PDA

View Full Version : OSAS folk can debate away with ProjectPeter but abide by the guidelines.



ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2007, 02:07 PM
Alrighty folks... This is your chance to hammer away at me. However this is how it is to be done.

Any OSAS person can post in this thread and I will answer each post made to me. There will be no DRIVE BY post. If you do not intend to participate then stay out of the thread. I will be answering a lot of post and I do not want to have to waste time responding to someone that has absolutely no desire to respond back. A "Peanut Gallery thread will be started and all drive by post can fit in there.

All NOSAS folk... I am going to ask that you don't respond in this thread but you can help me out greatly by responding to post in the Peanut Gallery where I won't have much time to read I figure. If a question arises in the peanut gallery that folks would like to see me respond to then they can get with the moderator of the thread and they will make sure that I get the post and I will answer when I have a moment.

When I post a passage of Scripture... do not just ignore that passage of Scripture and run off elsewhere and never cover that passage. That's at best tacky and a tactic used by many. If you don't understand that passage then cool. All I ask is that you study it out yourself and let me know that you don't understand it and will have to study it out some more. That way I know that you aren't just intentionally ignoring the passage. IF a person just ignores a passage and runs elsewhere... they will be asked by me to please cover that passage. If you do not a second time then you will be warned by the moderator that the passage must be responded to. If you ignore it a third time... then you will no longer be able to participate in the thread. I will extend the same courtesy but keep in mind that I will likely be answering quite a few post. If I miss one of your post and or a part of a post... please bring it to my attention and I will get to it ASAP.

This is not to say that you can't use supporting Scripture. But your supporting Scripture has to be Scripture that supports the passage being spoken of and not an attempt to negate another passage. The Bible doesn't work that way and if folks do not understand that yet then this debate is not going to be one you need to get involved in.

NO cut and paste jobs. I am not debating Matt Slick over at CARM nor am I debating Hank or Bob or Joe or Pete. I am debating this with you so use your own words and Scripture in this debate. Cut and paste jobs of 100 Scripture that prove.... you have yours and I have mine and that isn't debate. You can use whatever site that you want for your own reference or whatever... just keep that to yourself and don't cut and paste stuff in this discussion like that. Certainly you can paste commentary from Joe Schmucky and all on the use of words and whatnot. But what we won't have is the 20 page long post on why NOSAS is wrong or why OSAS is right etc. Nor the goofy pages with 100 passages and most of the passages are weakly applied anyway. If you are going to debate with me then YOU debate with me.

I thought of limiting the post but then decided not to. You can post at will in this debate but keep in mind. I have a life too. So if there are long periods where I don't respond... I just may be busy elsewhere so be patient. Add to that the fact that I have other duties on the board and other forums that I will be participating in. So post away... but be patient. If you flood me with post then that is certainly something you can do. But keep in mind that it will just bog things down a bit. Keep in mind that I am going to be around the next week with very little to do so I will be able to keep up with most of you. But just use common sense here... if I don't respond right away then hang loose... I won't be too long.

If someone calls someone a false teacher then that's it. You are gone. No warnings to be nice or none of that nonsense. If you are an adult in this debate then you know better than that in the first place. So don't do it nor attempt any backhanded comments that imply it.

Also... I am not Catholic. You people know that I am not Catholic. If you try and play that Catholic card in this debate then you will be done with the debate. It always comes up and then 20 post have to be made to point out the silliness of the comment. So since this is somewhat of a formal riot... we will just add that to the rules now. No warning... you'll be done.

Now... a moderator.

The Parson and WatchinginAwe will be the two who determine if someone is not answering a passage or who is not to continue in the discussion. I will refrain from making that call and they can. That is one person from the OSAS side and one from the NOSAS side. They can get together if someone is violating the rule and I will do it this way. BOTH of them must consent that these simple and few rules have been violated before they exercise the eviction of someone in the thread.

Naturally... if you violate stuff and it is like bonehead obvious such as just going slap cujo in the thread and all... then I'll make the call on that and you can go cool off and make an appeal to both WatchinginAwe and TheParson in chat to the moderator's and they can decide whether or not to allow you back in the discussion.

IF YOU CAN LIVE WITH THESE GUIDELINES.... then welcome to this debate. If not.... then have fun in the Peanut Gallery. ;)

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2007, 02:10 PM
The first one in here from the OSAS side... flip a coin and tell who goes first. I call heads. If it is tails then go ahead and start... if heads then let me know and I'll start. Want to make it fair from the onstart! :lol:

MeanieCalvinist
Feb 3rd 2007, 10:35 PM
The first one in here from the OSAS side... flip a coin and tell who goes first. I call heads. If it is tails then go ahead and start... if heads then let me know and I'll start. Want to make it fair from the onstart! :lol:

Flipped the coin and it landed tails..

The passages that I would like to discuss in support my position are John Chapter 6:35-44.

John 6:35-44 Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.
37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven?
43 Jesus answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[ASV emphasis mine]

1. I believe these passages clearly teach that it is the Fathers will that Christ lose none that are given Him.

2.Those that are drawn by the Father come to the son.

3. Those that are drawn by the Father, and come to the Son, are raised up at the last day.


At this point I like for you to share what you believe is being expressed by our Lord in the above passages.

Thank you for you for setting up your thread this way. May the Lord be glorified in this discussion.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2007, 12:15 AM
Flipped the coin and it landed tails..

The passages that I would like to discuss in support my position are John Chapter 6:35-44.

John 6:35-44 Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.
37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven?
43 Jesus answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[ASV emphasis mine]

1. I believe these passages clearly teach that it is the Fathers will that Christ lose none that are given Him.I agree.


2.Those that are drawn by the Father come to the son.I agree here in words as well although I would add that it isn't just those that listen to the Father but those who learn from the Father as well... verse 45 tells us this.


3. Those that are drawn by the Father, and come to the Son, are raised up at the last day.agree here as well.



At this point I like for you to share what you believe is being expressed by our Lord in the above passages.

Thank you for you for setting up your thread this way. May the Lord be glorified in this discussion.Now... naturally you are thinking... HEY, This is too easy and there must be a catch! There probably is as time will tell I am sure. ;)

karenoka27
Feb 4th 2007, 04:16 AM
I would like to use

Ephesians 1:11-"In him we were also chosen,[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%201&version=31#fen-NIV-29202e)] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. (NIV)


Ephesians 1:-"11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (KJV)




arrhabon {ar-hrab-ohn'}
1) an earnest
a) money which in purchases is given as a pledge or downpayment that the full amount will subsequently be paid

MeanieCalvinist
Feb 4th 2007, 06:16 AM
I agree.

I agree here in words as well although I would add that it isn't just those that listen to the Father but those who learn from the Father as well... verse 45 tells us this.

I am talking specifically about the drawing of those who, by hearing and learning from the Father, will be raised at the last day.

John 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.


*********

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

Christ states emphatically"_ Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me" The point that Christ has been bringing to the unbelieving Jew's attention throughout John 6:35-44 is clearly present here. ALL who hear and learn from the Father come. Not some, not most, but ALL. Christ is explaining the unbelief of the Jews present.
They saw Christ (GOD in human flesh) and yet did not believe (verse 36).
Christ goes on to explain their unbelief:

John 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me;(notice that the giving of the Father precedes their coming to the Son) and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


What is the source of their learning? Christ is clear that it is the Father. He is the one who has given them to the Son, that charges the Son with their welfare, and who draws them to Christ.


How does He draw them? Within the context of the hearing that those that are given to Christ by the Father come. Those same people are also the ones that are raised up at the last day. Not one more, not one less, eternally secure. This is how we can rest: in the security of the Father. Christ distinguishes it very clearly. Because the Jews didn't hear, they were not drawn by the Father. That is exactly what Christ is telling them in these passages. Those who hear and learn infallibly, without question, do one thing: come to Christ. Same theme and same teaching, expressed in different ways to FULLY develop the truths contained in these passages.




Now... naturally you are thinking... HEY, This is too easy and there must be a catch! There probably is as time will tell I am sure. ;)

No, I do not believe that this is "too easy and there must be a catch". I do, however, agree that time will tell. :)

In verse 37, from what or whom is Christ referring to when He says that He won't cast out those to whom are given Him?

According to verse 39 what is the Father's will for the Son? [John 6:39 And this is the will of him (the Father) that sent me, that of all (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) up at the last day.]

Do you believe that the Son accomplishes the Father's will as stated in John 6:39?

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2007, 06:07 PM
I would like to use

Ephesians 1:11-"In him we were also chosen,[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%201&version=31#fen-NIV-29202e)] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. (NIV)


Ephesians 1:-"11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (KJV)




arrhabon {ar-hrab-ohn'}
1) an earnest
a) money which in purchases is given as a pledge or downpayment that the full amount will subsequently be paid

First the use of the word guarantee in that translation is not that good of a choice of words. Pledge or earnest... that is the better translation and changes that meaning to anyone that understands what that means. If I give you earnest money towards 10 acres of land then I am pledging to you that I will complete my end of that deal. I am pledging that I will fulfill my end of the bargain. But that is simply a one sided pledge because if you decide to pull out of that deal then my pledge ends there. God if faithful to fulfill what he promises and if we endure to the end then that full payment will be made.

What you do not have here is an unconditional guarantee that you're in like flint no matter what happens. Were that the case then there would have been no need for that "downpayment" of the promise. No earnest is needed if one has already received the total promise.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2007, 06:37 PM
I am talking specifically about the drawing of those who, by hearing and learning from the Father, will be raised at the last day.

John 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.


*********

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

Christ states emphatically"_ Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me" The point that Christ has been bringing to the unbelieving Jew's attention throughout John 6:35-44 is clearly present here. ALL who hear and learn from the Father come. Not some, not most, but ALL. Christ is explaining the unbelief of the Jews present.
They saw Christ (GOD in human flesh) and yet did not believe (verse 36).
Christ goes on to explain their unbelief:

John 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me;(notice that the giving of the Father precedes their coming to the Son) and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


What is the source of their learning? Christ is clear that it is the Father. He is the one who has given them to the Son, that charges the Son with their welfare, and who draws them to Christ.


How does He draw them? Within the context of the hearing that those that are given to Christ by the Father come. Those same people are also the ones that are raised up at the last day. Not one more, not one less, eternally secure. This is how we can rest: in the security of the Father. Christ distinguishes it very clearly. Because the Jews didn't hear, they were not drawn by the Father. That is exactly what Christ is telling them in these passages. Those who hear and learn infallibly, without question, do one thing: come to Christ. Same theme and same teaching, expressed in different ways to FULLY develop the truths contained in these passages.





No, I do not believe that this is "too easy and there must be a catch". I do, however, agree that time will tell. :)

In verse 37, from what or whom is Christ referring to when He says that He won't cast out those to whom are given Him?

According to verse 39 what is the Father's will for the Son? [John 6:39 And this is the will of him (the Father) that sent me, that of all (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) up at the last day.]

Do you believe that the Son accomplishes the Father's will as stated in John 6:39?
And I am sure that you agree that the word believe there is a present active word and that means the "believe" is forever present in that person... that entire persevere to the end... endure to the end... finish the race... etc. Now as a Calvinist you would say that the elect WILL and that is where we would disagree. But that is bringing up a large part of the flower and I am only wanting to discuss the one piece (P) part of that tulip! The whole thing would be a lot of discussing and while I would do that elsewhere... this isn't the thread for that.

As to Jesus not casting them out... okay. As to those that come to Him and have been given to Him by Jesus and there is a guarantee that they will inherit eternal life... let's bring in another passage from John into this particular part of the discussion and see what it says. Then we can see if the guarantee is there as you are presenting it.

John 17:9 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.
11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Now... did God give the Son Judas (whom we know Jesus is speaking of here) according to this passage? Did Judas perish? Keep in mind the wording... those 12 were given to Him by God. None perished BUT... that shows clearly that Judas was one that was given to Him by the Father.

Now... not getting into the predestination stuff... we are talking about whom the Father gives the Son and if that is such a guarantee as you propose in chapter six... Judas fulfilled all that was necessary according to that passage. The Father drew him to Jesus and gave him to Jesus and yet... Judas perished. Now... if what you say is set in stone guaranteed... what happened here?

MeanieCalvinist
Feb 4th 2007, 11:05 PM
And I am sure that you agree that the word believe there is a present active word and that means the "believe" is forever present in that person... that entire persevere to the end... endure to the end... finish the race... etc. Now as a Calvinist you would say that the elect WILL and that is where we would disagree. But that is bringing up a large part of the flower and I am only wanting to discuss the one piece (P) part of that tulip! The whole thing would be a lot of discussing and while I would do that elsewhere... this isn't the thread for that.

As to Jesus not casting them out... okay. As to those that come to Him and have been given to Him by Jesus and there is a guarantee that they will inherit eternal life... let's bring in another passage from John into this particular part of the discussion and see what it says. Then we can see if the guarantee is there as you are presenting it.

John 17:9 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.
11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Now... did God give the Son Judas (whom we know Jesus is speaking of here) according to this passage? Did Judas perish? Keep in mind the wording... those 12 were given to Him by God. None perished BUT... that shows clearly that Judas was one that was given to Him by the Father.

Now... not getting into the predestination stuff... we are talking about whom the Father gives the Son and if that is such a guarantee as you propose in chapter six... Judas fulfilled all that was necessary according to that passage. The Father drew him to Jesus and gave him to Jesus and yet... Judas perished. Now... if what you say is set in stone guaranteed... what happened here?

I will be more than happy to answer the above passages that you have brought up.
However, I believe that the rules that you required of EVERYONE state:


When I post a passage of Scripture... do not just ignore that passage of Scripture and run off elsewhere and never cover that passage. That's at best tacky and a tactic used by many. If you don't understand that passage then cool. All I ask is that you study it out yourself and let me know that you don't understand it and will have to study it out some more. That way I know that you aren't just intentionally ignoring the passage. IF a person just ignores a passage and runs elsewhere... they will be asked by me to please cover that passage.(emphasis mine)

Also:


This is not to say that you can't use supporting Scripture. But your supporting Scripture has to be Scripture that supports the passage being spoken of and not an attempt to negate another passage. The Bible doesn't work that way and if folks do not understand that yet then this debate is not going to be one you need to get involved in.(emphasis mine)

Please correct me if I my understanding of this rule is incorrect, but I'm reading it to say that bringing in scripture simply to negate the other person's point is not allowed.

I have read your post and do not see anywhere that you have answered the three questions that I positted at the end of my post specifically addressing the topic at hand: eternal security or, even better, the perserverance of the saints. In fact, I really don't see where you address the passages that I bring up at all, except for a small mention where you agree that Jesus doesn't cast them out.

For clarification, in my post I was giving a brief outline, if you will, of how I come to the conclusion that God is the faithful one and will keep what is His until "the last day". Because the whole context of the passage intertwines particular redemption with the eternal security of the saints, I was unable to specifically isolate the topic at hand.

Again, I will be happy to answer the passages that you have brought up, but I ask first that the same courtesy be given to me in that you answer the passages and questions that I have discussed on my first post, namely John 6:36 - 45.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2007, 11:17 PM
That isn't at all what I did. I used a passage that speaks of the exact same thing we are speaking of here in the fact that God GAVE them to Jesus and yet we do see that one didn't make it. Therefore... your understanding that it is a GUARANTEE is what I am questioning. I am not attempting to negate anything in that passage of John. And as I stated in the guidelines... using another passage to support what you are saying in the discussed passage is certainly acceptable as long as you are addressing the passage in question.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2007, 11:20 PM
I will be more than happy to answer the above passages that you have brought up.
However, I believe that the rules that you required of EVERYONE state:

(emphasis mine)

Also:

(emphasis mine)

Please correct me if I my understanding of this rule is incorrect, but I'm reading it to say that bringing in scripture simply to negate the other person's point is not allowed.

I have read your post and do not see anywhere that you have answered the three questions that I positted at the end of my post specifically addressing the topic at hand: eternal security or, even better, the perserverance of the saints. In fact, I really don't see where you address the passages that I bring up at all, except for a small mention where you agree that Jesus doesn't cast them out.

For clarification, in my post I was giving a brief outline, if you will, of how I come to the conclusion that God is the faithful one and will keep what is His until "the last day". Because the whole context of the passage intertwines particular redemption with the eternal security of the saints, I was unable to specifically isolate the topic at hand.

Again, I will be happy to answer the passages that you have brought up, but I ask first that the same courtesy be given to me in that you answer the passages and questions that I have discussed on my first post, namely John 6:36 - 45.
And oh yeah... I did cover that passage and am still covering it hence the example that I gave you from later on in John. ;)

MeanieCalvinist
Feb 5th 2007, 12:52 AM
Well, since you seem to be unwilling or unable to answer the three questions that I asked of you in my first post, and continue to ignore them, I feel like I am wasting my time attempting to compel you to answer them.
They are very clear questions addressing the scriptures which I outlined in my first post. I have yet to see anything in your posts addressing the question as to the Father's will for Christ, if Christ fulfills that will, and from what or whom won't Christ cast out those who are given to Him.

I will post them again just for clarification.

In verse 37, from what or whom is Christ referring to when He says that He won't cast out those to whom are given Him?

According to verse 39 what is the Father's will for the Son? [John 6:39 And this is the will of him (the Father) that sent me, that of all (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) up at the last day.]

Do you believe that the Son accomplishes the Father's will as stated in John 6:39?

Remember, you stated in the rules that: "All I ask is that you study it out yourself and let me know that you don't understand it and will have to study it out some more. That way I know that you aren't just intentionally ignoring the passage. IF a person just ignores a passage and runs elsewhere..."

Again, just to clarify, I am not in any way attempting to ignore the passages that you have posted. I believe that the rule you created above to be a fair and Christian way of dealing with this debate and will follow them honestly. However, I respectfully ask that you also abide by the rules and answer the questions which I asked in my first post. I will be happy to expound on your passages further after the questions asked by me are answered.

*Madeline*
Feb 5th 2007, 12:53 AM
I've decided...what the hey! Here are a few Eternal Security passages.

We read in Eph. 1:13-14, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession ....". Note the three words highlighted in this passage. We were sealed, with a promise which is the earnest or guarantee of resurrection. This guarantee is a promise which is given when we were sealed. This promise does not come with any conditions. Therefore, God, Who cannot lie, cannot break this promise of resurrection to all who had been sealed, i.e. all who are saved.

