In dealing with the issue of a Christian being able to "Forfeit" their salvation is made abundantly clear throughout the New Testament. So let's also deal with a particular passage which I believe demonstrates this concept as well.
The Seven letters of Revelation were written to Seven literal Christian Churches, not "church ages". Jesus had good things to say about these churches and bad things to say as well. Each one irregardless of their praise or rebuke were given a warning. Each one was told of the need to "Overcome" if they expected to inherit various things including eternal life. These letters were written to Christians, real Christians, Born Again Believers.
Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat of the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
What happens if one does not "Overcome"? They don't get to eat from the "Tree of Life".
Rev 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They will be hurt by the Second Death.
Rev 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give to him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knows except he who receives it .
What happens to those who do not overcome? They don't get to eat of the "Hidden Manna".
Rev 2:26 And he who overcomes and keeps My works to the end, to him I will give power over the nations.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They do not receive power over the Nations.
****Rev 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not BLOT OUT HIS NAME FROM the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.****
What happens to those who do not overcome? Their names are blotted out from the Book of Life! They Forfeited their salvation!
Rev 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They do not become a new pillar, they do not get God's name written on them nor Jesus' new name?
Rev 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They do not get to sit down with Jesus on His Throne!
Rev 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. NKJV
Here we see Jesus making a very clear statement that it is entirely possible to remove someone from the Book of Life. To be in the Book of Life one must first be a true believer and that is obvious or else they would not be in the Book of Life to begin with. So if Jesus is warning CHRISTIANS of this very real possibility then the idea of a Christian "Forfeiting" their salvation, committing Apostasy is no doubt very real.
The False Teachings of "Once Saved Always Saved" and "Calvinism" flies in the face of these Scriptures, among others.
When you examine the words through the various sources, they all bring about the same conclusion in this verse 28 & 29. Here is the problem with your argument. The verb "SNATCHING" which is in the "ACTIVE" voice determines who is doing the snatching. The subject which is "no man" or no one, is performing the action "snatching" in the active voice does not include himself or else it would have to be in the middle voice. If the word "snatching" was in the "middle voice" then you would have a good case you could defend by saying that you could snatch yourself. But it is not in the middle voice. It is in the "Active voice". The verb settles the argument. The verb does not allow you to snatch yourself.
I will check it out and get back to it. I still think the fact that this pronoun could be 1st 2nd, or 3rd person alteratingly, makes it appropriate, but Iwill check out you view.
Glad you are going to check it out. But it is not "m� view" it is what the Greek Study book says and my Pastor who teaches Greek discussed this with me today.
I look forward to your response as always my Friend!
From a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by for\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
After looking it over and doing some research, I still don't see it. For one thing, the word you used there does not appear anywhere I can find except the NU text, which is text used by the JWs
As for the verb, it works perfectly well with the original word, it even comes from a word that means to do it yourself.
G726
ἁρπάζω
harpazō
har-pad'-zo
From a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).
Probably akin to G142; to take for oneself, that is, to prefer. Some of the forms are borrowed from a cognate (ἕλλομαι hellomai), which is otherwise obsolete: - choose. Some of the forms are borrowed from a cognate hellomai, hel-lom-ahee; which is otherwise obsolete.
Had the word you posted been in the original text, you would have been correct, but that is not the one that appears here. The verb works as well with any form of the pronouns. But even there, it wouldn't have mattered because of the type of pronoun used in this scripture. It can take whichever form is needed and is all inclusive in definition.
There is no way around this one, it is obvious and cannot be discounted by a technicality. There is nothing grammatical or definitive to discount it as written.
You are not addressing the Grammatical use of the word within the text. Let me repeat what I said previously.
The verb "SNATCHING" which is in the "ACTIVE" voice ***DETERMINES*** who is doing the snatching. The subject which is "anyone", performing the action "snatching" does not include himself or else it would have to be in the middle voice.
If the word "snatching" was in the "middle voice" then you would have a good case you could defend by saying that you could snatch yourself. But it is not in the middle voice. It is in the "Active voice". ***The verb settles the argument.*** The verb written in the "Active voice" does not allow you to snatch yourself. That is the rule of Greek Grammar. It doesn't matter what the definition is. How it is used makes the determination. The "Voice" of the verb being either "ACTIVE", "MIDDLE" or "PASSIVE" makes the determination of who is doing what to whom.
Bottom line Leon is that you cannot use this passage to support a Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) theology.
John 10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall "anyone" (tis)"G5100) "snatch"(harpazo)(Middle Voice) "them"(autos) out of My hand.
If we break down verse 29 below it is even more pointed to what I said about verse 28, but it is not necessary.
29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and "no one" is able to "snatch" "them" out of My Father's hand.NKJV
I have shown that not only is the verb not type specific, but that it would not matter if it were. It is simple and easy to follow.
The verb is even a derivative of a word that means to do to oneself.
Of course you have to use the correct words to get this, and not the ones you keep throwing out there.
Come on Walter, take a real look at it without the commentary from others. Jesus said it, it is real. End of story. I have spent a lot of time reading commentaries, but none of them would take on this verse. There is always a reason for that.
It's not that though...I just don't think we need to be judging the bible with our views of grammar and word definitions...that's my problem. The bible seems pretty clear on everything just from reading it and comparing scripture. Grammar changes....definitions change...it's not safe in my opinion. But...to each their own...it's just not how I was taught to study I guess.
