John 6 and (N)OSAS

[Pilgrimtozion]

This forum has seen many threads concerning OSAS vs. NOSAS come and go. As a rule, I do not get involved in those discussions too much. As I was reading the Bible with my wife this morning, however, I came across some interesting verses. Take a look at what Jesus says here in John 6 (NASB):

Verse 37: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Verse 39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

Verse 65: "And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

I find these verses very interesting, since they seem to support the OSAS position. Verse 47 that everybody who the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, verse 39 continues to say that Jesus will lose none of those that are given to Him, and verse 65 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father grants it to begin with! Sounds pretty straight forward: The Father picks who comes to Jesus and who doesn't, and Jesus doesn't lose any of those who come to Him.

Now, I hope we can avoid a regular OSAS vs. NOSAS bashing contest. Instead, I hope we can discuss the above verses and how they relate to the OSAS/NOSAS positions.

How do you think these verses relate to the OSAS/NOSAS debate?

[Bandit]

...Take a look at what Jesus says here in John 6 (NASB):

Verse 37: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Verse 39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

Verse 65: "And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

I find these verses very interesting, since they seem to support the OSAS position. Verse 47 that everybody who the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, verse 39 continues to say that Jesus will lose none of those that are given to Him, and verse 65 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father grants it to begin with! Sounds pretty straight forward: The Father picks who comes to Jesus and who doesn't, and Jesus doesn't lose any of those who come to Him.

Now, I hope we can avoid a regular OSAS vs. NOSAS bashing contest. Instead, I hope we can discuss the above verses and how they relate to the OSAS/NOSAS positions.

How do you think these verses relate to the OSAS/NOSAS debate?

Hello Pilgrimtozion,

I will do my best to avoid the regular OSAS vs. NOSAS bashing contest.

I do think these verses have a place in the OSAS/NOSAS debate, but then so do many other passages. I would also suggest that there is a range of possible interpretations for each of these three verses, and that range of interpretation would have to be explored as a part of an integrated study of all the pertinent verses and passages. So these verses, though they are relevant, are not the whole story, nor should they even be interpreted in isolation apart from the rest of scripture. This ends up being a very complicated task.

[Pilgrimtozion]

Hello Pilgrimtozion,

I will do my best to avoid the regular OSAS vs. NOSAS bashing contest.

I do think these verses have a place in the OSAS/NOSAS debate, but then so do many other passages. I would also suggest that there is a range of possible interpretations for each of these three verses, and that range of interpretation would have to be explored as a part of an integrated study of all the pertinent verses and passages. So these verses, though they are relevant, are not the whole story, nor should they even be interpreted in isolation apart from the rest of scripture. This ends up being a very complicated task.

Okay...so if you tie these verses into the framework you have for yourself regarding (N)OSAS, how do you interpret them?

[Bandit]

Okay...so if you tie these verses into the framework you have for yourself regarding (N)OSAS, how do you interpret them?

That would actually take some time, as my prior post was meant to indicate. In other words, this won't be quick and easy. And I would prefer to think of developing a biblical framework into which these and other verses fit (more or less cohesively). And since my wife wants the computer, this might have to wait till later. But I will be thinking about how best to approach this.

[ZuriCH]

I find these verses very interesting, since they seem to support the OSAS position.

How do you think these verses relate to the OSAS/NOSAS debate?

I am a convinced OSAS, but didn't become one over night, instead,
it took a long period of probably one and a half year. In hind sight,
there were a few things that lead me to believe in OSAS, and "your"
verses were definitly among those that convinced me of OSAS.

Just my two cents,
René

[Butch5]

This forum has seen many threads concerning OSAS vs. NOSAS come and go. As a rule, I do not get involved in those discussions too much. As I was reading the Bible with my wife this morning, however, I came across some interesting verses. Take a look at what Jesus says here in John 6 (NASB):

Verse 37: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Verse 39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

Verse 65: "And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

I find these verses very interesting, since they seem to support the OSAS position. Verse 47 that everybody who the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, verse 39 continues to say that Jesus will lose none of those that are given to Him, and verse 65 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father grants it to begin with! Sounds pretty straight forward: The Father picks who comes to Jesus and who doesn't, and Jesus doesn't lose any of those who come to Him.

