John 6 and (N)OSAS

[Pilgrimtozion]

What I find particularly interesting is what Butch pointed out concerning the link between the verses in John 6 and the one in John 17. If you read the two sets in conjunction, it becomes quite evident that Jesus is talking about his disciples here, the verse in John 17 qualifying the statement that Jesus should not lose anything. Is it even valid to extrapolate these verses across the borders of the gospels to apply to salvation in general?

[threebigrocks]

Were His disciples following in His path, and at that time quite literally? There's a reason why this is addressed to the current followers of Christ and not a large crowd or to an unbeliever.

[RogerW]

What I find particularly interesting is what Butch pointed out concerning the link between the verses in John 6 and the one in John 17. If you read the two sets in conjunction, it becomes quite evident that Jesus is talking about his disciples here, the verse in John 17 qualifying the statement that Jesus should not lose anything. Is it even valid to extrapolate these verses across the borders of the gospels to apply to salvation in general?

Don't limit divine appointment as His apostles to divine election. Yes, the Father gave Him these particular men, ordained to be apostles, and the first to take His message of salvation unto all the world (Jo 17:18). This is also why He specifically prays for them to be kept by the Father. But these are not the only ones given Him of the Father. All who are chosen from before the foundation of the world have been given Him.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

When we read more of Christ's prayer we find His prayer does not stop with His apostles. The same promise given to them is given to "them also which shall believe on Me through their word."

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Even though Christ specifically prays for those first given Him, chosen to be apostles, He does not limit eternal life to them alone. The first thing Christ acknowledges in His prayer is the power He has been given "over all flesh." How is this power made manifest? "That He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him." Those given Him are those who receive eternal life. Will the apostles be the only ones given eternal life? If we limit those given Him to only them, they would be the only ones given eternal life.

Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Many Blessings,
RW

[Butch5]

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

Roger,

Your statement is contrary to Scripture, you can claim that none can be lost, but Scripture tells us that Judas was lost. It is that clear. Also, the verse that you quote, John 6:39 uses the English word should. Should implies possibility not certainty and the Greek is in total agreement with the English, it is in the subjunctive mood which indcates possibility or probability but "not" certainty. There really is no argument here unless you are going to say the Greek is wrong.

[Butch5]

Don't limit divine appointment as His apostles to divine election. Yes, the Father gave Him these particular men, ordained to be apostles, and the first to take His message of salvation unto all the world (Jo 17:18). This is also why He specifically prays for them to be kept by the Father. But these are not the only ones given Him of the Father. All who are chosen from before the foundation of the world have been given Him.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

When we read more of Christ's prayer we find His prayer does not stop with His apostles. The same promise given to them is given to "them also which shall believe on Me through their word."

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Even though Christ specifically prays for those first given Him, chosen to be apostles, He does not limit eternal life to them alone. The first thing Christ acknowledges in His prayer is the power He has been given "over all flesh." How is this power made manifest? "That He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him." Those given Him are those who receive eternal life. Will the apostles be the only ones given eternal life? If we limit those given Him to only them, they would be the only ones given eternal life.

Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Many Blessings,
RW

No Roger, it does not limit eternal life to the Apostles, If Jesus gives eternal life to all that the Father has given Him, He can still give eternal life to those who come to Him by faith, it is not limited.

You quoted 2 Timothy 2:13, let me ask you this. Who is Paul speaking to here? The Church, the believers. Didn't God choose, before the foundation of the world, all who would believe? This verse does not show that God chose individuals to be saved. The individuals in this church were already saved when Paul made this statement. The statement is about believers not individuals. The plan from before the foundation of the world was to save those who would believe in Christ. The people Paul is writing to already believe.

To interpret this as individuals you would really need further corroboration from the Scriptures which just isn't there.

[Butch5]

What I find particularly interesting is what Butch pointed out concerning the link between the verses in John 6 and the one in John 17. If you read the two sets in conjunction, it becomes quite evident that Jesus is talking about his disciples here, the verse in John 17 qualifying the statement that Jesus should not lose anything. Is it even valid to extrapolate these verses across the borders of the gospels to apply to salvation in general?

You are correct, it is the Apostles and probably certain others along with them. What Roger's theology fails to take into account is that during Jesus ministry, there was the partial blinding of the Jews, which Paul speaks of. This is clearly seen in the Scriptures,


Mark 4:10-12 ( KJV )
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 8:9-11 ( 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.
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Notice here that Jesus says, unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them that are without all things are done in parables. The reason for the parables was so that those who were without would not understand. Should we understand that of all the thousands and thousands of people that came to see and hear Christ only about a dozen or so we elected for salvation??? No, this is not about election to salvation. It is about God choosing a few people in the preparation of the Gospel. If you notice in the passages I quoted above, Jesus is speaking to the twelve when He says it is given to you to understand the mysteries of the kingdom, He is not going through the crowds picking people to reveal the mystery to, He is speaking to His inner circle. Also take notice that after Jesus was crucified, you never see this statement again in Scripture. None of the writers ever says anyone was given to Jesus. Now surely if this w as the way of salvation some would have made mention of it. No, what we have here is exactly what Scripture speaks of, a partial blinding of the Jews, God blinded the Jews, but to those who are without all things are done in parables, that God could bring the promises to Abraham to the gentiles. Jesus said, no one can come to me except the Father draws him, the reason was because God was blinding the Jews. Only those who God chose to reveal the mystery to could come. However that did not last forever. After the crucifiction, those blinded Jews were presented with the gospel on the day of Pentecost, and three thousand of them believed. Think about this, those three thousand Jews that were saved on the day of Pentecost, if they were elect as Calvinist theology claims why were they in the Group, "those who are without" when Jesus gave the parables? If the disciples were elect and it was given to them to understand the mysteries, why wasn't it given to the three thousand that were saved on the day of Pentecost before Peter preached to them, Surely these men had heard Jesus preaching, why didn't He reveal the mysteries to them? It is clear when we look at it in context that it was the partial blinding of Israel that was the reason no one could come to Christ unless they were drawn by the Father.That whole situation of God only drawing certain people ended at the cross, Jesus own words confirm this, Jesus said