John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand". The Greek translated here "never" is "ou me". The two negatives when combined lose their distinctive meanings, and form the strongest and most emphatic assertion. Had the Holy Spirit used the Greek "me" alone He would have given a conditional aspect to the statement of this verse. The definition of "me" is, "expressing conditional negation....". But the Holy spirit did not use the conditional word, He used the phrase which makes the statement that "they shall never perish" unconditionally.

Phil. 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that He Which hath begun a good word in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ". The Greek word translated"perform" is "epiteleo". It is translated "perform" 4 times, "do" once. But it is also translated "accomplish" two times and "perfect" or "perfecting" or "made perfect" and "finish". In other words "epiteleo" carries the idea of finishing the act. Therefore, the NIV translation gives a better sense of the meaning of this verse. "being confident of this, that He Who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus". The work that was "begun" was obviously, salvation. Here we are told that that work will be completed. The term "until the day of Christ Jesus" refers to resurrection. Therefore, we are told in this verse that God will complete the work of salvation at resurrection. Note there is no condition attached, and it is not man, but God Who will complete the work.

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2007, 01:29 AM
Well, since you seem to be unwilling or unable to answer the three questions that I asked of you in my first post, and continue to ignore them, I feel like I am wasting my time attempting to compel you to answer them.If you are going to continue in this manner then you are wasting your time because I won't after a few more post like this. I am addressing the passage as I address it. Part of my response to you was that passage later in John which shows clearly that your explanation of the passage... and the questions you supposedly asked and then answered yourself (which implies that you were only interested in answering the question and not actually asking me directly) have a wee bit of problem in light of the other passage.

If you want to ask me a question that you actually would like me to answer then ask me and wait until I answer to refute my answers. Otherwise you are simply asking the question in a rhetorical manner and then answering the question without any concern of what I have to say in the matter. When you ask without answering then I know that you are directing the question at me. That I hope is simple communication 101.



They are very clear questions addressing the scriptures which I outlined in my first post. I have yet to see anything in your posts addressing the question as to the Father's will for Christ, if Christ fulfills that will, and from what or whom won't Christ cast out those who are given to Him.



Remember, you stated in the rules that: "All I ask is that you study it out yourself and let me know that you don't understand it and will have to study it out some more. That way I know that you aren't just intentionally ignoring the passage. IF a person just ignores a passage and runs elsewhere..."

Again, just to clarify, I am not in any way attempting to ignore the passages that you have posted. I believe that the rule you created above to be a fair and Christian way of dealing with this debate and will follow them honestly. However, I respectfully ask that you also abide by the rules and answer the questions which I asked in my first post. I will be happy to expound on your passages further after the questions asked by me are answered.In answering the question in a debate it isn't about answering them to your liking MC. That would likely be pretty much impossible to do. Again... the post that I made on the other passage in John is within the rule because it was in contrast to what you are saying what that passage translates. My problem with the way you are translating it (not in what it says) in which my first post made clear that I agreed and I clarified further in one point. You keep saying I haven't addressed it and first post was simply... I agree and with clarification or expansion on a point.

Then your second post was going on further into what you meant which I addressed by showing you a passage that tells us that your interpretation has a problem. That is well within the rule and here is how this is to work. If you think it is not within the rule then make your case to The Parson and Watchinginawe. This isn't a "answer it exactly how I want you to answer it" type thing. Otherwise I will never get a point in because you will just holler, kick and fuss every time I post and I'll not be able to ever make a point.

Remember... I am not OSAS. I will be posting contrary to you in many post. That isn't ignoring your post nor is it running to another passage while ignoring your passage. I am still talking about your passage regardless of the fact that you can't apparently see that. The way it works... you make points and I make points on that passage. If you have supporting passages to make your point with that particular passage then it's all good. That is how any debate works.

Now on to your questions and I will do this once again for you. Keep in mind that just because I don't say

1.
2.
3.

and put a response behind each number doesn't mean your question hasn't been answered.




I will post them again just for clarification.

In verse 37, from what or whom is Christ referring to when He says that He won't cast out those to whom are given Him?Those who believe continuing to believe till the end. Remember that?



According to verse 39 what is the Father's will for the Son? [John 6:39 And this is the will of him (the Father) that sent me, that of all (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it (the ones that are given to Christ who learn and hear from the Father) up at the last day.]

Do you believe that the Son accomplishes the Father's will as stated in John 6:39?

Hence what I posted in that latter passage in John. God gave Jesus the 12. Jesus didn't lose any of them BUT/EXCEPT the one that we know is Judas. Now...God gave Him Judas and half of your doctrine hinges on the fact that God gives someone to Jesus then that person cannot be lost.

Now you can disagree that Judas believed at some point and that is up to you. I disagree with you there. It is likely that no one on earth will ever convince you otherwise nor will you convince me otherwise in that regard. You have your reason and I have mine. It is not for me to agree with you but to simply present my side of the issue in accordance to the Scripture.

We can get into all the permissive will and whatnot but this is getting into areas of the TULIP thing. I'm not discussing that whole doctrine in this thread. Just the issue of eternal security.

As to whom Jesus is speaking of... actually those who BELIEVE, present active... ongoing belief... enduring belief until the end.

Does that answer it for you?

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2007, 02:42 AM
I've decided...what the hey! Here are a few Eternal Security passages.

We read in Eph. 1:13-14, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession ....". Note the three words highlighted in this passage. We were sealed, with a promise which is the earnest or guarantee of resurrection. This guarantee is a promise which is given when we were sealed. This promise does not come with any conditions. Therefore, God, Who cannot lie, cannot break this promise of resurrection to all who had been sealed, i.e. all who are saved.Hey Madeline... look up a few post and you will see where I already addressed this passage. If you want me to clarify on something further then holler.



John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand". The Greek translated here "never" is "ou me". The two negatives when combined lose their distinctive meanings, and form the strongest and most emphatic assertion. Had the Holy Spirit used the Greek "me" alone He would have given a conditional aspect to the statement of this verse. The definition of "me" is, "expressing conditional negation....". But the Holy spirit did not use the conditional word, He used the phrase which makes the statement that "they shall never perish" unconditionally. You aren't going to find that I am the person that is going to get into all of the Greek geek discussion! There are folks that have studied it a lot more than I have that would do you better than me. I'll give you my opinion on this nonetheless... :) For every Greek word that you find a definition for that works for you... I can go digging around the Lexicon's and find one that works for me and in the end... we are back to where we started. So I will address John 10 without bothering to go dig up a bunch of Greek stuff that few folks even understand anyway. It happens that the Sunday School class that we visited had this as their text today.

Here Jesus is speaking to the Pharisee after He had healed a man on the Sabbath. His going into the analogy of the sheep and the shepherd was a major deal because being familiar with the Prophets, the Pharisee would recognize quickly the fact that the shepherds were spoken of harshly and the sheep were wandering around without the shepherd etc.

Jesus is telling us simply he way to Him. And His sheep, hear His voice, and no one else's. They follow Him. This is not a guarantee of any sort but simply a statement of fact. Notice later that Jesus tells those same Pharisee's that they are not His sheep because they don't follow Him. There are several analogies Jesus uses that consist of sheep. Such as the straying sheep etc. All of those have great implications due to the writings of the Prophets which speak often of the "sheep without a shepherd" and the "shepherds that are hirelings" etc.

If you are a sheep of Christ then you will follow Him. You will recognize His voice and not another's.... and again... you will follow Him. You will not just follow Him today and tomorrow. You will finish the race. All by itself you have a shot at making John 10 a one time shot... but with the rest of Scripture... you don't stand a chance. Even with simply the who Gospel of John.



Phil. 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that He Which hath begun a good word in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ". The Greek word translated"perform" is "epiteleo". It is translated "perform" 4 times, "do" once. But it is also translated "accomplish" two times and "perfect" or "perfecting" or "made perfect" and "finish". In other words "epiteleo" carries the idea of finishing the act. Therefore, the NIV translation gives a better sense of the meaning of this verse. "being confident of this, that He Who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus". The work that was "begun" was obviously, salvation. Here we are told that that work will be completed. The term "until the day of Christ Jesus" refers to resurrection. Therefore, we are told in this verse that God will complete the work of salvation at resurrection. Note there is no condition attached, and it is not man, but God Who will complete the work.

Love,
MadelinePaul is quite sure just as I am quite sure about a couple of folks that I personally know in this forum that God will finish the work etc.

Look at the next verses...

Philippians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.

Paul is not just making a statement that generally covers each and every person that believes. He is talking about a people that have done something in particular that GIVES HIM THIS CONFIDENCE. ;)

Folks need to remember... let me state this again because it bears mentioning.

The Epistles were not the message of the gospel. They were letters to the churches teaching them how to act as the body of Christ... how to live, correcting them when wrong and encouraging them when right. This is a piece of information that way too many folks either miss, ignore, or simply don't understand.

Centurionoflight
Feb 5th 2007, 07:25 PM
If God did the most for us while we was Lost; thru the death of his son.

God can do much more than the most thru the life of his son.

Understand Savation is the work of Christ; not man.


Romans 5
1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
We at salvation are declared righteous.
9 much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath;
Thru Christ and the declaration of righteous we are saved from Gods wrath.
10 for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life.
If while we was unbelievers we was the foes of God; we are reconciled by his sons death much more then we shall be saved in his life.
15But, not as the offence so also [is] the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many;

16and not as through one who did sin [is] the free gift, for the judgment indeed [is] of one to condemnation, but the gift [is] of many offences to a declaration of `Righteous,'
To understand salvation; one must understand mans fall.

The fall; caused the death of many.

The free gift of Grace of Christ abound to many to a declation of Righteous.

The declaration is not based on them "not sinning" or doing some sort of life. This is based on Christs work.
17 for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one -- Jesus Christ.

18 So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through ONE declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;
One offense {Adam} results in condemnation for all.

ONE DECLARTION OF RIGHTEOUS THRU CHRIST is justification of life; {this declaration occurs at salvation.}

Once is all that is needed for life eternal.
19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners:so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.
It is thru the work and obedience of CHRIST that will cause many to be constituted as righteous.

{Passages in YLT version}

*Madeline*
Feb 5th 2007, 10:01 PM
Hi PP!

Sorry for the late response...I've been tied up.


Hey Madeline... look up a few post and you will see where I already addressed this passage. If you want me to clarify on something further then holler.


First the use of the word guarantee in that translation is not that good of a choice of words. Pledge or earnest... that is the better translation and changes that meaning to anyone that understands what that means. If I give you earnest money towards 10 acres of land then I am pledging to you that I will complete my end of that deal. I am pledging that I will fulfill my end of the bargain. But that is simply a one sided pledge because if you decide to pull out of that deal then my pledge ends there. God if faithful to fulfill what he promises and if we endure to the end then that full payment will be made.

What you do not have here is an unconditional guarantee that you're in like flint no matter what happens. Were that the case then there would have been no need for that "downpayment" of the promise. No earnest is needed if one has already received the total promise.

God obviously doesn't deal with peoples salvation by monetary means or transactions. The primary meaning of the word "earnest" (arrhabon) is "pledge". God has made pledge with His Holy Spirit guaranteeing (pledge) our inheritance until the day we are redeemed. Please note the two words I bolded in my previous post. A "pedge" is a promise. When you pledge allegiance to the flag, for example, you are promising to be a good citizen. Secondly, salvation is not a "deal. It is a gift. A gift requires two parties, one to give and one to receive. In order to receive the gift we must believe God. Now let's say that by our lives we say in effect that we don't want that gift anymore. That rejection of the gift also takes two parties, one to give it back and another to take it back. But since God has promised the gift, He cannot take it back. He couldn't if He wanted to, because God cannot lie, and if you break a promise you are a liar.God has made a pledge, and as we know, God cannot lie.:) Also, salvation is not "bargain", it is a gift. Where is the condition in the guarantee? In every occurrence of the word "guarantee" there is not one word of a condition. We can't just make them up PP :). No earnest is needed if one has already received the total promise". What is the promise for which we received this guarantee? It is resurrection. That's what the phrase "until the redemption of the purchased redemption" means. The "purchased" are those believers bought by the blood of Christ. "Our inheritance" is resurrection life. We haven't yet been resurrected, so God gives us the promise, the pledge, the guarantee that we will be resurrected in that day.

And about pulling out of the deal thus resulting in the cessation of the pledge. No, not if the One Who gave the gift does not end it there, and because God has promised that He will save believers, He cannot lie, i.e. He cannot "pull out", He cannot "end it there".


You aren't going to find that I am the person that is going to get into all of the Greek geek discussion! There are folks that have studied it a lot more than I have that would do you better than me. I'll give you my opinion on this nonetheless... :) For every Greek word that you find a definition for that works for you... I can go digging around the Lexicon's and find one that works for me and in the end... we are back to where we started. So I will address John 10 without bothering to go dig up a bunch of Greek stuff that few folks even understand anyway. It happens that the Sunday School class that we visited had this as their text today.

Here Jesus is speaking to the Pharisee after He had healed a man on the Sabbath. His going into the analogy of the sheep and the shepherd was a major deal because being familiar with the Prophets, the Pharisee would recognize quickly the fact that the shepherds were spoken of harshly and the sheep were wandering around without the shepherd etc.

Jesus is telling us simply he way to Him. And His sheep, hear His voice, and no one else's. They follow Him. This is not a guarantee of any sort but simply a statement of fact. Notice later that Jesus tells those same Pharisee's that they are not His sheep because they don't follow Him. There are several analogies Jesus uses that consist of sheep. Such as the straying sheep etc. All of those have great implications due to the writings of the Prophets which speak often of the "sheep without a shepherd" and the "shepherds that are hirelings" etc.

If you are a sheep of Christ then you will follow Him. You will recognize His voice and not another's.... and again... you will follow Him. You will not just follow Him today and tomorrow. You will finish the race. All by itself you have a shot at making John 10 a one time shot... but with the rest of Scripture... you don't stand a chance. Even with simply the who Gospel of John.

You are right in the sense that the passage is describing the characteristics of Jesus' sheep. As we both know that sheep refers to saved persons. Jesus explicitly says that His "sheep" will never perish, and negates any future possibility as the Greek emphatically states. Jesus puts a double emphasis on His sheep never perishing, followed by an aorist tense. The aorist tense tells us that the sheep cannot perish now, or in the future. That's a guarantee! You have strengthened my argument by saying that His sheep WILL finish the race. So when does one become a sheep? When he/she has finished the race or when he/she is converted? John 10:27-29 clearly tells us that His sheep (present tense) follow Him, so it's not that we become a sheep after we finish the race. But rather we are His sheep upon the moment we hear and follow Him. And from that moment (that's what the tense suggests) His sheep will never perish. Can't get any clearer than that.


Paul is quite sure just as I am quite sure about a couple of folks that I personally know in this forum that God will finish the work etc.

Look at the next verses...

Philippians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.

Paul is not just making a statement that generally covers each and every person that believes. He is talking about a people that have done something in particular that GIVES HIM THIS CONFIDENCE. ;)

Folks need to remember... let me state this again because it bears mentioning.

The Epistles were not the message of the gospel. They were letters to the churches teaching them how to act as the body of Christ... how to live, correcting them when wrong and encouraging them when right. This is a piece of information that way too many folks either miss, ignore, or simply don't understand.

PP, you are quite sure that God will finish the work He has begun in the lives of some of the forum members here? How can you make such a declarative statement if you believe it is possible to lose our salvation? What factors determine whether or not we can be certain that God will finish what He has begun in certain individuals? Even so, that would imply that we can have the discerning ability to recognize who cannot lose their salvation. Being confident in the Greek grammar expresses a firm conviction :) , in other words, Paul was absolutely certain. "Being confident" is in the perfect tense. So Paul is telling us that he is NOW (at the moment he is writing the letter) that he is already convinced that God will finish the good work He has began. (cf. Lk. 20:6; Rom. 8:38; 14:14; 15:14; 2 Tim. 1:5, 12; Heb. 6:9). I agree that the Philippian passage refers to those people to whom Paul was writing. But the point was that there was no condition attached to Paul's confidence that they would be resurrected. :)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 02:24 PM
Just letting you guys know that I am not ignoring you. I've had ISP issues and hopefully they will fix this mess today or tomorrow. So hold tight while I wait for the technical geeks to come through on this end! :rolleyes:

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 02:54 PM
Okay... they actually got it working! I am shocked that it didn't take three or four days!!! :lol: So back to the post!

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 03:29 PM
Hi PP!

Sorry for the late response...I've been tied up.I understand that! Like I said to you before... tis the beauty of a message board. We can get to it as time permits. With there being no daily post limit or debate time limit... take your time and never worry about your availability to the discussion. You just post when you can and I'll respond when I can and it will all be well!



God obviously doesn't deal with peoples salvation by monetary means or transactions. The primary meaning of the word "earnest" (arrhabon) is "pledge". God has made pledge with His Holy Spirit guaranteeing (pledge) our inheritance until the day we are redeemed. Please note the two words I bolded in my previous post. A "pedge" is a promise. When you pledge allegiance to the flag, for example, you are promising to be a good citizen. Secondly, salvation is not a "deal. It is a gift. A gift requires two parties, one to give and one to receive.Okay let's not do that! It was using analogies to make the point and if we are going to wrap the discussion up in religious speak and jump all over stuff like this then we won't get very far in the conversation. It is a given that salvation isn't a "deal" nor is it have monetary value. Goodness gracious I hope we don't have to clarify each and every use of an analogy or word with those type disclaimers. If we do then we won't get very far in actually discussing anything because we will be spending all of our time trying to satisfy everyone's religious language so as to not have to go on and on like I am doing now. ;)


In order to receive the gift we must believe God. Now let's say that by our lives we say in effect that we don't want that gift anymore. That rejection of the gift also takes two parties, one to give it back and another to take it back. But since God has promised the gift, He cannot take it back.Who says that God cannot take it back? Show me that passage?


He couldn't if He wanted to, because God cannot lie, and if you break a promise you are a liar. God has made a pledge, and as we know, God cannot lie.:) So when God promises a nation something but then does in fact not go through with that... He is a liar? Be careful with that answer. If God grants forgiveness but then revokes that forgiveness later then God is a liar? Be careful again with that answer.


