John 6 and (N)OSAS

[Gadgeteer]

Hi Gadgeteer,

Hi, Dan!

So by saving ourselves from getting mixed up by unsound teaching by continuing to take heed to ourselves and correct doctrine, you are saying that we end up saving ourselves from being deceived away from Christ to the point that our faith is no more and we lose our salvation? In light of that, "save yourself" sounds like a man who fell into a well and the only way out is for someone to throw him a rope and pull him out.

More like a SEA of sin, and he doesn't realize his peril --- the sea is fun, it "has its pleasure for a season" (but the end is bitter).

By this man choosing to take hold of the rope and hanging on until he makes it all the way out of the well, in a sense you could say he "saved himself" by choosing to grab the rope and continue to hang on, but ultimately, the person who pulled him out of the well really saved him. Does that analogy fit what you are trying to say?

I'm not trying to say anything; PAUL said "save yourselves" by abiding in Christ. And yes "holding fast" is the dynamic in Heb3:6 and 14, in 1Cor15:2, in Deut30:19-20, in Luke8:15, and many other passages.

I agree that we don't actually make our hearts and spirits new ourselves, our response causes this to happen. The house of Israel's response was repentance (Ezekiel 18:30-32) and making their hearts and spirits new was what God accomplished. (Exekiel 36:26).

Right. Recognize that Ezk36:26-27 mirrors (or is mirrored by) Ezk11:18-21, where faith (turning to God) comes before heart-change.

Sure, I'll check it out and share my thoughts. I don't have time to respond to the entire post, but I'll start with your first statement.

I have respect for AT Robertson as a Greek scholar. In his comments on 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul asks the question. What is the prize before Paul? Is it that reward (misqo) of which he spoke in verse 1 Corinthians 9:18 , his glorying of preaching a free gospel? He comments that most writers take Paul to refer to the possibility of his rejection in his personal salvation at the end of the race. The problem that I see with that interpretation is I see a difference between a prize and a gift. A prize is something that you work for and earn where a gift is something that you freely accept without merit. Prize (brabeion) - the prize awarded to a victor, the reward (recognition) that follows triumph. That doesn't sound like a free gift (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8).

Please see Colossians3:24 --- "antapodosis" means recompense/REWARD/repayment". Reward-of-the-inheritance. (Hint --- "klēronomia" does refer to God's kingdom, eternal life).

Also, in verse 24, Paul mentions - Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. That doesn't sound like the gift of eternal life either. That sounds like an Olympic race where all run, but only ONE receives the gold medal.

He's making an anaology of individual races -- he himself could be disqualified from his OWN race.

Would this mean that everyone else is disqualified from the race? Silver medal, bronze medal, no medal but finished the race, all disqualified? Comparing that analogy with this passage of Scripture, that sounds like out of all of us believers who are in the race, only "one" of us is going to heaven. Jesus is certainly the Door, through faith in Him is our only way to be saved.

There is a connection between 1Cor9:27 and 2Cor13:5, by the word "adokimos" -- we can be disqualified (KJV says "castaway") if we find ourselves to not be "in Christ". 2Cor13:5 mirrors 2Pet1:5-11...

[Gadgeteer]

Jesus IS salvation..

Hi again. Jesus is not salvation; receiving Jesus is salvation.
"Father, eternal life is knowing You, and knowing (Me)." Jn17:3

Irrelevant ...
I was discussing 1 cor 3,... now you are verse jumping.
And your context is questionable.
I am not going to jump around to 200 verses and correct your context.

Again, with respect, "I'm not going to engage verses that dispute my doctrine". Sorry if that offends.

You are posting way too much there really is no way one can go thru it Nor should they.

The stand is here in 1 Cor 3....

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

And that connects with 1Pet1:7, fire refines us and teaches us to produce better works.

The only control we have is what we build on Christ.
The salvation of Christ is solid.. the foundation is secure.
You have to have a SECURE foundation before you can build.

Then please explain Peter:

"He who lacks these qualities has ...forgotten his purification from former sins. Therefore, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election STEADFAST/FIRM --- as long as you practice these things you will never stumble/ptaio/BECOME-WRETCHED; in THIS way the gates into Jesus' kingdom will be (abundantly) supplied to you."

What are we being admonished towards diligence in? What is being made steadfast by that diligence? What is the consequence of NOT being diligent?