Now, I hope we can avoid a regular OSAS vs. NOSAS bashing contest. Instead, I hope we can discuss the above verses and how they relate to the OSAS/NOSAS positions.

How do you think these verses relate to the OSAS/NOSAS debate?

Hi Pligrimtozion,

These verses were spoken prior to the cross. During Jesus earthly ministry no one could come to Him unless they were specifically drawn by God. The reason being that God was setting up the crucifiction. At this time God needed the Jews to be against Christ so that they would crucify Him. You will see other places where Jesus specifically kept people from understanding. for instance,

Mark 4:8-12 ( KJV )
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


Luke 8:9-10 ( KJV )
And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

It was done to so that the Jews would crucify Christ, Paul even says the same,


1 Corinthians 2:6-10 ( KJV )
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Paul says if the mystery had been known, they would not have crucified Christ, so God kept it hidden until Christ died on the cross, after this the mystery was revealed and the gospel went out to all men as Jesus says,

John 12:32 ( KJV )
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Here is an article that explains this in more detail,

http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10.html

[RogerW]

This forum has seen many threads concerning OSAS vs. NOSAS come and go. As a rule, I do not get involved in those discussions too much. As I was reading the Bible with my wife this morning, however, I came across some interesting verses. Take a look at what Jesus says here in John 6 (NASB):

Verse 37: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Verse 39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

Verse 65: "And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

I find these verses very interesting, since they seem to support the OSAS position. Verse 47 that everybody who the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, verse 39 continues to say that Jesus will lose none of those that are given to Him, and verse 65 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father grants it to begin with! Sounds pretty straight forward: The Father picks who comes to Jesus and who doesn't, and Jesus doesn't lose any of those who come to Him.

Now, I hope we can avoid a regular OSAS vs. NOSAS bashing contest. Instead, I hope we can discuss the above verses and how they relate to the OSAS/NOSAS positions.

How do you think these verses relate to the OSAS/NOSAS debate?

Greetings Pilgrim,

The typical argument against Jo 6 supporting OSAS (I prefer POTS) is that Judas was among those given to Him. Certainly no one will argue that Judas was not lost! Therefore there are exceptions regarding those given Him by the Father, or so the argument goes.

What the argument fails to acknowledge is that although Judas was numbered among the twelve, and given Christ by the Father, he had also been ordained to be the one who would betray the Lord. And He had never been among those chosen to receive everlasting life when he is raised on the last day.

Ps 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Ac 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Ac 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Ac 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Judas was never numbered among those who believe on Him for everlasting life. Therefore Judas will not be raised to everlasting life at the last day.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

John 6 is far more than proof text for perseverance of the saints, it is also proof text that salvation from beginning to end is of the Lord! Christ tells us He came to do the will of the Father. And that the will of the Father is that He would lose none of those given Him by the Father. Christ says that only those who believe on Him will have everlasting life, and then He says, it is the work of God that we believe on Him whom He has sent.

You are diligently seeking John 6 for truth, and I believe you have rightly divided this passage of Scripture, "Sounds pretty straight forward: The Father picks who comes to Jesus and who doesn't, and Jesus doesn't lose any of those who come to Him."

Many Blessings,
RW

[Bandit]

Hello again Pilgrimtozion,

Since I know how easily these discussions can be derailed, and since people lose interest in long and protracted discussions, I will try to be brief (which means a lot or relevant stuff will be skipped).

Here is what you said (in part).

...Take a look at what Jesus says here in John 6 (NASB):

Verse 37: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Verse 39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

Verse 65: "And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

I find these verses very interesting, since they seem to support the OSAS position. Verse 47 that everybody who the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, verse 39 continues to say that Jesus will lose none of those that are given to Him, and verse 65 says that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father grants it to begin with! Sounds pretty straight forward: The Father picks who comes to Jesus and who doesn't, and Jesus doesn't lose any of those who come to Him.
...

I would agree that if one limits himself to just these three verses (and select others) that OSAS (and calvinism in general) would seem to be the appropriate biblical model. (Though I claim both calvinism and OSAS oppose much real-life experience - like the ability to choose.) The problem I and others have is that these three verses are not all that the bible has to say. This is why I said in an earlier post that we must incorporate all that scripture has to say, even when trying to interpret a single verse, as opposed to interpreting in isolation (or at least in isolation from certain passages).