Also, salvation is not "bargain", it is a gift. Where is the condition in the guarantee? In every occurrence of the word "guarantee" there is not one word of a condition. We can't just make them up PP :). No earnest is needed if one has already received the total promise". What is the promise for which we received this guarantee? It is resurrection. That's what the phrase "until the redemption of the purchased redemption" means. The "purchased" are those believers bought by the blood of Christ. "Our inheritance" is resurrection life. We haven't yet been resurrected, so God gives us the promise, the pledge, the guarantee that we will be resurrected in that day.Even those who died in sin will be resurrected on that day Madeline. Correct? So if the promise is simply being resurrected... one doesn't need anything special on that regard.

Again the analogy works with the word earnest or pledge. God has made a pledge for those that believe (present active which means that they continue to believe from start to finish) and then adding much other Scripture we know that those that believe do etc. Those that don't continue... they have not fulfilled what they were to do and that is their end of the contract/covenant. Oh yeah... man does have responsibility. Naturally we will get into that more as the discussion moves forward! ;)


And about pulling out of the deal thus resulting in the cessation of the pledge. No, not if the One Who gave the gift does not end it there, and because God has promised that He will save believers, He cannot lie, i.e. He cannot "pull out", He cannot "end it there".God will save believers Madeline. That is a promise that God will never revoke.


You are right in the sense that the passage is describing the characteristics of Jesus' sheep. As we both know that sheep refers to saved persons. Jesus explicitly says that His "sheep" will never perish, and negates any future possibility as the Greek emphatically states. Jesus puts a double emphasis on His sheep never perishing, followed by an aorist tense. The aorist tense tells us that the sheep cannot perish now, or in the future. That's a guarantee! You have strengthened my argument by saying that His sheep WILL finish the race. So when does one become a sheep? When he/she has finished the race or when he/she is converted? John 10:27-29 clearly tells us that His sheep (present tense) follow Him, so it's not that we become a sheep after we finish the race. But rather we are His sheep upon the moment we hear and follow Him. And from that moment (that's what the tense suggests) His sheep will never perish. Can't get any clearer than that. The sheep are the ones that believe and endure to the end. And those sheep will never perish nor will anyone or anything ever take them out of His hand. Those sheep are the ones that follow Him and no other... they won't even respond to another shepherd. Only Him. I dare say that this describes few people truth be known and that includes many that lay claim to being in Christ.



PP, you are quite sure that God will finish the work He has begun in the lives of some of the forum members here? How can you make such a declarative statement if you believe it is possible to lose our salvation? What factors determine whether or not we can be certain that God will finish what He has begun in certain individuals? Even so, that would imply that we can have the discerning ability to recognize who cannot lose their salvation. Being confident in the Greek grammar expresses a firm conviction :) , in other words, Paul was absolutely certain. "Being confident" is in the perfect tense. So Paul is telling us that he is NOW (at the moment he is writing the letter) that he is already convinced that God will finish the good work He has began. (cf. Lk. 20:6; Rom. 8:38; 14:14; 15:14; 2 Tim. 1:5, 12; Heb. 6:9). I agree that the Philippian passage refers to those people to whom Paul was writing. But the point was that there was no condition attached to Paul's confidence that they would be resurrected. :) Read that passage on through an you can see clearly why Paul had that confidence! Remember that whole saying of Jesus?

Matthew 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.

Matthew 13:23 "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty."

Luke 6:42 "Or how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,´ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.
43 "For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit; nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit.
44 "For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.
45 "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
46 ¶"And why do you call Me, `Lord, Lord,´ and do not do what I say?
47 "Everyone who comes to Me, and hears My words, and acts upon them, I will show you whom he is like:
48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.
49 "But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

John 15:2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.

There are many such lessons throughout Scripture.

Here are those folks in the Philippian church.

Their love was abounding as Paul prayed that it abounded even more! This was a church that bore fruit. A church that was suffering for the sake of Christ suffering the same as even Paul. They were standing their ground in the faith and bearing fruit even still.

There is much reason to be confident about a people that would stand such as that. ;) Even through persecutions... these folks weren't denying Christ and if they held fast that... Christ wasn't going to deny them either.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 03:44 PM
If God did the most for us while we was Lost; thru the death of his son.

God can do much more than the most thru the life of his son.

Understand Savation is the work of Christ; not man.


Romans 5
1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
We at salvation are declared righteous.
9 much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath;
Thru Christ and the declaration of righteous we are saved from Gods wrath.
10 for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life.
If while we was unbelievers we was the foes of God; we are reconciled by his sons death much more then we shall be saved in his life.
15But, not as the offence so also [is] the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many;

16and not as through one who did sin [is] the free gift, for the judgment indeed [is] of one to condemnation, but the gift [is] of many offences to a declaration of `Righteous,'
To understand salvation; one must understand mans fall.

The fall; caused the death of many.

The free gift of Grace of Christ abound to many to a declation of Righteous.

The declaration is not based on them "not sinning" or doing some sort of life. This is based on Christs work.
17 for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one -- Jesus Christ.

18 So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through ONE declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;
One offense {Adam} results in condemnation for all.

ONE DECLARTION OF RIGHTEOUS THRU CHRIST is justification of life; {this declaration occurs at salvation.}

Once is all that is needed for life eternal.
19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners:so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.
It is thru the work and obedience of CHRIST that will cause many to be constituted as righteous.

{Passages in YLT version}
For whom? Whom qualifies for this?

Centurionoflight
Feb 6th 2007, 04:27 PM
romans 5


1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,


We = Believers since Paul is including him self as a believer.
; it is not refering to unbelievers since the author is including himself.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 04:39 PM
romans 5


1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,


We = Believers since Paul is including him self as a believer.
; it is not refering to unbelievers since the author is including himself.

And what do these believers live like?

Centurionoflight
Feb 6th 2007, 04:47 PM
And what do these believers live like?

Romans 5

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.


What does the passage say? How they "live" is not even part of the subject.

It states what Christ has done for us.

It also states the limits of sin.

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Graace suprasses sin.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 04:55 PM
Romans 5

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.


What does the passage say? How they "live" is not even part of the subject.

It states what Christ has done for us.

It also states the limits of sin.

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Graace suprasses sin.That's the problem with grabbing a verse without reading the rest! Let me show you what it goes on to say.

Romans 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
20 And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Paul continues right along in that next chapter.


Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 ¶Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

And just to help you resist the urge to continue in this way... and try to show that it is speaking of "sinning saints" or whatever you might choose to call them. Paul covers this as well.

Romans 6:15 ¶What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Centurionoflight
Feb 6th 2007, 05:45 PM
ProjectPeter


That's the problem with grabbing a verse without reading the rest! Let me show you what it goes on to say.
You have not shown the declaration of Righteousness is removed, that is the problem of a focus on mans sin; rather than the righteous work of Christ.

The focus of salvation is on Christ.

You are going off on stuff that we are to do AFTER The declaration.
Stuff that is impossible for man to do; unless the declaration is made FIRST.

The DECLARATION is made thru what CHRIST has done.

That declaration is OSAS.

You have not dealt with the DECLARATION of Romans 5:1;

You have not shown its reversed thru some little act of man. {Which would give credit to the NOSAS position}
Romans 5:1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

THis DECLARATION saves us from his wrath.

9 much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath;
Also another note
19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners:so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.

The obedience OF ONE!!

Not the obedience of many; Yet more to show that its Christ not man that keeps salvation.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 06:20 PM
ProjectPeter


You have not shown the declaration of Righteousness is removed, that is the problem of a focus on mans sin; rather than the righteous work of Christ.

The focus of salvation is on Christ.

You are going off on stuff that we are to do AFTER The declaration.
Stuff that is impossible for man to do; unless the declaration is made FIRST.

The DECLARATION is made thru what CHRIST has done.

That declaration is OSAS.

You have not dealt with the DECLARATION of Romans 5:1;

You have not shown its reversed thru some little act of man. {Which would give credit to the NOSAS position}
Romans 5:1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

THis DECLARATION saves us from his wrath.

9 much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath;
Also another note
19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners:so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.

The obedience OF ONE!!

Not the obedience of many; Yet more to show that its Christ not man that keeps salvation.
Haven't gotten to that point yet. Just running intercept on your doctrine that man can live like the devil himself and still get into heaven... call it preventive maintenance. ;) You haven't shown as well that this can never be undone so I am simply setting up your "doctrine" so folks can be clear of it as we progress.

Centurionoflight
Feb 6th 2007, 06:30 PM
ProjectPeter



Haven't gotten to that point yet. Just running intercept on your doctrine that man can live like the devil himself and still get into heaven...

Not the point;
The point is OSAS; remember?



call it preventive maintenance. ;) You haven't shown as well that this can never be undone so I am simply setting up your "doctrine" so folks can be clear of it as we progress.
I have shown it.



Romans 5
1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

9 much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath;

19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners:so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.
We are saved from the wrath of God{Judgement}; once the declaration of RIGHTEOUS occurs, not sure how many times I need to type that.

To understand salvation; one must understand mans fall.

If man in his fallen state couldnt do enough good to remove him self from a fallen state, then man in a righteous state cant do enough bad to remove him self from a righteous state.

By stating we can become on unrighteous thru mans actions; is to say we can become righteous thru mans actions.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 06:35 PM
ProjectPeter


Not the point;
The point is OSAS; remember?Oh it is certainly part of the point.



I have shown it.



Romans 5
1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

9 much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath;

19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners:so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.
We are saved from the wrath of God{Judgement}; once the declaration of RIGHTEOUS occurs, not sure how many times I need to type that.

To understand salvation; one must understand mans fall.

If man in his fallen state couldnt do enough good to remove him self from a fallen state, then man in a righteous state cant do enough bad to remove him self from a righteous state.

By stating we can become on unrighteous thru mans actions; is to say we can become righteous thru mans actions.Saying nothing at all about man's action over the actions of the Lord. So no clue what you are going on about there.

Centurionoflight
Feb 6th 2007, 06:39 PM
ProjectPeter



Saying nothing at all about man's action over the actions of the Lord. So no clue what you are going on about there.


pp: And what do these believers live like?

pp: Just running intercept on your doctrine that man can live like the devil himself and still get into heaven.

Ok

if you cant even keep up with your posts; how can you even hope to keep up with mine?

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 06:41 PM
ProjectPeter



pp: And what do these believers live like?

pp: Just running intercept on your doctrine that man can live like the devil himself and still get into heaven.

Ok

if you cant even keep up with your posts; how can you even hope to keep up with mine?
Keep on reading... you might get it sooner or later! Try on that sixth chapter again... and see if you can see it in there! ;)

Centurionoflight
Feb 6th 2007, 06:47 PM
ProjectPeter


Keep on reading... you might get it sooner or later! Try on that sixth chapter again... and see if you can see it in there! ;)



Nice ignore and pass off of Post #26

This is useless.

I am not going to banter around in a childish manner with you.

I was in the understanding that finally points would be addressed.

I am done here

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 07:44 PM
ProjectPeter





Nice ignore and pass off of Post #26

This is useless.

I am not going to banter around in a childish manner with you.

I was in the understanding that finally points would be addressed.

I am done here
It wasn't ignored at all. In my first post I made a response to you which highlighted passages in chapter six which show that the one that has sin as a master... they will die... etc. None of chapter five works without what Paul was also saying in that sixth chapter. You are simply trying to let part stand alone when it is in fact only part.

Folks can see clearly that I addressed you by taking that passage on into the full context of what Paul was saying. In fact... you addressed none of that passage in chapter six. So let's at least be accurate here on all of this. ;)

*Madeline*
Feb 6th 2007, 09:44 PM
Hi PP!:)

I try and take my time to make sure my post doesn't contain theological holes.

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/2971/pplf6.gif


Who says that God cannot take it back? Show me that passage?

You did not argue that a pledge is a promise, so I have to assume that you agree with that. Also, that is what a pledge is, i.e. a promise. So the question really is, can God break a promise? The answer is in Heb. 6:18 where we are told that God cannot lie. Now, is breaking a promise the same as a lie? Of course it is. If I tell someone that I will do something and do not attach any conditions to it, and then I don't perform that which was promised, I have lied, haven't I? My best friend promised her dog that when she got back from work she would take him for a walk. When she got back it was raining, but she took him for a walk because she had promised. If those are our standards, is God's lower? (That's a rhetorical question.) :)


So when God promises a nation something but then does in fact not go through with that... He is a liar? Be careful with that answer. If God grants forgiveness but then revokes that forgiveness later then God is a liar? Be careful again with that answer.

I don't know of any passages where God makes an unconditional promise and does not fulfill it. I would stake my life on the fact that it has never happened. In point of fact, resurrection life is indeed staked on that very concept, i.e. God has never and could never break an unconditional promise.:)


Even those who died in sin will be resurrected on that day Madeline. Correct? So if the promise is simply being resurrected... one doesn't need anything special on that regard.

I assume you mean the resurrection of unbelievers for judgment when you speak of "those who die in sin". But Paul is writing to faithful saints in Ephesians. He is speaking of resurrection life. In fact, the term "resurrection life" is not even used in the Word of God. One must judge by the context whether "resurrection" refers to the resurrection of life or the resurrection unto judgment.

Let me say one more word about Ephesians in regard to resurrection.

We read in Eph. 2:6 that the church is seated with Him, "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus".

Note, that Eph. 2:6 is put in the past tense, "hath raised" and "made us sit". There is a figure of speech being used in this verse. It is the figure of speech called "anticipation". "Anticipation" is defined as, "Anticipating what is going to be, and speaking of future things as present.". Eph. 2:6 is, of course, not put in the present, but in the past tense. But I believe that the sense of the figure is the same, i.e. future events being described in the present or (in the case of Eph. 2:6) in the past tense. Figures of speech are used to enhance the meaning of a passage, not diminish it. In the case of this particular figure of speech, I believe it is used to assure us that what is promised will, without doubt, be fulfilled. Let us consider other scriptures that use the figure of speech, "anticipation".

Isaiah 53 was written hundreds of years before the coming of Christ to earth to die on the cross. But we read in verse 3, "He is despised and rejected of men". Verse 4, "Surely He hath borne our griefs". "Yet we did esteem Him stricken". Verse 6, "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Verse 7, "He was oppressed and was afflicted". Verse 8, "He was taken from prison and from judgment". Verse 9, "He made His grave with the wicked".

The point is that the figure of speech is used to assure all believers that they will be seated with Christ, no ifs ands or buts. :)


Again the analogy works with the word earnest or pledge.

Interesting PP, that you refuse to call it what it is, i.e. a promise". And an unconditional promise at that.:)


God has made a pledge for those that believe (present active which means that they continue to believe from start to finish)

I have my doubts that present active means that they continue to believe in the context. But let's say for the sake of discussion that that is what it does mean. However 2 Tim. 2 tells us that He cannot deny Himself, i.e. the members of the church which is His body.:)


and then adding much other Scripture we know that those that believe do etc. Those that don't continue... they have not fulfilled what they were to do and that is their end of the contract/covenant.

Well, I would say that if you have to change a GIFT to a "contact/covenant" in order to support your view, you are on very unscriptural ground.:)


The sheep are the ones that believe and endure to the end.

Yes, they DO and WILL endure until the end. Hence they do not or cannot lose their salvation. :)


Read that passage on through an you can see clearly why Paul had that confidence! Remember that whole saying of Jesus?

Matthew 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.

Matthew 13:23 "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty."

Luke 6:42 "Or how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,´ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.
43 "For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit; nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit.
44 "For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.
45 "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
46 "And why do you call Me, `Lord, Lord,´ and do not do what I say?
47 "Everyone who comes to Me, and hears My words, and acts upon them, I will show you whom he is like:
48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.
49 "But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

John 15:2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.

There are many such lessons throughout Scripture.

Here are those folks in the Philippian church.

Their love was abounding as Paul prayed that it abounded even more! This was a church that bore fruit. A church that was suffering for the sake of Christ suffering the same as even Paul. They were standing their ground in the faith and bearing fruit even still.

There is much reason to be confident about a people that would stand such as that. Even through persecutions... these folks weren't denying Christ and if they held fast that... Christ wasn't going to deny them either.

You're saying that the reason Paul was confident that Christ would continue to perform a good work in them until the day of Jesus Christ was because the Phillipians were fruitful. There is no proof that they were fruitful. Furthermore, Paul couldn't have know that they would continue to be fruitful in the future. Also, I'm not saying that the Philipians were or were not fruitful, because we are not told, but I will call your attention to the following": Paul's letter to the Ephesians was written to "the faithful saints", his letter to the Philipians was written to "to all the saints in Christ Jesus". As far as I'm concerned here's the bottom line. God made an unconditional promise of resurrection life to all those who believe. God cannot break His promise, and He cannot deny Himself, therefore, all believers will be resurrected unto eternal life.:) :hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2007, 10:35 PM
Hi PP!:)

I try and take my time to make sure my post doesn't contain theological holes.

Cool picture! I'll have to save that one! :lol:


You did not argue that a pledge is a promise, so I have to assume that you agree with that.Sure... that works fine.


Also, that is what a pledge is, i.e. a promise. So the question really is, can God break a promise? The answer is in Heb. 6:18 where we are told that God cannot lie. Now, is breaking a promise the same as a lie? Of course it is. If I tell someone that I will do something and do not attach any conditions to it, and then I don't perform that which was promised, I have lied, haven't I? My best friend promised her dog that when she got back from work she would take him for a walk. When she got back it was raining, but she took him for a walk because she had promised. If those are our standards, is God's lower? (That's a rhetorical question.) :) Your best friend needs to have an examination! :lol:

Jeremiah 18:7 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
9 "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

Is God lying to this nation by no longer keeping what was promised?

Then naturally you are familiar with that parable that I often bring up out of Matthew 18. Was God (whom the king represents in the parable) lying when he took away the mercy shown the servant? Certainly we can't go there right?


I don't know of any passages where God makes an unconditional promise and does not fulfill it. I would stake my life on the fact that it has never happened. In point of fact, resurrection life is indeed staked on that very concept, i.e. God has never and could never break an unconditional promise.:) Who said it is unconditional?