[Colight]

Hi again. Jesus is not salvation; receiving Jesus is salvation.
"Father, eternal life is knowing You, and knowing (Me)." Jn17:3

John 1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Jesus is salvation... even his very name saves,

Again, with respect, "I'm not going to engage verses that dispute my doctrine". Sorry if that offends.
And that connects with 1Pet1:7, fire refines us and teaches us to produce better works.
Then please explain Peter:

Just like you ignore 1 Cor 3 and quickly run to other out of context bad translated verse. Pot.. Kettle... black

The battle starts here in 1 Cor 3
With respect you spam stuff, I have ZERO desire to spend 5 hours correcting your context,
just to have you ignore what I state after long work and spam your next cut n paste list.
It is like you have a cut n paste list you use to attack the security of Christ,

The Point of 1 cor 3 is that their works are judged, yet they are still saved thru the judgement...
this concept support SECURE SALVATION.
Your entire position ignore the redress Christ is the foundation of our salvation.
Instead you spam off to Peter, then Matthew, then this then that...

Isa calls that type of attitude Drunkenness,.it is what the Jews was doing with their law.. here a line there a line.
It leads to ruin..

Isa 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Therefore lets get at the doctrine of this and let this line here and there thing behind us.

[Bandit]

Since salvation belongs to God, it seems God would be the one doing those things..
If salvation belonged to us, then perhaps there could be a point.
What Things would a perfect God need for imperfection to do, with out tainting perfection?
IF any step of salvation depended on imperfection, then by default for perfection to remain pure all imperfection must be rejected.

Here is the error in your logic, Colight. You want to believe that salvation must be an either or scenario: either God does it all or we must do it all. So tell me, why can't salvation be a cooperative effort with both parties having roles?

[Colight]

Here is the error in your logic, Colight. You want to believe that salvation must be an either or scenario: either God does it all or we must do it all. So tell me, why can't salvation be a cooperative effort with both parties having roles?

Because NOTHING imperfection can do can impress God.

Isaiah 64
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Any thing we do towards righteousness in a imperfect state, must be judged by perfection.
Therefore they get in the way and the result is not salvation.

We are also told salvation is a gift.. we do not labor for a gift.

[BroRog]

Here is the error in your logic, Colight. You want to believe that salvation must be an either or scenario: either God does it all or we must do it all. So tell me, why can't salvation be a cooperative effort with both parties having roles?

That's an excellent observation and question. If you don't mind I would like to piggy-back on that to make an observation about my own experience.

When I first became a Christian I mostly attended churches that affirmed Prevenient grace, i.e. that divine grace preceded my human decision to believe the Gospel. God opened my eyes in order that I might have an opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. At the time, I was fully convinced that I participated in my own salvation and if I were to make a list of things that contributed to my salvation, I would make two columns on the paper: one side would be a list of what God did to save me, and on the other side would be a list of what I contributed to my own salvation.

After I matured a little bit in my Christian walk, I would look at my side of the list and say to myself, "Well, actually, this belongs on God's side of the list." And as I matured more, I continued to move stuff from my side of the list to God's side of the list. Eventually, it made me wonder. I began to question whether I would find anything on my side that I could honestly say was my contribution. I wonder if others have had this similar experience. If so, I can imagine that some would eventually get to the last thing on the list and say, "Well, at least I made the decision myself. God wouldn't violate my freewill. Right?" No, he wouldn't. But then . . . the question isn't as straightforward as it once appeared.

[Bandit]

Here is the error in your logic, Colight. You want to believe that salvation must be an either or scenario: either God does it all or we must do it all. So tell me, why can't salvation be a cooperative effort with both parties having roles?

Because NOTHING imperfection can do can impress God.

Isaiah 64
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Any thing we do towards righteousness in a imperfect state, must be judged by perfection.
Therefore they get in the way and the result is not salvation.

We are also told salvation is a gift.. we do not labor for a gift.

Hello Colight,

According to your logic above, since God is perfect and we are not, He is therefore forbidden from making any requirements on us? So is the thing formed now in a position to say to the Creator that He has no right to demand or expect anything from His creation? Your logic is beyond defense. You are attempting to bind what the Creator can or cannot rightly demand from His creation? Good luck with that.

[Bandit]

Here is the error in your logic, Colight. You want to believe that salvation must be an either or scenario: either God does it all or we must do it all. So tell me, why can't salvation be a cooperative effort with both parties having roles?

That's an excellent observation and question. If you don't mind I would like to piggy-back on that to make an observation about my own experience.

When I first became a Christian I mostly attended churches that affirmed Prevenient grace, i.e. that divine grace preceded my human decision to believe the Gospel. God opened my eyes in order that I might have an opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. At the time, I was fully convinced that I participated in my own salvation and if I were to make a list of things that contributed to my salvation, I would make two columns on the paper: one side would be a list of what God did to save me, and on the other side would be a list of what I contributed to my own salvation.