So, what is it you see (or think you see) in these 3 verses? Allow me to interject what I think you see. You see 3 verses which mentions God’s activity in salvation (and granted, God must be involved), but does the failure to mention any activity (in these 3 verses) on the part of man mean that man has no role in his own salvation? One of the things we need to avoid is making conclusions based upon an argument from silence. These three verses may not mention any activity by man, but other passages certainly do. (And I can list some.) This means that these three verses indicate some portion of God’s truth, but not its whole. And we also know it is very easy to jump to conclusions based upon partial truths. So we need the whole story to make a more informed decision. Now I’m not going to drag you through a long and tedious exploration of scripture; I’m just going to give you a relatively short take on each of these three verses. We can follow up on them (and all the gory details) if you wish.


John 6:37 says that all that the Father gives to Him shall come, and He [Jesus] will not cast the coming one out.

The first question is just who does the Father give to the Son? Is this some kind of arbitrary giving of random persons - or is there some decision criterion or underlying scheme which the Father uses concerning whom He gives? Remember, just because this verse does not tell us how the Father chooses, we would be unwise to assume He is both blind and random. (And I would submit that there are other verses which show that God is not blind and random.)

A second question concerns the not being cast out phrase. Does this really mean once saved always saved? The Greek indicates that the one who He will not cast out is one who is “coming”. The Greek tends to indicate an active, ongoing action. So an argument can be made that Jesus has a certain kind of person in mind. (And there are many other passages which strongly support such a conclusion.) A new question is this: Can someone cease to be a “coming one”? We would need to look beyond this verse to attempt an answer to such a question.


John 6:39 says that Jesus will lose nothing. But again, do we interpret this verse in isolation? If, as in the previous verse, Jesus has a certain kind of person in mind (perhaps the same kind of person as in verse 37) then I have no problem. And do notice that in the very next verse Jesus essentially repeats what He said in verse 39, but He now gives a little more description concerning those He will not lose. Jesus describes them as “beholding the Son and believing in Him”. Again, the Greek points toward an active and ongoing activity by the persons under consideration. So I have no problem with what is being said here, but as I read it, the promise is made to those who are abiding in Christ. The potential of not continuing to abide is not explicitly addressed in this verse. Again, we need to consider all of scripture to answer such a question.


John 6:65 speaks of those who have been granted by the Father to come to the Son. Again, on what basis is the granting made? Is it a blind and random granting, or is there some underlying method to God’s granting?

In isolation, these verses leave more unsaid than said. There is a lot of room for misinterpretation and jumping to conclusions. We have to be very careful to not read more into them than is warranted, and we need to fill in the gaps with information from other passages. I hope this has been informative. I have no problem with any of these verses, nor do I avoid them, but I have significant issue with any attempt to interpret them in isolation from the rest of scripture. The limited truth revealed in these verses must be interpreted in the light of all that scripture has to say, or error can result.

[threebigrocks]

Thing is - it's those who are in Christ, fully and 100% sold out for Jesus. Christ won't loose a single one who is truly in Him through the Spirit. Not a one. The Father, and His Spirit who He sent, recognizes who's heart is true, and they are directed to the Son who all things are brought through. Christ is our intercessor, and those who are drawn and recognize it - believing by faith through grace - calling on the name of Christ, will be saved.

I heard a sermon this morning where the preacher said he didn't understand how someone can born again in 4 minutes by saying a few words and be done. If you get the cheap carwash you can get that done in 4 minutes. I can switch my laundry in 4 minutes. Brushing your teeth. Think about it. It takes knowing the Spirit, He who lives in you when you approach the throne of grace by faith, in order to be known by Christ. If He doesn't - we aren't saved and we will only hear "Away from me, I never knew you."

Many will claim Him. Few will be known by Him. Those who know Him, in Spirit and in truth, and have communion with Him will enter in; we will sup with Him and Him with us. Without that communion - none will enter.

[Butch5]

Greetings Pilgrim,

The typical argument against Jo 6 supporting OSAS (I prefer POTS) is that Judas was among those given to Him. Certainly no one will argue that Judas was not lost! Therefore there are exceptions regarding those given Him by the Father, or so the argument goes.