I assume you mean the resurrection of unbelievers for judgment when you speak of "those who die in sin". But Paul is writing to faithful saints in Ephesians. He is speaking of resurrection life. In fact, the term "resurrection life" is not even used in the Word of God. One must judge by the context whether "resurrection" refers to the resurrection of life or the resurrection unto judgment.

Let me say one more word about Ephesians in regard to resurrection.

We read in Eph. 2:6 that the church is seated with Him, "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus".

Note, that Eph. 2:6 is put in the past tense, "hath raised" and "made us sit". There is a figure of speech being used in this verse. It is the figure of speech called "anticipation". "Anticipation" is defined as, "Anticipating what is going to be, and speaking of future things as present.". Eph. 2:6 is, of course, not put in the present, but in the past tense. But I believe that the sense of the figure is the same, i.e. future events being described in the present or (in the case of Eph. 2:6) in the past tense. Figures of speech are used to enhance the meaning of a passage, not diminish it. In the case of this particular figure of speech, I believe it is used to assure us that what is promised will, without doubt, be fulfilled. Let us consider other scriptures that use the figure of speech, "anticipation".Another word you could use there which would describe it much better and Paul used it often.... hope.


Isaiah 53 was written hundreds of years before the coming of Christ to earth to die on the cross. But we read in verse 3, "He is despised and rejected of men". Verse 4, "Surely He hath borne our griefs". "Yet we did esteem Him stricken". Verse 6, "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Verse 7, "He was oppressed and was afflicted". Verse 8, "He was taken from prison and from judgment". Verse 9, "He made His grave with the wicked".

The point is that the figure of speech is used to assure all believers that they will be seated with Christ, no ifs ands or buts. :)Okay.



Interesting PP, that you refuse to call it what it is, i.e. a promise". And an unconditional promise at that.:) Shoot... figured by now that you would know me well enough to know that I sort of figure that I don't have to define the word pledge to folks because I figure most know perfectly well what it means. And then there is the whole issue of the word translating "pledge" or "earnest" and all... and not promise. So not sure what's so interesting me about using the proper word when talking about that particular passage?

But let me add just for fun... doesn't mean it is guaranteed since you aren't going to find that whole unconditional promise mentioned either. ;)


I have my doubts that present active means that they continue to believe in the context. But let's say for the sake of discussion that that is what it does mean. However 2 Tim. 2 tells us that He cannot deny Himself, i.e. the members of the church which is His body.:) Huh? You will have to share with me how you sort of stretch that passage to be saying any such as that!


Well, I would say that if you have to change a GIFT to a "contact/covenant" in order to support your view, you are on very unscriptural ground.:) Um.... You seem not to much like that whole covenant word... why?



Yes, they DO and WILL endure until the end. Hence they do not or cannot lose their salvation. :) You are going to have a real problem with the various text that says "IF" they endure to the end... IF they stand fast... IF they hold firm... etc., trying to make that mean THEY WILL. There isn't an English teacher on the planet that wouldn't give you an easy failing grade trying to make that work. ;)

IF don't mean WILL nor does SHOULD mean SHALL.



You're saying that the reason Paul was confident that Christ would continue to perform a good work in them until the day of Jesus Christ was because the Phillipians were fruitful. There is no proof that they were fruitful. Um... the proof is in the letter Madeline. They supported Paul. They were operating in love... and they were standing fast during tremendous persecution just as Paul was. That there is some pretty good fruit. ;)


Furthermore, Paul couldn't have know that they would continue to be fruitful in the future. Also, I'm not saying that the Philipians were or were not fruitful, because we are not told, but I will call your attention to the following": Paul's letter to the Ephesians was written to "the faithful saints", his letter to the Philipians was written to "to all the saints in Christ Jesus". As far as I'm concerned here's the bottom line. God made an unconditional promise of resurrection life to all those who believe. God cannot break His promise, and He cannot deny Himself, therefore, all believers will be resurrected unto eternal life.:) :hug:

Love,
MadelineWell... you keep using that term unconditional promise but rest assured... there is no unconditional in the promise. As to Paul not knowing... Oh I think their fruit (spoken of in that letter) was a good showing that the chances of them continuing to the end was pretty good. Folks that don't bend during the kind of persecution they went through are folks that can stand much.

*Madeline*
Feb 7th 2007, 04:35 AM
Hi PP!:)

I found something else today:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1021/churchsignym5.jpg

I'm sure you know that I'm just having fun with you.:)


Jeremiah 18:7 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
9 "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

Is God lying to this nation by no longer keeping what was promised?

There were conditions very clearly stated in the passage. Note "if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil I will relent concerning the calamity". And verse 9, "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. In this passage God said that He would punish them or reward them according to certain conditions. But salvation has no conditions. :)


Then naturally you are familiar with that parable that I often bring up out of Matthew 18. Was God (whom the king represents in the parable) lying when he took away the mercy shown the servant? Certainly we can't go there right?

We need to talk about parables.

Parables always have a point. What is the point of this parable? It is very clearly given in verse 35, "So likewise shall My heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses".

Let us also consider the opening statement of this parable as recorded in verse 23, "Therefore is the kingdom of Heaven likened unto a certain king...". This parable is a simile ("is likened unto" makes it a simile) with a specific point. Sometimes the characters in the parables can be identified and sometimes the point is made without the characters being identified. I would say, that because the king in this parable certainly did not act like the God that I know, the king does not represent God. The point of the parable does not need for the king to represent God, and He doesn't. :)


Who said it is unconditional?

Salvation is a gift. It is given to those who believe God. Does that make it conditional? If it were conditional then it would have to be put in these terms, "If you believe in Me then I will give you eternal life". But it is not put that way. It is put that "Whosever believeth in Him shall....have eternal life". In other words God has chosen to give this gift to some, i.e. to those who believe in Him. He never said that "If you believe in Me then I will give you this gift. If He had put it that way it is earned by what one believes. Salvation is not earned it is a gift. And it is an unconditional gift given to those to whom God chooses to give it. :)


Another word you could use there which would describe it much better and Paul used it often.... hope.

I'm sorry I don't understand the point.


The point is that the figure of speech is used to assure all believers that they will be seated with Christ, no ifs ands or buts. :)


Okay.

And if you agree that the figure of speech says that believers will be raised, then it seems to me that this point, at least, is proved.;)


Huh? You will have to share with me how you sort of stretch that passage to be saying any such as that!

OK, let's look at II Tim. 2:13, "If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself". I don't see any other way of understanding this except that by the phrase "He cannot deny Himself", Paul is talking about the members of the church which is His body. That is to say, Christ cannot deny them even if they deny Him. But I'm sure that you have another interpretation of that passage.;)


Um.... You seem not to much like that whole covenant word... why?

Because some covenants are conditional and some are unconditional. Salvation is given with no predetermined conditions. Furthermore, salvation is never spoken of as being a covenant. I think we should use the scriptural term and call it what it is, i.e. a gift. :)


You are going to have a real problem with the various text that says "IF" they endure to the end... IF they stand fast... IF they hold firm... etc., trying to make that mean THEY WILL. There isn't an English teacher on the planet that wouldn't give you an easy failing grade trying to make that work. ;)

IF don't mean WILL nor does SHOULD mean SHALL.

The phrase "if thou endurest til the end". It refers to the end of the tribulaiton when one will have to prove his faith by not receiving the mark of the beast. With the phrase "endure to the end" he is referring to the great tribulation. (The phrase is never used in the last seven epistles of Paul.) That will be a time when Satan will try to get people to worship him instead of God. Works will prove if one is a believer, i.e. if one endures to the end of the tribulation and does not worship the antichrist, he has proved his faith in God. If he does not endure to the end of the tribulation and does worshop the antichrist, his works will prove that he was never a believer in God. :)


Um... the proof is in the letter Madeline. They supported Paul. They were operating in love... and they were standing fast during tremendous persecution just as Paul was. That there is some pretty good fruit. ;)

Well... you keep using that term unconditional promise but rest assured... there is no unconditional in the promise. As to Paul not knowing... Oh I think their fruit (spoken of in that letter) was a good showing that the chances of them continuing to the end was pretty good. Folks that don't bend during the kind of persecution they went through are folks that can stand much.

In regard to Phil 1:6, you never addressed the fact that Paul couldn't have known if the Phillipians were going to remain faithful.;) I'm going to go to sleep, talk to you tomorrow. :hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 7th 2007, 02:16 PM
Hi PP!:)

I found something else today:


I'm sure you know that I'm just having fun with you.:) Another cool sign. Most A/G pastor's still teach NOSAS so good choice of church signs. :lol:



There were conditions very clearly stated in the passage. Note "if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil I will relent concerning the calamity". And verse 9, "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. In this passage God said that He would punish them or reward them according to certain conditions. But salvation has no conditions. :) Again you are making this a no condition thing when it isn't.


We need to talk about parables.

Parables always have a point. What is the point of this parable? It is very clearly given in verse 35, "So likewise shall My heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses".

Let us also consider the opening statement of this parable as recorded in verse 23, "Therefore is the kingdom of Heaven likened unto a certain king...". This parable is a simile ("is likened unto" makes it a simile) with a specific point. Sometimes the characters in the parables can be identified and sometimes the point is made without the characters being identified. I would say, that because the king in this parable certainly did not act like the God that I know, the king does not represent God. The point of the parable does not need for the king to represent God, and He doesn't. :) Then you will be the only person that I know of that doesn't understand that in that parable... the King represents God. As to the king in that parable not acting like God... now it is you that are going with the parable where one need not go being that it is a simile. Simple fact Madeline. If Jesus says that the kingdom of Heaven is like............ and then goes on to give a parable showing what it is like... then that is what it is like. He wouldn't have just made that up.

Tell me... whom do you think the king represents in this parable if it isn't God? And why would Jesus tell the disciples that the FATHER would do the same to them if they don't forgive from their heart IF the king is not representing God in this parable? While certainly the king isn't God because God isn't concerned with monetary issues... the king is like God in the action that he will perform if a person doesn't continue in the kindness of the king... forgive others as you are forgiven. That is not a foreign concept in the teachings of Jesus if you recall the other passages that say such as... if you don't forgive others, then God won't forgive you.


Salvation is a gift. It is given to those who believe God. Does that make it conditional? If it were conditional then it would have to be put in these terms, "If you believe in Me then I will give you eternal life". But it is not put that way. It is put that "Whosever believeth in Him shall....have eternal life". In other words God has chosen to give this gift to some, i.e. to those who believe in Him. He never said that "If you believe in Me then I will give you this gift. If He had put it that way it is earned by what one believes. Salvation is not earned it is a gift. And it is an unconditional gift given to those to whom God chooses to give it. :) Huh? If believing is a requirement then all the tap dancing in the world isn't going to erase the clear fact that believing (don't forget confessing either as spelled out in Romans) is certainly a condition by any definition of the word.


I'm sorry I don't understand the point. Point simply being that instead of "anticipation" the word hope would be a better choice of words.


And if you agree that the figure of speech says that believers will be raised, then it seems to me that this point, at least, is proved.;) And all I can do here is wonder what you are talking about because I honestly haven't a clue.


OK, let's look at II Tim. 2:13, "If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself". I don't see any other way of understanding this except that by the phrase "He cannot deny Himself", Paul is talking about the members of the church which is His body. That is to say, Christ cannot deny them even if they deny Him. But I'm sure that you have another interpretation of that passage.;)

2 Timothy 2:11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him;

Those that die with Him (Paul teaches in many places) then they will live with Him. Jesus teaches the same thing as well. We must all die with Christ to live. If you need passages for this then holler... there are plenty to elaborate the point.


12 If we endure, we shall also reign with Him;

Another point made throughout the Scripture. Those that endure to the end... hold fast... stand firm... etc. Many terms used in Scripture that make this point very clear. And let me add to those that want to key on the one passage in the gospel that uses the term "endure to the end" and try and make this only for tribulation folk... that is wrong. I've posted passages many times that make this point very clear that it is speaking of salvation and will do so again if needed.

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

Another passage that is clearly said by Jesus. If you deny Him then He will deny you... really bluntly simple.


13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.

If we do not continue... endure... hold fast... stand firm... ________ (fill in the blank with other biblical terms) then regardless of that fact, God will remain faithful to Himself because He cannot deny Himself. He is a God that is both kind and severe. Kind to those that continue in His kindness and severe to those who fall.



Because some covenants are conditional and some are unconditional. Salvation is given with no predetermined conditions. Furthermore, salvation is never spoken of as being a covenant. I think we should use the scriptural term and call it what it is, i.e. a gift. :) And still waiting for your Scriptural understanding on this. So far you keep saying it... but you ain't showing it.


The phrase "if thou endurest til the end". It refers to the end of the tribulaiton when one will have to prove his faith by not receiving the mark of the beast. With the phrase "endure to the end" he is referring to the great tribulation. (The phrase is never used in the last seven epistles of Paul.) That will be a time when Satan will try to get people to worship him instead of God. Works will prove if one is a believer, i.e. if one endures to the end of the tribulation and does not worship the antichrist, he has proved his faith in God. If he does not endure to the end of the tribulation and does worshop the antichrist, his works will prove that he was never a believer in God. :) Oh mercy... okay guess I need to show it again although I know we've had this discussion before and you've seen these passages before as well.

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Now... this is not a "tribulation" prophecy but simply Jesus instructing His 12 disciples before sending them out. I know it is taught as such but one simply need to read the book of Acts and they will see that this is certainly prophetic in nature but it is fulfilled prophecy.

In Matthew 24... one can make the tribulation prophecy case.

Mark 4:3 "Listen to this ! Behold, the sower went out to sow;
4 and it came about that as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up.
5 "And other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil.
6 "And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
7 "And other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop.
8 "And other seeds fell into the good soil and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold."


This entire parable (in the other gospels as well) is speaking of this very thing. Enduring to the end.

John 8:31 ¶Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
32 and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Abide... another one of those words that mean to continue... endure... etc.

Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

IF you...

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Galatians 6:9 And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary.

Ephesians 6:13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
14 Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,
15 and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE;

Philippians 4:1 Therefore, my beloved brethren whom I long to see, my joy and crown, so stand firm in the Lord, my beloved.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --
23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

IF indeed you continue...

1 Thessalonians 3:6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us good news of your faith and love, and that you always think kindly of us, longing to see us just as we also long to see you,
7 for this reason, brethren, in all our distress and affliction we were comforted about you through your faith;
8 for now we really live, if you stand firm in the Lord.

IF you stand firm....

Those are just from Paul's letters. We could go into Hebrews, Peter, James and John... there are more. Hopefully this will be enough that you will not reject the fact that one must endure to the end and it is not about WILL endure as you often point out but instead as Scripture makes clear... IF you will.



In regard to Phil 1:6, you never addressed the fact that Paul couldn't have known if the Phillipians were going to remain faithful.;) I'm going to go to sleep, talk to you tomorrow. :hug:

Love,
MadelineSure I did. Paul saw their fruit Madeline. He was confident... naturally being a man he could have been wrong but I would bet he wasn't as I read about the folks in that part of the country and the persecution they went through etc... and the fact that they were walking in love... don't get no fruitier than that. ;)

*Madeline*
Feb 7th 2007, 06:37 PM
Hi PP!:)

I think at the very crux of our disagreement is in the fact that some see salvation as conditional. But let me quote nine clear statements that tell us what must be in order to be saved.

Jn. 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". 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

3:18, "He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already".

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".

6:47, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life".

11:25, "Jesus said unto her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live".

20:30-31, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name".

Acts 16:31, "And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house".

Rom. 3:26, "....that He might be just and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus".

If there were conditions attached to the gift of salvation, where are they? Certainly not in these passages.:)


While certainly the king isn't God because God isn't concerned with monetary issues... the king is like God in the action that he will perform if a person doesn't continue in the kindness of the king.

If the king of this parable, is not God then he doesn't have to be like God, does he? Again, you insist that the gift of salvation is conditional. If it is conditional then it is earned by our meeting the condition. But salvation is a gift, it is given to those to whom God will give it, i.e. to those who believe in Him. I still don't understand your point about hope and the figure of speech "anticipation" so I guess we will have to let it go at that.:)


2 Timothy 2:11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him;

You didn't address verse 13. But as to verse 11, the question is do we die with Him as a result of our works, or as a result of God's works?

We read in Rom. 6:3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life".

Note, "We are buried with Him". Note there is no condition here, this is God's work. And the point is that because we are dead and buried with Him we "should walk in newness of life". What this verse does not say, is that it is our walk that makes us dead with Him. And since you did not list the passage that say that enduring to the end has to do with losing salvaiton, I cannot address them.:)


Another passage that is clearly said by Jesus. If you deny Him then He will deny you... really bluntly simple.

No it is not so simple if you take in context. Let's look at II Tim. 2:12-13, 11) "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him, if we deny Him, He also will deny us: 12) If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself".

Note verse 12 says that "if we deny Him, he...will deny us". But then verse 12 says that He cannot deny us, even if we deny Him. This is a very obvious contradiction in the Word of God, unless we take in context. There are no contradictions in the Word of God so I suggest we consier the context.

Note verse 12 speaks of reigning with Him. That means that we will not reign with Him (the prize of the high calling is to reign with Him" if we deny Him. But it is one thing to not reign and quite another to be denied salvation, which He cannot do. Why? Because it was promised to all believers and God cannot lie and He cannot break a promise.:)


13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.

If we do not continue... endure... hold fast... stand firm... ________ (fill in the blank with other biblical terms) then regardless of that fact, God will remain faithful to Himself because He cannot deny Himself. He is a God that is both kind and severe. Kind to those that continue in His kindness and severe to those who fall.

You are saying in essence that God cannot deny who He is. That's very good, and could very well be closer to the truth than my view on that verse. But part of Who God is, is the fact that He cannot lie and He cannot break an unconditional promise. Salvation is an unconditional promise and cannot be denied under any circumstance. You seem to be asking for the scriptural evidence that salvation is a gift. Eph. 2:8-9. The phrase "endure to the end" is never used in the last 7 epistles of Paul and I really don't want to go through every occurrence of the term to show that it refers to the tribulation.

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 7th 2007, 07:23 PM
Hi PP!:)

I think at the very crux of our disagreement is in the fact that some see salvation as conditional. But let me quote nine clear statements that tell us what must be in order to be saved.The very words yourself give you away that you say one thing but don't actually believe what you are saying. You said here... tell us what MUST BE and if there MUST BE something then there is a condition to that something.