After I matured a little bit in my Christian walk, I would look at my side of the list and say to myself, "Well, actually, this belongs on God's side of the list." And as I matured more, I continued to move stuff from my side of the list to God's side of the list. Eventually, it made me wonder. I began to question whether I would find anything on my side that I could honestly say was my contribution. I wonder if others have had this similar experience. If so, I can imagine that some would eventually get to the last thing on the list and say, "Well, at least I made the decision myself. God wouldn't violate my freewill. Right?" No, he wouldn't. But then . . . the question isn't as straightforward as it once appeared.

Hello BroRog,

Yes, feel free to interject at any time. But here is a question for you in response. When Jesus said to some of the disciples, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men", do you not see two activities by two different parties involved? Or do you actually believe Jesus made them follow Him, so that it was all His doing?

[Gadgeteer]

John 1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Jesus is salvation... even his very name saves,

I don't think our difference on this is significant. :-)

Just like you ignore 1 Cor 3 and quickly run to other out of context bad translated verse. Pot.. Kettle... black

How have I ignored 1Cor3?

The battle starts here in 1 Cor 3

Do you embrace a "fleshly-saved" position?

With respect you spam stuff, I have ZERO desire to spend 5 hours correcting your context, just to have you ignore what I state after long work and spam your next cut n paste list.

Zero "cut-and-paste" --- everything is hand-typed. Except for an occasional Bible-verse or Greek word/definition.

It is like you have a cut n paste list you use to attack the security of Christ

Speaking of "ignoring what I state after long work", how about answering this?

Then please explain Peter:

"He who lacks these qualities has ...forgotten his purification from former sins. Therefore, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election STEADFAST/FIRM --- as long as you practice these things you will never stumble/ptaio/BECOME-WRETCHED; in THIS way the gates into Jesus' kingdom will be (abundantly) supplied to you."

What are we being admonished towards diligence in? What is being made steadfast by that diligence? What is the consequence of NOT being diligent?

Now --- am I "attacking the security of Christ", or am I "correctly and simply reading Scripture"?

The Point of 1 cor 3 is that their works are judged, yet they are still saved thru the judgement...

No, actually they're "saved through fire". I look forward to establishing between us if there can be such a position as "fleshly-saved".

this concept supports SECURE SALVATION.
Your entire position ignore the redress Christ is the foundation of our salvation.

It's a question of "direction of faith". If faith is something we CHOOSE, then we have control over it; and it's not a stretch to perceive (backed by very clear verses) that such a choice/control persists every day. Hence, "BUILD yourselves in faith, KEEP yourselves in His love". Jude20-21.

Instead you spam off to Peter, then Matthew, then this then that...

If you think it's spam, then please tell us why the cited verses do not connect. :-)

Isa calls that type of attitude Drunkenness,.it is what the Jews was doing with their law.. here a line there a line.

Are you saying we can disregard corroborating Scriptures, with a general "sweeping-away" defense? Please show the cited verses are not connected.

It leads to ruin..

So can WE --- lead to ruining the faith of brothers, Rom14:15 and 1Cor8:11. Do you accept that a brother's faith can be ruined?

A brother for whom Christ died?

Isa 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

I'm glad we're keeping abreast of the latest doctrine. Or am I just milking this way too much?

(Hah! I didn't cut and paste that joke, it was from mammary!!!)

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Okay, let's look at this passage from the same chapter (uh-oh, a teensy bit of "cut-n-paste"!)

Isaiah28:13) "So the word of the LORD to them will be, 'Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there,' That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
14) Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,

Oh, wait --- that's saying "the word of the Lord will be line upon line", they're supposed to HEAR it line-on-line, a little here a little there!!!

That's rather an "oops", isn't it?

Therefore let's get at the doctrine of this and let this line here and there thing behind us.

Are you really saying "leave the WORD OF THE LORD behind us"?

That is what Isaiah says, "the WORD OF THE LORD comes line by line, order by order, a little here a little there; therefore HEAR it!".


You know, I like discussing things, and teasing, and making jokes; are you losing patience with me? That's not my intent...

[Gadgeteer]

Because NOTHING imperfection can do can impress God.

Isaiah 64
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

No one is ever saying "our own righteousness". Please interact with Deuteronomy30:11-20, Romans10:6-10, and Acts17:26-31.

The "word of faith" is not far nor too difficult, it is not in Heaven that one must go GET it and GIVE it to us to make us hear it -- no, it is in our hearts and mouths. If we confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts, we will be saved. But if our heart turns away and we WILL NOT obey, we will perish. God has set before us life and death, prosperity and adversity, the blessing and the curse; so CHOOSE life by loving God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him.