What the argument fails to acknowledge is that although Judas was numbered among the twelve, and given Christ by the Father, he had also been ordained to be the one who would betray the Lord. And He had never been among those chosen to receive everlasting life when he is raised on the last day.

Ps 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Ac 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Ac 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Ac 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Judas was never numbered among those who believe on Him for everlasting life. Therefore Judas will not be raised to everlasting life at the last day.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

John 6 is far more than proof text for perseverance of the saints, it is also proof text that salvation from beginning to end is of the Lord! Christ tells us He came to do the will of the Father. And that the will of the Father is that He would lose none of those given Him by the Father. Christ says that only those who believe on Him will have everlasting life, and then He says, it is the work of God that we believe on Him whom He has sent.

You are diligently seeking John 6 for truth, and I believe you have rightly divided this passage of Scripture, "Sounds pretty straight forward: The Father picks who comes to Jesus and who doesn't, and Jesus doesn't lose any of those who come to Him."

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger,


John 6:37-39 ( KJV )
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.


John 17:11-12 ( KJV )
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

You cannot get around the fact the Judas was given to Christ by the Father and Judas was lost.

If you look at the original language your interpretation cannot stand. In verse 39, the verb "lose" is an aorist, subjunctive, active. It is in the aorist tense, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice. The subjunctive mood indicates possibility, thus the statement " I should loose nothing" is stated as being a possibility. However, we can also see that in the English, the word should indicates possibility.So either way the language does not support POTS or Election to salvation.

[Partaker of Christ]

Roger,


John 6:37-39 ( KJV )
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.


John 17:11-12 ( KJV )
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

You cannot get around the fact the Judas was given to Christ by the Father and Judas was lost.

If you look at the original language your interpretation cannot stand. In verse 39, the verb "lose" is an aorist, subjunctive, active. It is in the aorist tense, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice. The subjunctive mood indicates possibility, thus the statement " I should loose nothing" is stated as being a possibility. However, we can also see that in the English, the word should indicates possibility.So either way the language does not support POTS or Election to salvation.

Personally I do not believe that Judas was ever saved, as he was counted among those who did not believe.

Judas was chosen to fulfil what the scriptures said.

We also have many examples of 'against the rule of thumb'

Not long ago you pointed out about water baptism. (something like this)
Water baptism precededs Holy Spirit baptism. When I showed you an example were Spirit baptism preceded water baptism, you said we cannot take just one example.

There is 'it is appointed man to die once and then the judgment'. We know of some who have died more then once. We also know that some who remain and are 'alive' at His coming will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord.

[Butch5]

Personally I do not believe that Judas was ever saved, as he was counted among those who did not believe.

Judas was chosen to fulfil what the scriptures said.

We also have many examples of 'against the rule of thumb'

Not long ago you pointed out about water baptism. (something like this)
Water baptism precededs Holy Spirit baptism. When I showed you an example were Spirit baptism preceded water baptism, you said we cannot take just one example.

There is 'it is appointed man to die once and then the judgment'. We know of some who have died more then once. We also know that some who remain and are 'alive' at His coming will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord.

Regarding water baptism, we have the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

Jesus said, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, this is Christ teaching the disciples. Then we have Peter on the day of Pentecost, after hearing Peter preach Christ, the men said, what shall we do? They obviously believed Peter's message or they would not care what they should do. Peter tells them, repent and be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit. Pete is teaching these men how to receive the promise.