Jn. 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". 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

3:18, "He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already".

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".

6:47, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life".

11:25, "Jesus said unto her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live".

20:30-31, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name".

Acts 16:31, "And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house".

Rom. 3:26, "....that He might be just and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus".

If there were conditions attached to the gift of salvation, where are they? Certainly not in these passages.:) And let's not even talk about the Scripture that you could have posted and didn't. But just on these alone... believing is a condition of salvation. You can't get around that very simple fact. If it is unconditional then all of us are wrong and the universalist folks are right because if there is no conditions then all men are saved no matter what man does. Just another fact that one has to contend with tossing around that word "unconditional."



If the king of this parable, is not God then he doesn't have to be like God, does he? Again, you insist that the gift of salvation is conditional. If it is conditional then it is earned by our meeting the condition. But salvation is a gift, it is given to those to whom God will give it, i.e. to those who believe in Him. I still don't understand your point about hope and the figure of speech "anticipation" so I guess we will have to let it go at that.:) Um... when Jesus makes the comparison between the king and God... yes. That has to be like God Madeline. The mercy shown that servant was a gift. The king didn't have to do that... He was the king. But he had compassion on the man and extended his grace to the man. The man... He didn't continue in that same grace and refused to forgive his brother. The warning Jesus gave the disciples... if you don't forgive your brother from the heart (unlike this servant) then God (just like that king) is going to do the same to you (as he did that servant). In that... the comparison is rock solid since it in fact comes from Jesus Himself.


You didn't address verse 13. But as to verse 11, the question is do we die with Him as a result of our works, or as a result of God's works?Sure I did. How we die... nothing to do with the discussion at hand but I simply put it there in context. Naturally we would disagree with all that but that is for another discussion and that is why I left the comments vague and generic.


We read in Rom. 6:3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life".

Note, "We are buried with Him". Note there is no condition here, this is God's work. And the point is that because we are dead and buried with Him we "should walk in newness of life". What this verse does not say, is that it is our walk that makes us dead with Him. And since you did not list the passage that say that enduring to the end has to do with losing salvaiton, I cannot address them.:) Madeline... I did address the passage and yet twice you plug that in. I assume that you are posting as you read the post and not reading the post when posting. But in doing that after making accusations of "not speaking of the passage" when you got down to that passage... you need to come back and edit the accusations out. To see you say that after I know already that you addressed it and you keep saying it... that is a bit not cool.



No it is not so simple if you take in context. Let's look at II Tim. 2:12-13, 11) "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him, if we deny Him, He also will deny us: 12) If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself".

Note verse 12 says that "if we deny Him, he...will deny us". But then verse 12 says that He cannot deny us, even if we deny Him. This is a very obvious contradiction in the Word of God, unless we take in context. There are no contradictions in the Word of God so I suggest we consier the context.In the words of a commercial that I often see... "and they give you cash which almost as good as money." Huh?

No it doesn't even close to say "he cannot deny us" and goodness... if that is what was said or implied after Paul just clearly said if we deny Him then He will deny us... that would be some of the most goofy writing known to mankind for someone so prolific in their writing. This is another example of where you are trying to make that text mean the "church/body of Christ" and that is what you are going on about. Problem is... that isn't at all what it is saying Madeline!

When I see folks say there are no contradictions in the Word so we should consider making it fit... let me recommend to you that you do the same. Perhaps madeline... just perhaps, your doctrine is in fact wrong and this passage contradicts what you believe. So instead of taking a good look at what I am saying, just as you recently did in the Ezekiel passage, you try and make it fit your doctrine. Instead... let the Bible interpret your doctrine. Don't add to what it says and completely make it say something differently... if the writer wanted it to fit your doctrine then they'd of wrote it to fit your doctrine. Promise ya that. ;)


Note verse 12 speaks of reigning with Him. That means that we will not reign with Him (the prize of the high calling is to reign with Him" if we deny Him. But it is one thing to not reign and quite another to be denied salvation, which He cannot do. Why? Because it was promised to all believers and God cannot lie and He cannot break a promise.:) And again Madeline... Huh? You keep tossing out religious speak and you aren't at all addressing anything. If we don't reign with Christ... what? I didn't think that the Reformed doctrine allowed for that whole "peon in heaven" stuff?


You are saying in essence that God cannot deny who He is. That's very good, and could very well be closer to the truth than my view on that verse.It certainly is Madeline.


But part of Who God is, is the fact that He cannot lie and He cannot break an unconditional promise. Salvation is an unconditional promise and cannot be denied under any circumstance. You seem to be asking for the scriptural evidence that salvation is a gift. Eph. 2:8-9. The phrase "endure to the end" is never used in the last 7 epistles of Paul and I really don't want to go through every occurrence of the term to show that it refers to the tribulation.

Love,
MadelineNo. I asked where that gift was unconditional. We get caught up in all of this religious speak stuff to the point of making up doctrine and this is a classic example. You already have said what must be done for salvation and if anything at all MUST BE done then there goes your whole unconditional argument slap out the proverbial window! Even you don't believe the religious speak you use when it gets down to it and that is honestly what gives me some hope!

Look... you made the comment and I posted a mess of passages to you that show the teaching that we must endure to the end. And if you are going to continue going on about all of those passages referring to the tribulation then sure... you need to go through all of them and show me because you are totally incorrect there. And I posted from many of Paul's letters... and just for clarification so folks can understand where you are coming from... are you Pauline Only in that you believe only Paul's epistle's are for the church today? You keep mentioning Paul's last seven letters... what about the first batch? Do you believe in "progressive revelation?" In other words... the stuff in the earlier writings can be tossed out if it doesn't seem to mesh with the stuff in the latter writings?

Please respond to the passages that I put down to support what I said in regard to your comment of enduring only being a tribulation thing and then you are making sweeping statements that I am taking them out of context and not applying them correctly. That is what I am trying to avoid because that is generally what you guys do in this discussion hence the "no cut and paste jobs" and "address the passages" part of the guidelines. If all of those passages are tribulation passages then it ought to be rather easy to show. Good luck. ;)

*Madeline*
Feb 8th 2007, 01:52 AM
Hi PP!:)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to sense an angry tone in your posts. I'm sorry if I got you upset. But PP, did you ever ask yourself the same question? "Perhaps PP... just perhaps, your doctrine is in fact wrong and this passage contradicts what you believe." OR do you insist and know already that your doctrine is correct? and if so, then you have entered this arena with a pre-committed theological view. In that case, I see no point in debating you.

So why all the "IF" passages and passages that deal with apostasy?
The warnings of apostasy that God gives us in scripture, it's not given to show that saved persons can apostasize because they can't.

Romans 8:29,30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The "called" are truly regenerated saved persons, they are His sheep, His elect, they can never perish.The aorist tense verb "forknew" (proginosko) is better understood as God's awareness of the actual potential future (Acts 2:23; 26:5; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 3 Pet. 3:17), and means foreordination. So saved persons cannot apostasize or lose their salvation. The warning passages are given to motivate believers to continue in their obedience to God and His words. Warning passages are also given to motivate believers to persevere in the faith and overcome. But we must remember, its not our strength which helps us persevere. When someone believes it's their strength, thats where and why they fail to overcome. Our strength is given by God (Phil. 4:13) and He keeps the believer (1 Peter 1:5). The scriptures clearly teach us that those who have apostasized were never saved in the first place (1 Jn. 2:19; 3:6). As for Ezekiel, the Hebrew word "righteous" (tzadek) does not mean "saved", it means having done correctly or having done the right things. How do we know that? The meaning of a word is always derived from its usage and we read in 1 Sam. 24:17, "Thou art more righteous than I". A person is not more saved than another. He may have done more of the right things, but he is not more saved. Consider also 1 Kings 2:32 which uses the word in the same way and reads, "...two men more righteous and better....". Again, a person is not more saved. Hope this helps!:hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 02:26 AM
Hi PP!:)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to sense an angry tone in your posts. I'm sorry if I got you upset.I promise you... it's just you. ;)


But PP, did you ever ask yourself the same question? "Perhaps PP... just perhaps, your doctrine is in fact wrong and this passage contradicts what you believe." OR do you insist and know already that your doctrine is correct? and if so, then you have entered this arena with a pre-committed theological view. In that case, I see no point in debating you. Sure I have my mind made up. If I didn't and I was debating this with you guys then I'd certainly be a fool! Of course I've asked myself this... spent many, many hours hoping OSAS was right and tried to make it work biblically. It doesn't.

Keep in mind too Madeline... it was you that went on about "why won't you go in the arena and debate this" back before I was moving. You got what you asked for so not sure what this is all about eh?


So why all the "IF" passages and passages that deal with apostasy?
The warnings of apostasy that God gives us in scripture, it's not given to show that saved persons can apostasize because they can't. Um... why not do as you agreed to when you entered the debate and actually discuss those passages that you are now saying has to do with apostasy and before you said it had to do with the tribulation period?


Romans 8:29,30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The "called" are truly regenerated saved persons, they are His sheep, His elect, they can never perish.The aorist tense verb "forknew" (proginosko) is better understood as God's awareness of the actual potential future (Acts 2:23; 26:5; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 3 Pet. 3:17), and means foreordination. So saved persons cannot apostasize or lose their salvation. The warning passages are given to motivate believers to continue in their obedience to God and His words. Warning passages are also given to motivate believers to persevere in the faith and overcome. But we must remember, its not our strength which helps us persevere. When someone believes it's their strength, thats where and why they fail to overcome. Our strength is given by God (Phil. 4:13) and He keeps the believer (1 Peter 1:5). The scriptures clearly teach us that those who have apostasized were never saved in the first place (1 Jn. 2:19; 3:6). As for Ezekiel, the Hebrew word "righteous" (tzadek) does not mean "saved", it means having done correctly or having done the right things. How do we know that? The meaning of a word is always derived from its usage and we read in 1 Sam. 24:17, "Thou art more righteous than I". A person is not more saved than another. He may have done more of the right things, but he is not more saved. Consider also 1 Kings 2:32 which uses the word in the same way and reads, "...two men more righteous and better....". Again, a person is not more saved. Hope this helps!:hug:

Love,
MadelineAnd this is exactly why I wrote the guidelines like I did Madeline. You do the same as many others... you will not address the passages that you accuse folks of taking out of context and you just run off to your pet passages of Scripture. Again... this is a perfect example of why I made the guidelines as I did and I do hope folks pay close attention to what is happening in this thread.

Discuss the passages. You agreed to that. You introduced the idea that "enduring to the end" was only a tribulation thing. I challenged that and posted tons of passages to support that you are incorrect. So address the passages please.

*Madeline*
Feb 8th 2007, 02:34 AM
Hi PP!:)


I promise you... it's just you. ;)

Sure I have my mind made up. If I didn't and I was debating this with you guys then I'd certainly be a fool! Of course I've asked myself this... spent many, many hours hoping OSAS was right and tried to make it work biblically. It doesn't.

Well that's fine. Then I see no reason to continue. I was thinking that perhaps you would have a change of view. But bottom line, there is no verse or passage which explicitly says that somone who has been born again (not personal interpretation inserted) can lose their salivation. And "IF" passages don't qualify...Sorry PP.:)

Love,
Madeline

BadDog
Feb 8th 2007, 12:33 PM
First the use of the word guarantee in that translation is not that good of a choice of words. Pledge or earnest... that is the better translation and changes that meaning to anyone that understands what that means. If I give you earnest money towards 10 acres of land then I am pledging to you that I will complete my end of that deal. I am pledging that I will fulfill my end of the bargain. But that is simply a one sided pledge because if you decide to pull out of that deal then my pledge ends there. God if faithful to fulfill what he promises and if we endure to the end then that full payment will be made.

What you do not have here is an unconditional guarantee that you're in like flint no matter what happens. Were that the case then there would have been no need for that "downpayment" of the promise. No earnest is needed if one has already received the total promise.Peter,

Wondered how long you could last without a tasty good-ole OSAS-NOSAS debate. :P I wish I could participate, but:

1 - Just don't have time to do moren a "driveby," and that wouldn't be fair.
2 - These debates really suck your time away, and my focus is on the gospel... :D

But I would like to mention that I have posted on this Ephesians 1:13, 14 text in great detail, giving specifics about how I view the Greek grammar, etc. But those interested are gonna have to do a search, on my name I guess, and see what they come up with. :P Wouldn't be fair to say more than that.

Have fun, Peter.

God bless... and uh, just noticed... your posts are getting kinda long these days. :P 15,000 posts!?!

BD

(Hey, by posting here, I'll get email reminders to check on how this is going... I hope the Toolman has time to get involved, as well as Matt14 from our old OSAS-NOSAS tag-team debate... but he doesn't seem to be active here much at all anymore. Wonder how seminary is going for him?)

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 01:46 PM
Hey man... It is going well with him the last I spoke with him. But thanks for the reminder... I need to give him a call and see how he's doing! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 01:51 PM
Hi PP!:)



Well that's fine. Then I see no reason to continue. I was thinking that perhaps you would have a change of view. But bottom line, there is no verse or passage which explicitly says that somone who has been born again (not personal interpretation inserted) can lose their salivation. And "IF" passages don't qualify...Sorry PP.:)

Love,
Madeline
Alrighty then Madeline. Seems to be the norm here.

When it gets to actually discussing the Scripture posted... no one wants to tackle that. For folks that are watching all of this I hope it speaks very loudly to them... It certainly should as they ask themselves... why all of this drama over actually discussing the Scripture itself? When they read the passages... the answer should be very clear.

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 01:52 PM
Alrighty then Madeline. Seems to be the norm here.

When it gets to actually discussing the Scripture posted... no one wants to tackle that. For folks that are watching all of this I hope it speaks very loudly to them... It certainly should as they ask themselves... why all of this drama over actually discussing the Scripture itself? When they read the passages... the answer should be very clear.
And let me add... I will continue to lay out the NOSAS doctrine in this thread. Folks from the OSAS side can certainly still post as long as they address the passages.

*Madeline*
Feb 8th 2007, 01:57 PM
Hi again PP!;)


Alrighty then Madeline. Seems to be the norm here.

When it gets to actually discussing the Scripture posted... no one wants to tackle that. For folks that are watching all of this I hope it speaks very loudly to them... It certainly should as they ask themselves... why all of this drama over actually discussing the Scripture itself? When they read the passages... the answer should be very clear.

Ok, Peter...let's try this again then. You have listed previous passages supposedly teaching NOSAS. Choose one verse or passage at a time to prove your position then we can go from there. Sooooo...lets see these verses or passages which explicitly says that someone who has been "born again" can lose their salivation, and no insertion of personal opinions into the text too. So far I haven't seen any, but mere specualtion and conjecture that we can only surmise teach NOSAS. Thanks!:hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 02:11 PM
Hi again PP!;)



Ok, Peter...let's try this again then. You have listed previous passages supposedly teaching NOSAS. Choose one verse or passage at a time to prove your position then we can go from there. Sooooo...lets see these verses or passages which explicitly says that someone who has been "born again" can lose their salivation, and no insertion of personal opinions into the text too. So far I haven't seen any, but mere specualtion and conjecture that we can only surmise teach NOSAS. Thanks!:hug:

Love,
Madeline
You can try it again Madeline... start with the passages that I posted. That would be a great way to begin. You can do them one at a time if you like... that doesn't bother me at all. Then we can discuss each one as we go.

*Madeline*
Feb 8th 2007, 02:22 PM
You can try it again Madeline... start with the passages that I posted. That would be a great way to begin. You can do them one at a time if you like... that doesn't bother me at all. Then we can discuss each one as we go.

PP, you pick one (1) verse or passage proving your position. The we can begin from there. That way the debate can run more smoothely (sp?) None of those passages you listed proves NOSAS. Please do an exegesis and show me how one "IF" passage teaches the possibility of the loss of salvation. Or any verse or passage for that matter. Please show me using real exegesis, grammatical, and syntax. :)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 03:10 PM
PP, you pick one (1) verse or passage proving your position. The we can begin from there. That way the debate can run more smoothely (sp?) None of those passages you listed proves NOSAS. Please do an exegesis and show me how one "IF" passage teaches the possibility of the loss of salvation. Or any verse or passage for that matter. Please show me using real exegesis, grammatical, and syntax. :)

Love,
Madeline
Madeline... did you even read the first post in this thread? I've addressed your passages that you posted. In addressing those passages we have other passages come up in the discussion that I have presented in rebuttal to what you have presented. That is how a debate works right?

So no... I don't "pick one" and etc. etc. etc. I posted the passages and you are the one saying they are out of context. You are the one making that claim... so it is up to you to show that. This shouldn't be this hard. It is easy to say "they don't prove...." or "that is out of context" and you do that all of the time. But that ain't proving it. You just toss out that blanket statement and then post a bunch of verses that have nothing at all to do with the particular discussion we are having. THAT IS EXACTLY why I posted those guidelines like I did. That way it isn't just a persons personal dogma being tossed about but actual discussion of the Scripture itself. So I've posted them. You say they are out of context... you prove that. Go get those verses and show us how they don't really say what they sure enough in fact say.

*Madeline*
Feb 8th 2007, 04:39 PM
Hi PP!:)


Madeline... did you even read the first post in this thread? I've addressed your passages that you posted. In addressing those passages we have other passages come up in the discussion that I have presented in rebuttal to what you have presented. That is how a debate works right?

So no... I don't "pick one" and etc. etc. etc. I posted the passages and you are the one saying they are out of context. You are the one making that claim... so it is up to you to show that. This shouldn't be this hard. It is easy to say "they don't prove...." or "that is out of context" and you do that all of the time. But that ain't proving it. You just toss out that blanket statement and then post a bunch of verses that have nothing at all to do with the particular discussion we are having. THAT IS EXACTLY why I posted those guidelines like I did. That way it isn't just a persons personal dogma being tossed about but actual discussion of the Scripture itself. So I've posted them. You say they are out of context... you prove that. Go get those verses and show us how they don't really say what they sure enough in fact say.

PP...you still seem to be missing the point. Anyone can throw out passages and ask the other person to prove them wrong. What does that prove? seems like a cop-out.:) It proves absolutely nothing, that is not exegesis. It is eisegesis. You have also not addressed John 10 or Romans 8:29,30, I have already pointed out that the passage proves that Salvation cannot be lost in both these passages, you proved me right in your very own words with John 10.;)


Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Now... this is not a "tribulation" prophecy but simply Jesus instructing His 12 disciples before sending them out. I know it is taught as such but one simply need to read the book of Acts and they will see that this is certainly prophetic in nature but it is fulfilled prophecy.