Is any of that unclear?

Any thing we do towards righteousness in a imperfect state, must be judged by perfection.

Note well that Rom5:17 says we RECEIVE the gift of righteousness.

Therefore they get in the way and the result is not salvation.

We receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness.

We are also told salvation is a gift.. we do not labor for a gift.

We must abide in it.

"Build yourselves in holy faith, keep yourselves in the love of God" --- what does Jude20-21 mean to you?

[Gadgeteer]

Here is the error in your logic, Colight. You want to believe that salvation must be an either or scenario: either God does it all or we must do it all. So tell me, why can't salvation be a cooperative effort with both parties having roles?

There's no other way that the parable of Matthew25 can be understood:

Matt25:20 "The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
21 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22 "Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
23 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24 "And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew
you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'
26 "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.'
29 "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.

Does the "one-talent-man" represent someone who was never saved? He could not be. The Master is clearly Jesus, and Jesus does not interact with nonbelievers. The man who hid his talent away and did nothing with it is condemned for being "wicked".

How could this passage ever fit "osas", specifically "God does everything"? Likewise, "God-doing-everything" does not fit Matt7:24-27, where those who believe are wise, but those who disbelieve are foolish. Men cannot be wise or foolish for what God does....

[BroRog]

Hello BroRog,

Yes, feel free to interject at any time. But here is a question for you in response. When Jesus said to some of the disciples, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men", do you not see two activities by two different parties involved? Or do you actually believe Jesus made them follow Him, so that it was all His doing?

On the surface we see two activities by two different parties. In addition, however, it seems to me that Jesus was making another point in John 6, which identifies an activity of the Father, working behind the scenes if you will. Jesus calls a disciple, the disciple comes to him, and the father promises his son Jesus that all that the Father has given to Jesus he will not lose. The proviso includes this important distinction. Jesus calls everyone to repentance and wants everyone to be his disciple. Some will come and some will remain. But the Father's promise involves only those disciples whom the Father has given to Jesus, not necessarily every person who decides to follow Jesus for other reasons.

[Bandit]

Hello BroRog,

Yes, feel free to interject at any time. But here is a question for you in response. When Jesus said to some of the disciples, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men", do you not see two activities by two different parties involved? Or do you actually believe Jesus made them follow Him, so that it was all His doing?

On the surface we see two activities by two different parties. In addition, however, it seems to me that Jesus was making another point in John 6, which identifies an activity of the Father, working behind the scenes if you will. Jesus calls a disciple, the disciple comes to him, and the father promises his son Jesus that all that the Father has given to Jesus he will not lose. The proviso includes this important distinction. Jesus calls everyone to repentance and wants everyone to be his disciple. Some will come and some will remain. But the Father's promise involves only those disciples whom the Father has given to Jesus, not necessarily every person who decides to follow Jesus for other reasons.

Hello BroRog,

I'm really trying to understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that it only appears that two parties are involved? (It appears you are saying that the Father makes the disciples follow, so they really aren't following of their own volition.)

[Boo]

You know, if I were Satan and wanted to prevent Jesus from claiming so many "christians" on this earth, I think it could be done simply by convincing them that once they do "the sinner's prayer," they are gauranteed a place in heaven; regardless of how they live afterwards. That would be like buying a bus pass for a city transit line and never needing to travel all year until it was time to go somewhere. You would always know that when the bus comes by, you can get on and go with everyone else. Once a person is convinced of the permanent state of the future, what does it matter what temptation I yield to: I'm going to the same place as everyone else!

Matters of who is truly a christian and who is not are not worth arguing. Satan might love to do that to keep us diverted from our real mission in this world. If we are arguing with each other over this, we are not talking to those who need a better message.

What in the world is wrong with the concept that we must walk the straight and narrow and in the spirit; stay on the path, and endure to the end? Does anyone believe that we are not expected to do that? This whole argument sounds like some here do.

[mailmandan]

You know, if I were Satan and wanted to prevent Jesus from claiming so many "christians" on this earth, I think it could be done simply by convincing them that once they do "the sinner's prayer," they are gauranteed a place in heaven; regardless of how they live afterwards.

Hi Boo,

Unfortunately, I'm sure there are plenty of people who get caught up in emotion at alter calls in church, go forward and recite the sinner's prayer (but don't truly place their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and begin a personal relationship with Him) yet are convinced they are saved simply because they "went forward and recited a prayer" and will always be saved regardless of how they live afterwards. These types of people certainly live with a false sense of security.