The incident in Acts 10 is different. Peter is teaching those at the house of Cornelius what they must do to be saved, while Peter is in the process of teaching them God just sends the Holy Spirit. Here is the question, If God says repent and be baptized and I will give you the gift of the Holy Spirit, He has obligated Himself to do just that. If someone believes, repents and is water baptized, God is obligated to give them the gift of hte Holy Spirit, because He said He would. Now, does that preclude God from giving the Spirit without someone being water baptized first? Absolutely not. If God sets conditions and one meets those conditions then God has obligated Himself to give the Holy Spirit, however, He can still give the Holy Spirit without the conditions being me, if He chooses to.
The question is, can we preach to others that God will give them the Holy Spirit if they are not water baptized, Absolutely not. God has set the conditions and Jesus and the Apostles have told what these conditions are. If God Chooses to give someone the Spirit without the conditions being meet, He can do so, he is only obligated to give it to those who have met the conditions. It would be like if your boss said, anyone who stays late tonight will get a $50 bonus, everyone stays late except one guy, he has to leave. Your boss has obligated himself to give a $50 bonus to everyone who stayed late. Does that mean he cannot give the bonus to the guy who had to leave? No, if he chooses to he can give the bonus to the guy who left also. The next week your boss say the same thing again, whoever stays late will get a $50 bonus. Now, does that mean that you can go to all of the other guys and say you don't really need to stay late, you will still get the bonus, because Joe didn't stay last time and he got a bonus? Of course not, just because the boss gave the bonus to someone who didn't meet the conditions last time, does not mean that the conditions no longer apply, the boss just went over and above what he said he would do.This is the scenario at Cornelius' house. God has set the conditions, we have been taught what they are by Jesus and the apostles, just because God went over and above the conditions that He set, does not negate the conditions. When we preach to unbelievers, we tell them that God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to those who believe, repent, and are water baptized, because this is what Jesus and the Apostles have told us. If God chooses to bestow the Holy Spirit on someone who has not met those conditions, He can, however, we have no Biblical grounds to tell them that He will.

Now, regarding John 6, Jesus said,


John 6:37-39 ( KJV )
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jesus said it was the Father's will that He should lose nothing of all that the Father had given Him. The word "should", implies possibility, not certainty. This is in line with the Greek, in the Greek the verb "lose" is in the subjunctive mood, which indicates possibility. So, this verse does not support Roger's claim. It does not support POTS and it does not support Unconditional Election. The claim is that Christ will lose none and that All will be raised at the last day. However we see that that did not happen, Judas, saved or not, "was" one of those Given to Christ by the Father, Jesus says so Himself.

John 17:12 ( KJV )
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

None of them is lost "but", this but means one of them, the one given to Christ was lost. This is just one more confirmation that John 6:39 meant possibility and not certainty. The English language say possibility, the Greek language says possibility, and history show that one was lost which means is could only have been possibility.

[Partaker of Christ]

Regarding water baptism, we have the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

Jesus said, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, this is Christ teaching the disciples. Then we have Peter on the day of Pentecost, after hearing Peter preach Christ, the men said, what shall we do? They obviously believed Peter's message or they would not care what they should do. Peter tells them, repent and be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit. Pete is teaching these men how to receive the promise.

The incident in Acts 10 is different. Peter is teaching those at the house of Cornelius what they must do to be saved, while Peter is in the process of teaching them God just sends the Holy Spirit. Here is the question, If God says repent and be baptized and I will give you the gift of the Holy Spirit, He has obligated Himself to do just that. If someone believes, repents and is water baptized, God is obligated to give them the gift of hte Holy Spirit, because He said He would. Now, does that preclude God from giving the Spirit without someone being water baptized first? Absolutely not. If God sets conditions and one meets those conditions then God has obligated Himself to give the Holy Spirit, however, He can still give the Holy Spirit without the conditions being me, if He chooses to.
The question is, can we preach to others that God will give them the Holy Spirit if they are not water baptized, Absolutely not. God has set the conditions and Jesus and the Apostles have told what these conditions are. If God Chooses to give someone the Spirit without the conditions being meet, He can do so, he is only obligated to give it to those who have met the conditions. It would be like if your boss said, anyone who stays late tonight will get a $50 bonus, everyone stays late except one guy, he has to leave. Your boss has obligated himself to give a $50 bonus to everyone who stayed late. Does that mean he cannot give the bonus to the guy who had to leave? No, if he chooses to he can give the bonus to the guy who left also. The next week your boss say the same thing again, whoever stays late will get a $50 bonus. Now, does that mean that you can go to all of the other guys and say you don't really need to stay late, you will still get the bonus, because Joe didn't stay last time and he got a bonus? Of course not, just because the boss gave the bonus to someone who didn't meet the conditions last time, does not mean that the conditions no longer apply, the boss just went over and above what he said he would do.This is the scenario at Cornelius' house. God has set the conditions, we have been taught what they are by Jesus and the apostles, just because God went over and above the conditions that He set, does not negate the conditions. When we preach to unbelievers, we tell them that God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to those who believe, repent, and are water baptized, because this is what Jesus and the Apostles have told us. If God chooses to bestow the Holy Spirit on someone who has not met those conditions, He can, however, we have no Biblical grounds to tell them that He will.

