversation" between Jesus and Peter alone.

I also see that verse 35 reverts back to the plurality of all the Apostles. This is plainly evidenced by the words,"And he said unto them".

In any event I do not see where either of our views regarding these verses does any violence to the Scripture. I also find myself at a disadvantage since I have only my simple understanding of English language.

Please understand that I respect your knowledge in both English and Greek grammar. In following your posts on different subjects I have learned a lot about grammar used in Scripture. I can't remember ever disagreeing with your explanations except for this one time.

It would be wrong for me to continue in an argumentative manner in consideration of the fact that I simply do not have the grammatical understanding in either the English or Greek. So, in this case I will just have to respectfully disagree with you in this one situation.

Thank you for your time and expertise in trying to bring this down to my level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...