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

John's words confirm this,

John 1:7-9 ( KJV )
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Paul's words confirm this,


Romans 11:25 ( KJV )
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


1 Timothy 4:10 ( KJV )
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

It is simple, when we take into account the blindness on the part of Israel we can easily see why Jesus made the Statement He made in John 6.

[slightlypuzzled]

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?

What I see is the surety of Christ's love for us, and that He will never just throw us out. He will not lose us not misplace us, but keep us firmly in his grasp.
Now this speak to the surety of His attitude towards those who are His, but it says nothing about whether we can walk away from it all. Jesus told the story of the farmer and his seeds; some grew but had no deep roots, so they died in the hot sun. Some grew, but were choked in the cares and worries of this world. This speaks to our attitude as we are growing in Him. If we quit, or start a lifestyle that is contrary to 'good seed', then the growth is lost and the plant is dead. I see this as assuring us of God's love, not of His putting up with anything that we do or any sins we wish to live in...

[slightlypuzzled]

What I find particularly interesting is what Butch pointed out concerning the link between the verses in John 6 and the one in John 17. If you read the two sets in conjunction, it becomes quite evident that Jesus is talking about his disciples here, the verse in John 17 qualifying the statement that Jesus should not lose anything. Is it even valid to extrapolate these verses across the borders of the gospels to apply to salvation in general?

Now this is something I had not considered, but it would make sense in the context of that whole sixth chapter. Jesus spoke some harsh words to the people who were searching him out to get more bread and to force him to be king. What he said about eating his body and drinking his blood was quite repulsive to Jews. So, when everyone else left, only a few were left to follow him

66As a result of this many of His (DD)disciples (DE)withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

67So Jesus said to (DF)the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"

68(DG)Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have (DH)words of eternal life.

69"We have believed and have come to know that You are (DI)the Holy One of God."

70Jesus answered them, "(DJ)Did I Myself not choose you, (DK)the twelve, and yet one of you is (DL)a devil?"

71Now He meant Judas (DM)the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, (DN)one of (DO)the twelve, was going to betray Him.

The ones who were left were few, and then Peter makes, what is equivalent to the great confession in the synoptics in verses 68 and 69...the disciples, or at least Peter, knew who Jesus was.

[tt1106]

Hi Pilgrim...Glad to see you.
I have an easy time reconciling it, especially in what I believe is the context of the verse.
If you continue on to verse 40: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
I think, as in others, the key here is believe, which is not the plain vanilla faith word.
it is repeated again in 6: 47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 “I am the bread of life. 49 “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.


“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

I once heard an exposition on the Greek word Pisteuo and it gave me such a profoundly different opinion of what the word means. Especially considering the use of the Verb instead of the noun. Difference between the two. A noun is. A verb does.


This is how I have reconciled it.

Blessings Brother, Hope to continue to see you around.

TT1106

[Bandit]

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

Hey, you never responded back on this. So were your questions answered? And what did you think of my response?

[Pilgrimtozion]

Yeah, sorry about that. I got busy and was not able to come back to this discussion. I very much enjoyed your response on the subject and found it helpful. Tempts me to ask you for a more extensive synopsis of your view with other scriptures as well...

[Bandit]

Yeah, sorry about that. I got busy and was not able to come back to this discussion. I very much enjoyed your response on the subject and found it helpful. Tempts me to ask you for a more extensive synopsis of your view with other scriptures as well...

Well, it is often good to try to understand how another person views scripture. I hope you now see that non-calvinists can have a biblical interpretation which encompasses scriptures such as these.

[Pilgrimtozion]

Well, it is often good to try to understand how another person views scripture. I hope you now see that non-calvinists can have a biblical interpretation which encompasses scriptures such as these.

Being a non-calvinist, I fully support the things you write. At the same time, I do not want to discard an apparent interpretation of a verse that I come across just because it doesn't agree with my theology. That is why I posed this question in a manner as open as I possibly could.

[Partaker of Christ]

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 wrote:

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.

John 17:12 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.

John 17:12 Does not say that Jesus 'lost' Judas. It says that Judas 'is' lost.

'Is Lost' here is in the 'middle voice'. He was lost from the beginning.

[Butch5]

Partaker of Christ wrote:




John 17:12 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.

John 17:12 Does not say that Jesus 'lost' Judas. It says that Judas 'is' lost.

'Is Lost' here is in the 'middle voice'. He was lost from the beginning.

You are correct about lost being in the middle voice, which means that His own doing is the reason that he was lost. The middle voice has nothing to do with him being lost from the beginning. Lost is in the aorist tense in the indicative mood, which can indicate a past action at a specific point in time. However, if that is your claim you will need Scripture to support that, this passage does not say that Judas was lost at the beginning.