Just like we have no biblical grounds to tell others that Jesus Christ will loose any who the Father gives to Him.

Or does your analogy only work, when it favours your views?

Now, regarding John 6, Jesus said,


John 6:37-39 ( KJV )
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jesus said it was the Father's will that He should lose nothing of all that the Father had given Him. The word "should", implies possibility, not certainty. This is in line with the Greek, in the Greek the verb "lose" is in the subjunctive mood, which indicates possibility.

The word 'should' is me (sp may)
It has a meaning of expressing an absolute denial, ['God forbid', never, can not,]

It is in the active voice, so you say that Jesus Christ could fail?

So, this verse does not support Roger's claim. It does not support POTS and it does not support Unconditional Election. The claim is that Christ will lose none and that All will be raised at the last day. However we see that that did not happen, Judas, saved or not, "was" one of those Given to Christ by the Father, Jesus says so Himself.

John 17:12 ( KJV )
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

None of them is lost "but", this but means one of them, the one given to Christ was lost. This is just one more confirmation that John 6:39 meant possibility and not certainty. The English language say possibility, the Greek language says possibility, and history show that one was lost which means is could only have been possibility.

Jesus knew who he (Judas) was when He chose him. He was lost from the beginning.

[Butch5]

Partaker of Christ--- Just like we have no biblical grounds to tell others that Jesus Christ will loose any who the Father gives to Him.

I have just shown you from the Greek language that John 6:39 says that the statement is a possibility. Are you going to say that that the Greek texts are wrong also.

Partaker of Christ--- Or does your analogy only work, when it favours your views?

Did you read what I posted? The Greek language doe not allow it.

Partaker of Christ--- The word 'should' is me (sp may)
It has a meaning of expressing an absolute denial, ['God forbid', never, can not,]

It is in the active voice, so you say that Jesus Christ could fail?

I was speaking of the English word should. The Greek word translated should is "me", it means not. The verb "lose" in Greek is the word "apollumi", it is in the aorist tense, subjunctive mood, active voice. The subjunctive mood indicates possibility. Therefore, should not lose any, is a possibility not a certainty.

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_gree...tail-frame.htm

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gmood.html

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gmood.html

http://www.preceptaustin.org/new_page_40.htm

Partaker of Christ--- Jesus knew who he (Judas) was when He chose him. He was lost from the beginning.

Again, whether he was saved of not is not the issue. He "was" given to Christ by the Father, and the verse says that none which the Father has given, should be lost. He was lost, therefore it proves the statement is only a possibility and does not indicate certainty.

[RogerW]

I thought it might be interesting to see the same word apollumi used elsewhere in John.

I should lose = apollumi; nothing = me (may), ek, autos

Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

should = apollumi; not = me (may); perish = apollumi

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

that nothing = hina me (hin'-ah may) tis; be lost = apollumi

Joh 6:12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.

they shall = apollumi; never = ou me (oo may) eis (ice) aion; perish = apollumi

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

apollumi - to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

me (may) - a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas 3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverb) not, (conjunction) lest; also (as an interrogative implying a negative answer (whereas 3756 expects an affirmative one)) whether:--any but (that), X forbear, + God forbid, + lack, lest, neither, never, no (X wise in), none, nor, (can-)not, nothing, that not, un(-taken), without. Often used in compounds in substantially the same relations.

ek - a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote):--after, among, X are, at, betwixt(-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for(- th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, ...ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with(-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.

autos - from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.

CV Jo 6:39 - Now this is the will of Him Who sends Me, that everyone whom He has given to Me, of these I should be losing none, but shall be raising him in the last day.

There is no question that Christ will not lose any given Him from the Father. If He could how could He promise to raise them in the last day? They are a gift from the Father to the Son. Not only will they desire to come to Him, but they cannot fail to come, and when they do, they are counted as precious gifts from His Father. Nothing can possibly separate them from Him. They are not only His for life, but even in death He will restore them to Himself in the resurrection.

Many Blessings,
RW