I never said that Matthew 10 referred to the Tribulation, I said Matthew 24 does. Matthew 10 does indeed refer to Jesus sending His disciples out for ministerial work whilst chapter 22 refers to the tribulation. And if they don't endure? Does this prove that those who didn't endure lost their salvation and that they were once actually saved? Can you show me that those who fail to endure are actually saved or were saved? You can't that's my point which you missed PP. John 17:12 teaches that the disciples that were "given" to Jesus cannot lose their salvation - "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." So how could the disciples lose their salvation if they were to fail to endure to the end in Matthew 10, since "thou gavest" is in the PERFECT TENSE? It is a completed event. Thus Judas could not be among those that were "GIVEN" to Jesus. (Do you see my point? This is a primary example of how the passages you listed does not prove that a "SAVED" person can lose their salvation. Saved persons cannot apostasize or lose their Salvation. This is among the many passages which proves this doctrine.:)

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:1-11)

In v. 1-2, Paul deals with the slander that his doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the eternal security of the believer, provides a license to sin; the enemies of the gospel had affirmed as much (Romans 3:8). He counters that one who dies to sin at the time he is justified by faith (as expounded in chapters 1-5, cf. Galatians 2:19-21) and so is now "dead to sin" cannot "live any longer therein" (v. 2). A dead man is not influenced or affected by the affairs of this life; its sounds, tastes, pleasures, ambitions, and all else mean nothing to him. God gives a man a new heart and nature at the moment of regeneration (2 Corinthians 5:17, Hebrews 8:10-12), so that, his "old man" now "crucified" with Christ, he henceforth will "not serve sin" (Romans 6:6). Paul argues that, since God breaks the dominion of sin over men when they believe, justification by faith leads to a holy life, not lawlessness.

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 07:10 PM
Hi PP!:)



PP...you still seem to be missing the point. Anyone can throw out passages and ask the other person to prove them wrong. What does that prove? seems like a cop-out.:) It proves absolutely nothing, that is not exegesis. It is eisegesis. You have also not addressed John 10 or Romans 8:29,30, I have already pointed out that the passage proves that Salvation cannot be lost in both these passages, you proved me right in your very own words with John 10.;) You aren't getting this madeline so The Parson and Watchinginawe can contend with it. I honestly don't know if you read the first post in the thread nor do I know if you are even reading your own words. So we'll let them make the call on this.



I never said that Matthew 10 referred to the Tribulation, I said Matthew 24 does. Matthew 10 does indeed refer to Jesus sending His disciples out for ministerial work whilst chapter 22 refers to the tribulation. And if they don't endure? Does this prove that those who didn't endure lost their salvation and that they were once actually saved? Can you show me that those who fail to endure are actually saved or were saved?Ummm... Matthew 24 was not my Scripture reference madeline! You are the one that made the comment about the "endure to the end passages all refer to the tribulation." Twas the reason I posted the various passages showing that wasn't in fact correct. Again... are you really reading the post... I am curious?

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

It is the one who has endured to the end who'll be saved. It is the one who will be saved and it is the one that endures to the end. This should also clearly be a clue that the one that doesn't endure to the end... they aren't the one. That is clear from this text don't you think?


You can't that's my point which you missed PP. John 17:12 teaches that the disciples that were "given" to Jesus cannot lose their salvation - "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." So how could the disciples lose their salvation if they were to fail to endure to the end in Matthew 10, since "thou gavest" is in the PERFECT TENSE? It is a completed event. Thus Judas could not be among those that were "GIVEN" to Jesus. (Do you see my point? This is a primary example of how the passages you listed does not prove that a "SAVED" person can lose their salvation. Saved persons cannot apostasize or lose their Salvation. This is among the many passages which proves this doctrine.:) Actually that passage in John 17 actually does in fact show that the one that didn't endure was in fact not saved.

None of them (that you gave me) was lost BUT... that but is speaking of Judas whom the Father gave Him. You are reading your doctrine into it by saying Judas wasn't given to Jesus because that text makes it crystal clear that he was.

John 17:12 "While I was with them (the them is the twelve... the disciples), I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me (God gave him these guys); and I guarded them, and not one of them perished but (but... except... the one.) the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. So now apply your whole "perfect tense" thing and your doctrine has a hole in it. ;)


But even that being said... what has this to do with any of the passages that I posted?


1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:1-11)

In v. 1-2, Paul deals with the slander that his doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the eternal security of the believer, provides a license to sin; the enemies of the gospel had affirmed as much (Romans 3:8). He counters that one who dies to sin at the time he is justified by faith (as expounded in chapters 1-5, cf. Galatians 2:19-21) and so is now "dead to sin" cannot "live any longer therein" (v. 2). A dead man is not influenced or affected by the affairs of this life; its sounds, tastes, pleasures, ambitions, and all else mean nothing to him. God gives a man a new heart and nature at the moment of regeneration (2 Corinthians 5:17, Hebrews 8:10-12), so that, his "old man" now "crucified" with Christ, he henceforth will "not serve sin" (Romans 6:6). Paul argues that, since God breaks the dominion of sin over men when they believe, justification by faith leads to a holy life, not lawlessness.

Love,
Madeline
And again... this thread is not where you can just come in and post what you want to post and ignore the passages that I posted madeline. You agreed to that. So why don't you just chill a bit and let The Parson and WatchinginAwe read through the discussion and make a call on this. As it stands now the way I see it... you are not even closely following the guidelines that you agreed to follow. It isn't making for productive discussion at all. Matter of fact... it is erratic and all over the place.

The Parson
Feb 8th 2007, 07:53 PM
Just a quick note here. In these debate threads, please do not make an assumption about anything said. If you are not clear on a premise or a scripture quote, please ask the one who made the post to clarify. This is the only way I can see that a debate can be productive. No assumptions please... If you believe a scripture was taken out of context, please clarify and give the example and context of those scriptures...

Thanks...

*Madeline*
Feb 8th 2007, 07:55 PM
Hi PP!:)

You don't seem to understand proper exegesis. Lets use common sense in John 17:2

Jesus said NONE of them perished which was GIVEN to Christ from His Father. Judas was lost, he perished...BUT implies that he wasn't among those who were GIVEN to Christ by the Father. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of Perfect Tense, this is why I have trouble dialoguing with you—it's because of the lack of proper exegesis. Given is a completed event, thus, Judas could not have been among those GIVEN to Christ. Why? because those who were GIVEN, NONE of them were lost. There are no holes in my argument, however to suggest that Jesus had somehow LOST what the Father has GIVEN to Him is a theological crater PP. And again, you are the one trying to prove your NOSAS position, so prove to me that those who fail to endure to the end will were saved persons. I think I'd better bow out of this arena, it seems to me that your guidlines puts me at an disadvantage. ;)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 08:17 PM
Hi PP!:)

You don't seem to understand proper exegesis. Lets use common sense in John 17:2

Jesus said NONE of them perished which was GIVEN to Christ from His Father. Judas was lost, he perished...BUT implies that he wasn't among those who were GIVEN to Christ by the Father.It isn't implied that he wasn't any such Madeline but the text itself says he was. Read it again. And not one of THEM perished BUT...

You are ending the passage with not one of them perished and not applying the rest of the verse.

John 17:12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me; and I guarded them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Here is the Greek for the word "but."

ei me -- pronounced: {i may}

from 1487 and 3361; if not: -- but, except (that), if not, more than, save (only) that, saving, till.

So... not one of them (the disciples that God gave Him) perished but/except/save/ the son of perdition so that Scripture might be fulfilled.

That means 11 didn't perish... one did. But one sure enough did and that passage also makes it clear that God gave Judas to Him just as Peter and the others were given to Him from God.



You seem to misunderstand the meaning of Perfect Tense, this is why I have trouble dialoguing with you—it's because of the lack of proper exegesis.Alrighty then! You say that a lot madeline... I've posted the passages... prove it. ;)


Given is a completed event, thus, Judas could not have been among those GIVEN to Christ. Why? because those who were GIVEN, NONE of them were lost. There are no holes in my argument, however to suggest that Jesus had somehow LOST what the Father has GIVEN to Him is a theological crater PP. And again, you are the one trying to prove your NOSAS position, so prove to me that those who fail to endure to the end will were saved persons. I think I'd better bow out of this arena, it seems to me that your guidlines puts me at an disadvantage. ;)

Love,
MadelineSaid nothing about Jesus losing anything. Jesus didn't make Judas betray Him.

As to I can't prove anything to you madeline if you don't discuss those passages. If actually discussing Scripture is something that puts you at a disadvantage... then let me repeat... that should tell folks a whole bunch about your doctrine. It is based on a few select passages of Scripture and it discounts other clear passages, rewords them or just simply ignores them. So far this is what is being clearly witnessed. What you do in here is up to you.

*Madeline*
Feb 8th 2007, 08:34 PM
Hello PP!:)

Nothing in the Gospels, epistles or even all of scripture suggests that Judas was ever saved or lost his salvation. A careful scriptural analysis of how one is actually saved will prove this. I have in the past dealt with the suppositions put forth my NOSAS proponents who wrench scripture to prove their position that Judas was saved. In the end it turns out that their premise was flawed all along. But I have to go to an office meeting at work but will be back to dissect John 17:12 with proper exegesis. :hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 08:46 PM
And again... don't forget those other passages Madeline. So far this has been a discuss Madeline's Scripture and ignore ProjectPeters. It ain't going to keep working that way eh?

karenoka27
Feb 8th 2007, 08:54 PM
First the use of the word guarantee in that translation is not that good of a choice of words. Pledge or earnest... that is the better translation and changes that meaning to anyone that understands what that means. If I give you earnest money towards 10 acres of land then I am pledging to you that I will complete my end of that deal. I am pledging that I will fulfill my end of the bargain. But that is simply a one sided pledge because if you decide to pull out of that deal then my pledge ends there. God if faithful to fulfill what he promises and if we endure to the end then that full payment will be made.

What you do not have here is an unconditional guarantee that you're in like flint no matter what happens. Were that the case then there would have been no need for that "downpayment" of the promise. No earnest is needed if one has already received the total promise.

I disagree. The downpayment of the promise is because we are still alive here on earth. When I die I will receive the "total" promise of eternal life.
Are you saying that we have to hold on to our eternal life with all our life or we wil lose it? If that is the case, I would lose it. If I were holding on to one end of my eternity and God the other...certainly the power of God would pull it away from me..what power do I have to keep my life? John 3:16- "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life."
How can I take back what God promised me once I believe..? I don't have the power to take it back.

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 09:11 PM
Some other passages to ponder.

1 Corinthians 9:24 ¶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 win.
25 And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 and all ate the same spiritual food;
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
6 Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved.
7 And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY."
8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.
9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents.
10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.
11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 09:13 PM
1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 09:13 PM
Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him,
20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --
23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2007, 09:24 PM
I disagree. The downpayment of the promise is because we are still alive here on earth. When I die I will receive the "total" promise of eternal life.Sure.



Are you saying that we have to hold on to our eternal life with all our life or we wil lose it? You have to stand firm in your belief, hold fast, endure to the end, etc all of your life. That is what I am saying. If you do not then you will not receive the promise.

*Madeline*
Feb 9th 2007, 12:10 AM
Hi PP!:)


And again... don't forget those other passages Madeline. So far this has been a discuss Madeline's Scripture and ignore ProjectPeters. It ain't going to keep working that way eh?

Not like that at all. Judas was never a believer and therefore was never saved. If he was never saved he couldn't have lost his salvation.

How do we know that Judas was never a believer, i.e. never saved? We read in John 6:64, "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beingiinig who they were that believed not, and who should betray him". There is no question that it was Judus who betrayed Christ, and our Lord knew from the begining that he was not a believer. You can't lose what you never had. Also I will quote Jn. 17:12 from your previous post, "which Thou hast given Me (God gave him these guys)". The question is, what did our Lord mean by "those Thou hast given"? There is nothing in the word itself that indicates that God gave Judas to Christ to be saved. If He had, Judas would have been a believer. But as we se in Jn. 6:64, Judas was never a believer. We must therefore, conclude that God gave the 12, including Judas, to be Christ's disciples, not to be saved. Jesus also referred to Judas as a "devil" among the disciples in John 6:70, the title of a "devil" hardly sounds like a saved person. Also in Colossians 1:23 "if" (eigi) is a first class conditional, which means that "continue in the faith" may be assumed as something which is true. Thus (eigi) can mean "since" you will persevere in the faith and is more of an motivation given by Paul rather than an admonition. However, if you feel as the "IF" clause is given so as to serve as the possibility that salvation can be lost, the text itself doesn't actually prove it. That is, those who do not persevere in the faith were actually saved. Hope this helps PP!:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 9th 2007, 01:11 AM
Hi PP!:)



Not like that at all. Judas was never a believer and therefore was never saved. If he was never saved he couldn't have lost his salvation.

How do we know that Judas was never a believer, i.e. never saved? We read in John 6:64, "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beingiinig who they were that believed not, and who should betray him". There is no question that it was Judus who betrayed Christ, and our Lord knew from the begining that he was not a believer.That passage never says that Judas wasn't a believer Madeline. Judas certainly betrayed Jesus and that covers the "and who would betray Him" but that passage doesn't say that Judas in as an unbeliever. The unbelievers walked away and that is what John was speaking of there. Judas... he is the one who would betray Christ and just down from that he is called "a devil." Naturally folks know or should that Jesus wasn't call Judas satan himself here and from my biblical knowledge... there is only one satan. The word there means a slanderer, a false accuser, a traducer. But none of that means that Judas wasn't ever a believer. Keep in mind too that John 6... we are talking a very short time before the death of Jesus. Less than a few months. But even again... this really has nothing to do with the passages that I posted.



You can't lose what you never had. Also I will quote Jn. 17:12 from your previous post, "which Thou hast given Me (God gave him these guys)". The question is, what did our Lord mean by "those Thou hast given"? There is nothing in the word itself that indicates that God gave Judas to Christ to be saved. If He had, Judas would have been a believer. But as we se in Jn. 6:64, Judas was never a believer. We must therefore, conclude that God gave the 12, including Judas, to be Christ's disciples, not to be saved. Jesus also referred to Judas as a "devil" among the disciples in John 6:70, the title of a "devil" hardly sounds like a saved person.Um... that's reaching. Again you are ignoring what is actually written there and you are inserting your doctrine because if you don't... your doctrine has issues.

Try this madeline. None of them "PERISHED" but the one... and at the time Jesus said this... even Judas was physically alive so that means Jesus wasn't talking about physically perishing. So yes, it is speaking of salvation.



Also in Colossians 1:23 "if" (eigi) is a first class conditional, which means that "continue in the faith" may be assumed as something which is true. Thus (eigi) can mean "since" you will persevere in the faith and is more of an motivation given by Paul rather than an admonition. However, if you feel as the "IF" clause is given so as to serve as the possibility that salvation can be lost, the text itself doesn't actually prove it. That is, those who do not persevere in the faith were actually saved. Hope this helps PP!:)

Love,
Madeline Huh?

watchinginawe
Feb 9th 2007, 04:38 AM
PP...you still seem to be missing the point. Anyone can throw out passages and ask the other person to prove them wrong. What does that prove? seems like a cop-out.:) It proves absolutely nothing, that is not exegesis. It is eisegesis. You have also not addressed John 10 or Romans 8:29,30, I have already pointed out that the passage proves that Salvation cannot be lost in both these passages, you proved me right in your very own words with John 10.;)

You aren't getting this madeline so The Parson and Watchinginawe can contend with it. I honestly don't know if you read the first post in the thread nor do I know if you are even reading your own words. So we'll let them make the call on this.OK, parsing the rules, participants and PP agree to:

Any OSAS person can post in this thread and PP will answer each post made.
When a parcitipant posts a passage of Scripture... do not just ignore that passage of Scripture and run off elsewhere and never cover that passage.
This is not to say that you can't use supporting Scripture. But your supporting Scripture has to be Scripture that supports the passage being spoken of and not an attempt to negate another passage.
NO cut and paste jobs. (PASTE FROM PREVIOUS POSTS ALLOWED)OK, so to start, I will assume the second rule above to also apply to ProjectPeter in his promise to answer each post. I am going to add that only one passage of scripture (or scripture thought) is to be considered at one time. Now there is some latitude to go to other Gospels and use scripture regarding the same passage, some clarifications in Acts that are talked about in Epistles, similarly constructed passages, etc. Also, it certainly is fair to include adjacent scriptures and/or chapters as long as they are clearly addressing the discussed passage.

Whenever a passage has been introduced, discussed by the other, rebutted, and concluded (2 posts each) the participant that did not introduce the passage may move on to a new passage of their choosing. There is no limit on how long a passage may be discussed as long as both participants are willing.

OK, looking back at Madeline's introductory post:
I've decided...what the hey! Here are a few Eternal Security passages. I think this is where it got started off on the wrong foot. Three passages are offered without a clear connection, they really should be discussed separately. They are each good passages for discussion, but they don't support each other in the manner intended by the rules.

For clarification, consider:
We read in Eph. 1:13-14, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession ....". Note the three words highlighted in this passage. We were sealed, with a promise which is the earnest or guarantee of resurrection. This guarantee is a promise which is given when we were sealed. This promise does not come with any conditions. Therefore, God, Who cannot lie, cannot break this promise of resurrection to all who had been sealed, i.e. all who are saved.Now if the other passages directly supported the sealed, promise, earnest thought, then they would be directly supporting. Instead, the other passages offered were different in how they present OSAS so should have been offered separately.
PP, you pick one (1) verse or passage proving your position. The we can begin from there. That way the debate can run more smoothely (sp?) None of those passages you listed proves NOSAS. Please do an exegesis and show me how one "IF" passage teaches the possibility of the loss of salvation. Or any verse or passage for that matter. Please show me using real exegesis, grammatical, and syntax. :)I don't think we can demand or grade how one discusses their point. This is a debate, so if someone does a poor job of exegesis then it will be recognized by those following along. Also, since this is a debate, no position will be assumed correct thus needing to be disproved. The best position to take is to try to prove your point true and your opponents point false. :hmm: Duh.

Resetting the dial on this thing, I am going to allow introductory posts from MeanieCalvinist, Centurion, and Madeline again. If any of these want to cede their introductory post to ProjectPeter, then post that so that he can offer an introductory topic.

These things don't have to race to the finish and history tells us that these discussions can really last a very long time. So let's try to stay focused on one thought at a time per discussion.

God Bless!

*** If rules need any further clarification let's do that first.

*Madeline*
Feb 9th 2007, 03:23 PM
Hi PP!:)

*** Introduction edited *** by watchinginawe

I would like to address John 17:12. Judas was referred to as "The son fo Perdition" which literally means in the Greek...the one who is destined for ruin or destruction. Hardly sounds like someone who is to be saved does it?;)

*** the above will remain as the opening topic for Madeline *** by watchinginawe

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 9th 2007, 03:56 PM
Hi PP!:)

*** Introduction edited *** by watchinginawe

I would like to address John 17:12. Judas was referred to as "The son fo Perdition" which literally means in the Greek...the one who is destined for ruin or destruction. Hardly sounds like someone who is to be saved does it?;)

*** the above will remain as the opening topic for Madeline *** by watchinginawe

Love,
Madeline

What introduction? The majority of my rebuttals to PP's "IF" and warning passages were edited out, which btw I was aksed not to ignore. But that's fine, I see where this is going.

Love,
Madeline

watchinginawe
Feb 9th 2007, 04:03 PM
What introduction? The majority of my rebuttals to PP's "IF" and warning passages were edited out, which btw I was aksed not to ignore. But that's fine, I see where this is going.

Love,
MadelineMadeline, you must have just skipped over my post above. The post you made subsequent to mine addressed several topics. Here is what I asked to be done:
Resetting the dial on this thing, I am going to allow introductory posts from MeanieCalvinist, Centurion, and Madeline again. If any of these want to cede their introductory post to ProjectPeter, then post that so that he can offer an introductory topic.So, I simply made your post an introductory post so that you and PP can grab a rung on the ladder and start discussing in an organized (and rule bound) manner.

There is nothing "to see" about where we are going, my post existed before you made your last post.

Thanks,

ps: I am gone until this evening. The Parson may be available to answer any questions on the above.

ProjectPeter
Feb 9th 2007, 04:21 PM
I still have all your content madeline and will send it to you via PM. THat way you can save it and use it after this post in conforming to how WIA and The Parson are asking us.

*Madeline*
Feb 9th 2007, 04:26 PM
I still have all your content madeline and will send it to you via PM. THat way you can save it and use it after this post in conforming to how WIA and The Parson are asking us.

Ok, thanks! WIA already sent me a copy of my post. Now you can reply to my John 17:12.:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 9th 2007, 04:29 PM
Hi PP!:)

Ok, I thought long and hard about this and in this post I will address several of the key passages dealing with "IFS" and enduring, and other warning passages. But before I begin I would like to address John 17:12. Judas was referred to as "The son fo Perdition" which literally means in the Greek...the one who is destined for ruin or destruction. Hardly sounds like someone who is to be saved does it?;) Doesn't matter how it sounds to you does it? What does the passage itself say... that is what matters most I hope?

Point is the same. Judas was given to Christ by God just as the others. And here you have a biblical no doubt example of someone given to Christ by the Father... who perished.

John 17:12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me; and I guarded them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

*Madeline*
Feb 9th 2007, 04:59 PM
Hi PP!:)


Doesn't matter how it sounds to you does it? What does the passage itself say... that is what matters most I hope?

Point is the same. Judas was given to Christ by God just as the others. And here you have a biblical no doubt example of someone given to Christ by the Father... who perished.

John 17:12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me; and I guarded them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Can it be prove scripturally that Judas wasn't saved? Not 100%, but every scrap of evidence suggests that he wasn't. And was he among those GIVEN to Christ by the Father? One point I'd make in this debate is that such terms as "given" would have to, in the long run, refer to all those who belong to Christ when all is said and done and the general resurrection has occurred. Obviously Judas did not beling to Jesus, "the Son of Perdition" is hardly a title of a child of God dOn't you think PP? If someone is unsaved -- whether we believe in OSAS or not -- if they end up that way, they were in the end not one who was given.:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 9th 2007, 06:10 PM
Hi PP!:)



Can it be prove scripturally that Judas wasn't saved? Not 100%, but every scrap of evidence suggests that he wasn't. And was he among those GIVEN to Christ by the Father? One point I'd make in this debate is that such terms as "given" would have to, in the long run, refer to all those who belong to Christ when all is said and done and the general resurrection has occurred. Obviously Judas did not beling to Jesus, "the Son of Perdition" is hardly a title of a child of God dOn't you think PP? If someone is unsaved -- whether we believe in OSAS or not -- if they end up that way, they were in the end not one who was given.:)

Love,
MadelineAnd since it seems we are done with this particular passage I will offer this up on the passage. Madeline was about those that are given to Christ cannot perish but will have everlasting life. She asked for an example and an example is given. Then once there is no wiggle room... while Judas was given... Judas wasn't "really, really, really given because _____ ." Problem is... the word there is given. This is just another case of well regardless of what it actually says... it can't mean that because my doctrine says___________.

Here is the fact and this passage makes it clear.

God gave Judas to the Lord just as He did the others. So here we have an example of someone given to Jesus from the Father did in fact perish. Someone that was chosen by Jesus who in fact did actually perish. Someone guarded by the Son... but perished. Do with the passage what you will but these points cannot be ignored.

*Madeline*
Feb 9th 2007, 06:31 PM
Hi PP!:)

My fingers are sort of worn out from using them last night, so I'll have to keep my posts short just for today.:)


And since it seems we are done with this particular passage I will offer this up on the passage. Madeline was about those that are given to Christ cannot perish but will have everlasting life. She asked for an example and an example is given. Then once there is no wiggle room... while Judas was given... Judas wasn't "really, really, really given because _____ ." Problem is... the word there is given. This is just another case of well regardless of what it actually says... it can't mean that because my doctrine says___________.

Here is the fact and this passage makes it clear.

God gave Judas to the Lord just as He did the others. So here we have an example of someone given to Jesus from the Father did in fact perish. Someone that was chosen by Jesus who in fact did actually perish. Someone guarded by the Son... but perished. Do with the passage what you will but these points cannot be ignored.

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

My exegesis is correct. Judas was most likely never saved. He was called a "devil", "son of perdition", etc. God KNEW what Judas would do and thus Judas was chosen. God did not cause Judas to do what he did but the evil heart of Judas was known to God-- he had no fear of God and followed Jesus for his own selfish reasons-- carnal reasons. He witnessed all the miracles the Lord Jesus performed, heard the many teachings of our Savior but followed Jesus in his own self-righteousness. He did not believe-- He stole from the bag, etc. Judas loved money. He of his own free will betrayed the Son of God. Let's see more on this:

The question is: does John 6:64 say that Judas was an unbeliever? Let's look at that verse.

"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".

If Judas was not included in the category of some who did not believe then we have Jesus saying that He knew those who would not believe, and then He changes the entire category from unbelievers to believers and says that "one should betray Him". Obviously, Judas, the one who did betray Him, is included in the category which is the very subject of this verse, i.e. unbelievers.

Let's look at it from Judas' point of view.

We know that all Israel had been waiting for centuries for their Messiah to set up the millennial kingdom at which time Israel would be the most honored nation in the world. A nation in which "strangers (Gentiles) shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien (Gentiles) shall be your plowman and your vinedresseres" (Is. 61:6). And not also verse 6, ".....ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles". Let's say that Judas wasn't too sure whether Christ was the Messiah when he was called. But look at it from his point of view. He was probably thinking that if Christ was the Messiah, and he, Judas, had the opportunity to get close to the future King of the nation that would be the very center of the earth, why not be a follower of Christ. But if Judas actually believed that Christ was the Messiah, why would he ever have betrayed Him? That is to say, if Judas really did believe that Christ was the Messiah and Judas betrayed Him then he, Judas, would have given up his place in the future nation that would rule the world. That makes no sense. Obviously, Judas did not believe that Christ would be the King of the center of the earth, and Judas was going to get what he could out of his last three years, i.e. 30 pieces of silver. In short, it makes no sense at all to think that Judas would have betrayed Christ if Judas had really believed that Christ was the promised Messiah. Jesus knew that Judas was not a believer and therefore was not saved. Because he was not saved, Judas would perish. :)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 9th 2007, 07:29 PM
Hi PP!:)

My fingers are sort of worn out from using them last night, so I'll have to keep my posts short just for today.:)



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

My exegesis is correct. Judas was most likely never saved. He was called a "devil", "son of perdition", etc. God KNEW what Judas would do and thus Judas was chosen. God did not cause Judas to do what he did but the evil heart of Judas was known to God-- he had no fear of God and followed Jesus for his own selfish reasons-- carnal reasons. He witnessed all the miracles the Lord Jesus performed, heard the many teachings of our Savior but followed Jesus in his own self-righteousness. He did not believe-- He stole from the bag, etc. Judas loved money. He of his own free will betrayed the Son of God. Let's see more on this:

The question is: does John 6:64 say that Judas was an unbeliever? Let's look at that verse.

"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".

If Judas was not included in the category of some who did not believe then we have Jesus saying that He knew those who would not believe, and then He changes the entire category from unbelievers to believers and says that "one should betray Him". Obviously, Judas, the one who did betray Him, is included in the category which is the very subject of this verse, i.e. unbelievers.

Let's look at it from Judas' point of view.

We know that all Israel had been waiting for centuries for their Messiah to set up the millennial kingdom at which time Israel would be the most honored nation in the world. A nation in which "strangers (Gentiles) shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien (Gentiles) shall be your plowman and your vinedresseres" (Is. 61:6). And not also verse 6, ".....ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles". Let's say that Judas wasn't too sure whether Christ was the Messiah when he was called. But look at it from his point of view. He was probably thinking that if Christ was the Messiah, and he, Judas, had the opportunity to get close to the future King of the nation that would be the very center of the earth, why not be a follower of Christ. But if Judas actually believed that Christ was the Messiah, why would he ever have betrayed Him? That is to say, if Judas really did believe that Christ was the Messiah and Judas betrayed Him then he, Judas, would have given up his place in the future nation that would rule the world. That makes no sense. Obviously, Judas did not believe that Christ would be the King of the center of the earth, and Judas was going to get what he could out of his last three years, i.e. 30 pieces of silver. In short, it makes no sense at all to think that Judas would have betrayed Christ if Judas had really believed that Christ was the promised Messiah. Jesus knew that Judas was not a believer and therefore was not saved. Because he was not saved, Judas would perish. :)

Love,
MadelineMy point earlier still stands. The fact that John says that Jesus knew the ones that didn't believe... that as well doesn't say they NEVER did believe. This was after Jesus did the whole "I am the bread that came down out of heaven and whoever eats this bread.... and it flat freaked them out. They didn't believe and grumbled because it was hard what Jesus was saying and they couldn't accept it.

Here is that passage again.

John 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
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."
66 ¶As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore.
67 Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69 "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"
71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

So yes... John (that was him writing and not Jesus saying) did in fact speak of two different people. Those that didn't believe (blue) and the one that would betray Jesus (red). One of the 12 that Jesus Himself chose.

As to the sense it makes... what sense does a lot of things make? What since does it make that all of these ministers who spend their life preaching the Word of God go out and do some of the insane things that they do while knowing it is horribly wrong and preaching against that stuff for years?

What sense does it make that Peter, knowing too, would deny Christ even after Jesus told him... you are going to deny me? Not like we are talking a prophecy spoken years before the deed was done.

What sense does it make that Thomas still didn't believe... even after the others said HEY!!!! But yet he had to see it to believe it.

What sense does it make that Jesus fed multitudes on a wee bit of food and then a short time later... the same opportunity... and they had the same doubt?

While there are a lot of things that may not make sense... that doesn't at all hinder the truth as is written. We are either going to believe that truth as it is written or we are going to let "sense" win the day. And making sense out of a lot of things biblical... that is a recipe for tripping up something badly.

Anyway... you want to start on those "if" and "endure" verses now? We are simply repeating ourselves on the whole Judas thing now... so folks can decide themselves on this one and we can move on.

The Parson
Feb 9th 2007, 10:20 PM
Forgive me but I'm trying to play catch-up here. Are we saying here that Judas didn't have a snowballs chance and it wasn't his free will/volition??? I'm gonna have to re-read from the beginning...

*Madeline*
Feb 9th 2007, 11:39 PM
Hi PP!:)


My point earlier still stands. The fact that John says that Jesus knew the ones that didn't believe... that as well doesn't say they NEVER did believe. This was after Jesus did the whole "I am the bread that came down out of heaven and whoever eats this bread.... and it flat freaked them out. They didn't believe and grumbled because it was hard what Jesus was saying and they couldn't accept it.

Here is that passage again.

John 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
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."
66 ¶As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore.
67 Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69 "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"
71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

So yes... John (that was him writing and not Jesus saying) did in fact speak of two different people. Those that didn't believe (blue) and the one that would betray Jesus (red). One of the 12 that Jesus Himself chose.

As to the sense it makes... what sense does a lot of things make? What since does it make that all of these ministers who spend their life preaching the Word of God go out and do some of the insane things that they do while knowing it is horribly wrong and preaching against that stuff for years?

What sense does it make that Peter, knowing too, would deny Christ even after Jesus told him... you are going to deny me? Not like we are talking a prophecy spoken years before the deed was done.

What sense does it make that Thomas still didn't believe... even after the others said HEY!!!! But yet he had to see it to believe it.

What sense does it make that Jesus fed multitudes on a wee bit of food and then a short time later... the same opportunity... and they had the same doubt?

While there are a lot of things that may not make sense... that doesn't at all hinder the truth as is written. We are either going to believe that truth as it is written or we are going to let "sense" win the day. And making sense out of a lot of things biblical... that is a recipe for tripping up something badly.

Anyway... you want to start on those "if" and "endure" verses now? We are simply repeating ourselves on the whole Judas thing now... so folks can decide themselves on this one and we can move on.

Let me first address the question of whether Judas ever believed. The note on the phrase "believed not" in Jn. 6:64 reads, "believed not=would not believe. Note the subjective emphasis of (the Greek) "me". To me, the phrase "would not believe" indicates that they never did believe. Also this verse says that Christ knew from the beginning who "they were that believed not". It doesn't say that He knew who believed at first and then didn't believe.


So yes... John (that was him writing and not Jesus saying) did in fact speak of two different people. Those that didn't believe (blue) and the one that would betray Jesus (red). One of the 12 that Jesus Himself chose.

Are you suggesting that Judas was in the class of believers? That would be saying that the two categories are 1) those who didn't believe and 2) one who did believe but betrayed Christ. That makes no sense to me.That is not in keeping with the subject. The subject is non-believers including one who would betray Jesus. You seem to be equating Judas' betrayal with Peter's denial and Thomas' doubt. But Peter only denied that he knew Christ and Thomas did not believe that Christ had risen from the grave. I think a bit more can be said in Thomas' defence. We read in Luke 18:31-34 that Christ explained to the 12 that He would be killed and resurrected. But we are told that they didn't understand it because "it was hidden from them". The point is that none of the 12 understood that the Messiah was going to be killed and raised from the dead. Thomas believed that Christ was the Messiah, but he had no idea that the Messiah was going to be raised from the dead because God didn't want the 12 to know until after the resurrection. What Judas did was an entirely different thing. Hope this helps!:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 10th 2007, 12:09 AM
Forgive me but I'm trying to play catch-up here. Are we saying here that Judas didn't have a snowballs chance and it wasn't his free will/volition??? I'm gonna have to re-read from the beginning...
That is partly what is being said sure. Calvinism would say that Judas simply did what God created Judas to do (some variations depending on the person) but that God willed it therefore Judas had no choice but to do what he did.

ProjectPeter
Feb 10th 2007, 12:20 AM
Hi PP!:)



Let me first address the question of whether Judas ever believed. The note on the phrase "believed not" in Jn. 6:64 reads, "believed not=would not believe. Note the subjective emphasis of (the Greek) "me". To me, the phrase "would not believe" indicates that they never did believe. Also this verse says that Christ knew from the beginning who "they were that believed not". It doesn't say that He knew who believed at first and then didn't believe. actually it means just how the NASB translates it. "believe not." Doesn't mean "would not believe" but even if it did... would not believe what? That Jesus was the bread of heaven and anyone who eats... etc. Again... that freaked them out and that is absolutely the context!



Are you suggesting that Judas was in the class of believers?Um... yes. What surprises me... why after what... four or five post about it, would you just not be figuring that out?


That would be saying that the two categories are 1) those who didn't believe and 2) one who did believe but betrayed Christ. That makes no sense to me.That is not in keeping with the subject. The subject is non-believers including one who would betray Jesus. You seem to be equating Judas' betrayal with Peter's denial and Thomas' doubt. But Peter only denied that he knew Christ and Thomas did not believe that Christ had risen from the grave. I think a bit more can be said in Thomas' defence. We read in Luke 18:31-34 that Christ explained to the 12 that He would be killed and resurrected. But we are told that they didn't understand it because "it was hidden from them". The point is that none of the 12 understood that the Messiah was going to be killed and raised from the dead. Thomas believed that Christ was the Messiah, but he had no idea that the Messiah was going to be raised from the dead because God didn't want the 12 to know until after the resurrection. What Judas did was an entirely different thing. Hope this helps!:)

Love,
MadelineUm... now are simply looking for something to argue that has nothing to do with anything! I simply stated and will again. There are many things that don't make sense. You say that a lot when you take a plain written text and discount what it actually says. That doesn't make sense therefore it must not be no matter how it is written! Point being madeline... just because it don't make sense to you, doesn't mean you can just add this and that to the text so you can make it make sense to you. What that leaves you doing is adding something to the text so that it fits your doctrine and instead of letting Scripture dictate your doctrine... you make Scripture fit your doctrine.

You can go on about tenses and exegesis and all that you often go on about. I honestly don't concern myself with all that going on. But when you add something to the Scripture that ain't there... I'll be calling you on it and making that point for those reading along. Tis part of debating. ;)

*Madeline*
Feb 10th 2007, 02:28 AM
Hi PP!:)


actually it means just how the NASB translates it. "believe not." Doesn't mean "would not believe" but even if it did... would not believe what? That Jesus was the bread of heaven and anyone who eats... etc. Again... that freaked them out and that is absolutely the context!

Um... yes. What surprises me... why after what... four or five post about it, would you just not be figuring that out?

Um... now are simply looking for something to argue that has nothing to do with anything! I simply stated and will again. There are many things that don't make sense. You say that a lot when you take a plain written text and discount what it actually says. That doesn't make sense therefore it must not be no matter how it is written! Point being madeline... just because it don't make sense to you, doesn't mean you can just add this and that to the text so you can make it make sense to you. What that leaves you doing is adding something to the text so that it fits your doctrine and instead of letting Scripture dictate your doctrine... you make Scripture fit your doctrine.

You can go on about tenses and exegesis and all that you often go on about. I honestly don't concern myself with all that going on. But when you add something to the Scripture that ain't there... I'll be calling you on it and making that point for those reading along. Tis part of debating. ;)

We are discussing Jn. 6:46. Do you really think that John was saying that Christ knew from the beginning that some would not believe that He was the bread of life? Look at the previous phrase, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life". Our Lord was speaking of resurrection life. Verse 64 follows that statement. Those who believed not were those who did not believe in Him unto resurrection life.

I now understand that you believe that Judas believed at one time. Two questions:, 1) How do you know that? And 2) Please comment on what I wrote:

"That would be saying that the two categories are 1) those who didn't believe and 2) one who did believe but betrayed Christ". What is the subject of this verse? The subject is those who "believe not". Then we come to the phrase "who should betray Him". There is nothing in this verse to indicate that the subject did a 180% change from those who did not believe to one who did believe, but betrayed Him.If you believe that the subject did change, can you tell me where and with what word?

Let me give you an example of what you are suggesting. "The dogs are running around wild, but one is calm". I think that because the sugbject is dogs, that the calm one is also a dog. But according to your logic the dogs are running wild but a cat is calm. You see? You can't just change the subject mid-sentence. You don't and neither does the Holy Spirit.

I suggest that Peter's denial and Thomas' doubting have nothing to do with whether Judas ever believed. I suggest that you are changing the subject of verse 64 against all logic and against all scripture. Jn. 6:64 does not change subjects mid-sentence, it is speaking of unbelievers and the one betrayer who was also an unbeliever, not a cat. Hope this helps!:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 10th 2007, 03:11 AM
Hi PP!:)

We are discussing Jn. 6:46. Do you really think that John was saying that Christ knew from the beginning that some would not believe that He was the bread of life? Look at the previous phrase, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life". Our Lord was speaking of resurrection life. Verse 64 follows that statement. Those who believed not were those who did not believe in Him unto resurrection life. Actually madeline, when I ended those lines like this "anyone eats.... etc.. It means that there is more that followed but since it is right there in the text... no need for me to type out the whole thing. Understand now?


I now understand that you believe that Judas believed at one time. Two questions:, 1) How do you know that? And 2) Please comment on what I wrote:

"That would be saying that the two categories are 1) those who didn't believe and 2) one who did believe but betrayed Christ". What is the subject of this verse? The subject is those who "believe not". Then we come to the phrase "who should betray Him". There is nothing in this verse to indicate that the subject did a 180% change from those who did not believe to one who did believe, but betrayed Him.If you believe that the subject did change, can you tell me where and with what word? Madeline... you need to go up the last couple of post! I've commented on it for several post now... honestly... are you even reading anything I type?


Let me give you an example of what you are suggesting. "The dogs are running around wild, but one is calm". I think that because the sugbject is dogs, that the calm one is also a dog. But according to your logic the dogs are running wild but a cat is calm. You see? You can't just change the subject mid-sentence. You don't and neither does the Holy Spirit.Okay... I am having another one of those Aflac duck and Yogi moments long about now!!! What in the world are you talking about?


I suggest that Peter's denial and Thomas' doubting have nothing to do with whether Judas ever believed. I suggest that you are changing the subject of verse 64 against all logic and against all scripture. Jn. 6:64 does not change subjects mid-sentence, it is speaking of unbelievers and the one betrayer who was also an unbeliever, not a cat. Hope this helps!:)

Love,
MadelineI didn't say that had anything to do with Judas and Judas believing. Look... honestly. I don't know if this is just a language problem here or if you are even reading what I write. You certainly aren't picking up on much it seems and your English seems fine. So I gotta think you aren't reading. So once again... we've discussed the Judas thing and now you are wanting to start the discussion all over again. I'm no going to do that. If you can't get what I am saying (you don't have to agree but at least you should at least understand the points I am making) then there is nothing more I can do to help out there. So do you want to continue on now with the endure passage that you posted earlier or what? But continuing here on this particular passage is getting sort of redundant to myself and I figure everyone else that is actually reading what is being written.

*Madeline*
Feb 10th 2007, 03:58 AM
Hi PP!:)


Actually madeline, when I ended those lines like this "anyone eats.... etc.. It means that there is more that followed but since it is right there in the text... no need for me to type out the whole thing. Understand now?

Madeline... you need to go up the last couple of post! I've commented on it for several post now... honestly... are you even reading anything I type?

Okay... I am having another one of those Aflac duck and Yogi moments long about now!!! What in the world are you talking about?

I didn't say that had anything to do with Judas and Judas believing. Look... honestly. I don't know if this is just a language problem here or if you are even reading what I write. You certainly aren't picking up on much it seems and your English seems fine. So I gotta think you aren't reading. So once again... we've discussed the Judas thing and now you are wanting to start the discussion all over again. I'm no going to do that. If you can't get what I am saying (you don't have to agree but at least you should at least understand the points I am making) then there is nothing more I can do to help out there. So do you want to continue on now with the endure passage that you posted earlier or what? But continuing here on this particular passage is getting sort of redundant to myself and I figure everyone else that is actually reading what is being written.

From John 6:64, "Jesus knew from the beginning who believed and who would betray Him." The distinction is real. In Matt 7:21-23 Jesus says, "I never knew you: depart from Me you workers of iniquity." If these people had ever once been saved, then Jesus could not have used the word never.

In John 13:8 Jesus used two words for washing: νίπτω (a ceremonial foot washing) and λούω (a whole bath). The disciples partook of the whole bath before the traditional Passover Meal. The ceremonial foot washing showed that the already fully bathed disciples were clean. In verse 10, Jesus declares that they all weren't wholly cleanreferring to Judas whom He shortly dismissed from the fellowship. Judas was never saved by the washing of the Holy Spirit and shouldn't partake of the foot washing fellowship. The word disciple simply means a learner or one who is sent. Neither reflects the true nature of the soul. Many saved and unsaved seek and learn of Jesus. John shows us that the terms disciple and Christian are not synonymous. In fact – there are false, bad, and good disciples. Only the last two are true believers. At the Last Supper, just after Jesus had revealed that one of them would betray Him, the Eleven responded by asking, "Is it I, Lord?" Judas responded by asking, "Is it I, Master?" This is another insight into his unsaved heart because no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit (I Cor 12:3).

In John 6:66, many of Jesus' disciples turned back from following Him. Not Judas – for he was an unsaved disciple that didn't leave. He stuck around long enough to do his dastardly dead and then refused to humble himself and repent. Judas and those in Matt 7:21-3 who will cry "Lord, Lord" are ministers of righteousness, but they are spiritually unrighteous. Judas never believed (John 6:64) and was described as a devil (John 6:70). Judas betrayed Jesus because he was never truly saved. It is a faulty assumptions to believe some people declare that all of the disciples that God gave to Jesus were saved. It sounds nice but doesn't square with Bible teaching. When Jesus said that He had lost none but Judas (John 17:12), it doesn't mean that Judas was saved and then got himself lost.

Many depart from Christ, forsake the gospel, and fall away from the faith. … Many who once walked in our company have left us. … The apostles did. We depart from Christ and fall away for many reasons: the love of the world (Matt 13:22), false doctrine (Gal 5:1-4), and trials (Matt 13:21). Self-will has destroyed multitudes, like Judas. Gradual apostasy has claimed many souls by Satan's craftiness (Heb 10:25-6). Yet, it must be understood that those who depart from us, for whatever reason, never were truly of us (I John 2:19). It is one thing to learn doctrine; another thing to learn Christ. It is one thing to have an emotional experience; another thing to be born again. It is one thing to change your life; another thing to bow to the rule of Christ. Judas wasn't ever saved. One can't apostatize if one was never saved!:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 10th 2007, 04:47 AM
There madeline! You get the last word on the John thing. Ready to move on to those other passages yet?

ProjectPeter
Feb 10th 2007, 04:11 PM
Madeline,

Let me go ahead and start that process and you can copy your replies in the various passages and we can get some new Scripture on the table. I'll do them in individual post and we'll go one at a time.

Matthew 10:22—And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

*Madeline*
Feb 10th 2007, 07:53 PM
Hi PP!:)


Madeline,

Let me go ahead and start that process and you can copy your replies in the various passages and we can get some new Scripture on the table. I'll do them in individual post and we'll go one at a time.

Matthew 10:22—And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

The Matt 10:22 passage belongs to Jesus' first commissioning of the disciples. So our first idea is that of a narrow context to a few weeks in time. However, when the disciples returned, they spoke nothing of many of the things mentioned by Jesus. For example, none of them were brought before kings (10:18). Brothers weren't delivered to death by their brothers (10:21). Jesus used this time as an opportunity to give a panoramic prophetic discussion of what would happen when He ascended into heaven. This includes the judgment against Jerusalem, our present age, the coming time of tribulation, and the millennial rule. The phrase "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" has nothing to do with one's individual justification (new birth). It deals with reaping the physical reward of staying alive. This idea is expanded by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt 24:13). Here, the enduring is more clearly identified with a national Israelite enduring the time of the Great Abomination of Desolation (24:15). This event characterizes the time of Jacob’s trouble that happens just before Jesus' Second Coming (24:27-31). Context dictates that this phrase and these passages be understood as belonging to a temporal salvation from worldly persecutions. There you go!:)

Love,
Madeline

watchinginawe
Feb 10th 2007, 08:50 PM
Um... now are simply looking for something to argue that has nothing to do with anything! I simply stated and will again. There are many things that don't make sense. You say that a lot when you take a plain written text and discount what it actually says. That doesn't make sense therefore it must not be no matter how it is written! Point being madeline... just because it don't make sense to you, doesn't mean you can just add this and that to the text so you can make it make sense to you. What that leaves you doing is adding something to the text so that it fits your doctrine and instead of letting Scripture dictate your doctrine... you make Scripture fit your doctrine.

You can go on about tenses and exegesis and all that you often go on about. I honestly don't concern myself with all that going on. But when you add something to the Scripture that ain't there... I'll be calling you on it and making that point for those reading along. Tis part of debating. ;)I received a request to address the above reply by a non-participant (potential participant) in light of the following posted rule for the debate:
If someone calls someone a false teacher then that's it. You are gone. No warnings to be nice or none of that nonsense. If you are an adult in this debate then you know better than that in the first place. So don't do it nor attempt any backhanded comments that imply it.OK, first of all, I want to state that no one is "gone" unless The Parson or I (watchinginawe) say so. If we feel a warning is within our discretion, then we intend to exercise that option.

Additionally, it should be noted that the above comment by ProjectPeter is his opinion of how Madeline was fitting a scripture to doctrine. While some may take this to be calling Madeline a "false teacher", I don't see it that way. The reason is because each participant believes the other participant to be incorrect in the view they hold of this topic. That is not in question here is it? We all know that Madeline believes PP is wrong and we all know that PP thinks Madeline is wrong. The above statement by PP simply states why he thinks Madeline is wrong, hence, Madeline adding to the scripture to make "sense" (in PP's opinion).

So, with all of that stated, I am going to ask for a notch higher on the respect pole from PP in order to keep all parties interested, but to also maintain that offering the mechanism (in his opinion) by which Madeline asserts the doctrine is fair game.

Thanks,

ProjectPeter
Feb 10th 2007, 10:33 PM
Hi PP!:)

The Matt 10:22 passage belongs to Jesus' first commissioning of the disciples. So our first idea is that of a narrow context to a few weeks in time. However, when the disciples returned, they spoke nothing of many of the things mentioned by Jesus. For example, none of them were brought before kings (10:18). Brothers weren't delivered to death by their brothers (10:21). Jesus used this time as an opportunity to give a panoramic prophetic discussion of what would happen when He ascended into heaven. This includes the judgment against Jerusalem, our present age, the coming time of tribulation, and the millennial rule.okay with this.


The phrase "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" has nothing to do with one's individual justification (new birth). It deals with reaping the physical reward of staying alive. This idea is expanded by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt 24:13). Here, the enduring is more clearly identified with a national Israelite enduring the time of the Great Abomination of Desolation (24:15). This event characterizes the time of Jacob’s trouble that happens just before Jesus' Second Coming (24:27-31). Context dictates that this phrase and these passages be understood as belonging to a temporal salvation from worldly persecutions. There you go!:)

Love,
MadelineWithout getting much into the end times stuff at this point... The passage in chapter 10 is for the time after Christ and up till this present time and beyond. You said that in the first paragraph and then jump to Matthew 24. Not sure why you did that because as I stated... Matthew 10 and Matthew 24 are not the same nor are they speaking about the same event.

I agree with your first statement and since that is the one we are discussion then are you attempting to say that this is also a temporal salvation throughout time for the nation of Israel? Because if that is what you are implying then you'll have to explain what you mean by this "temporal salvation" during the tribulation they went through because those apostles didn't get that we know nor did the Christian as a whole!

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 01:10 AM
Hi again PP!


okay with this.

Without getting much into the end times stuff at this point... The passage in chapter 10 is for the time after Christ and up till this present time and beyond. You said that in the first paragraph and then jump to Matthew 24. Not sure why you did that because as I stated... Matthew 10 and Matthew 24 are not the same nor are they speaking about the same event.

I agree with your first statement and since that is the one we are discussion then are you attempting to say that this is also a temporal salvation throughout time for the nation of Israel? Because if that is what you are implying then you'll have to explain what you mean by this "temporal salvation" during the tribulation they went through because those apostles didn't get that we know nor did the Christian as a whole!

There is nothing difficult about temporal salvation. We get temporal salvation every time we avoid an perilous hazard. Temporal salvation is NOT about justification. Both Matt 10 and Matt 24 speak of the time of Jacob's trouble when the national Israelites will go through severe persecutions. If they endure to the end, then Paul tells us in Romans that the entire nation will be saved. These national Israelites who endure to the end will receive Jesus as their Messiah and King. Justification will be by faith (as always). God's plan for Israel has never ended. And yes! The disciples didn't know what Jesus was talking about. Modern day theologians do not have any valid excuse.

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 01:52 AM
Hi again PP!



There is nothing difficult about temporal salvation. We get temporal salvation every time we avoid an perilous hazard. Temporal salvation is NOT about justification. Both Matt 10 and Matt 24 speak of the time of Jacob's trouble when the national Israelites will go through severe persecutions. If they endure to the end, then Paul tells us in Romans that the entire nation will be saved. These national Israelites who endure to the end will receive Jesus as their Messiah and King. Justification will be by faith (as always). God's plan for Israel has never ended. And yes! The disciples didn't know what Jesus was talking about. Modern day theologians do not have any valid excuse.

Love,
Madeline
Tell me Madeline... how do you apply such a thinking considering the apostle's were all killed pretty horribly save John... and what John went through wasn't a cake walk. Then that whole Christian being fed to the lions thing... that wasn't something just played on movies many years later. That stuff happened and those people endured to the end and the only salvation they got was eternity for standing true even to their horrible death?

I read this and I can't even believe I am reading it. Shoot... come up with something else, even just ignore it. But what you are saying right here... WOW! It is void of logic, history, and most anything else I can think of! Again... Wow!

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 01:56 AM
Let's see where this goes. I'll just go ahead and post them in individual post and you can respond as you have the time.

John 8:31 —Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 01:58 AM
Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 01:59 AM
1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 02:02 AM
Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 02:04 AM
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9 And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary.
10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 02:07 AM
Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --
23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 02:09 AM
Those are the ones I remember and had on that copied post from before. So shouldn't take you long to do the copy/paste on these. We can go through them as long as it takes but I wanted to get the passages back up to this part of the discussion because it is getting long enough that it is difficult to go back and find specific post. So take the time you need... it's all good! :)

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 02:49 AM
Let's see where this goes. I'll just go ahead and post them in individual post and you can respond as you have the time.

John 8:31 —Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

The John 8:31 passage was delivered to those who had believed in Jesus (the first part of the verse). Jesus relates endurance to that of true discipleship. But lack of endurance does not mean that one is not a disciple. It merely means that one is an unworthy disciple who will get fewer rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (see 1 Cor 3:11-15 – especially verse 15).

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 02:50 AM
Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

This passage is stuck in the middle of an extended discourse on human depravity which began at Romans 1:18. This particular sub-section deals with Israelites who thought they were better than others because of the way God had dealt with them as His chosen people. The discussion points to God's faithfulness in judgment. Those who live outside the law will perish without the law (Rom 2:12). Those who live under the law (not under grace) will be judged fairly according to their works. We know the conclusion of this from Rom 3:19 where all will be so convinced of their guilt that they will not be able to speak one word in self-defense. Paul is not talking about those who live under grace.

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 02:51 AM
1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

"The immediate context has two important facts. First, the words are saved (present passive) and keep (present active) indicate that present salvation is being discussed. Present salvation is often equated with present sanctification. Second, the phrase "unless you believed in vain" uses an Aorist Tense. The Greek Present Tenses in combination with the Greek Perfect Tense highlight past salvation from the penalty of sin and present salvation from the power of sin. Present deliverance from the power of sin is contingent upon two things: a solid base of operations (justification) and a vital continuing faith (sanctification). The possibility of faith being in vain does not and should not look at fickle human faith. In context, Paul spends the rest of the chapter looking at the completeness, sufficiency, and worth of the Jesus' death and resurrection. Our faith is only in vain if it were the case Christ was not raised from the dead. Believers have been eternally saved (justified by faith) – period! Salvation is always secure. Even if they don’t persevere in the faith, their salvation is secure – but their fellowship is lost. If they presently hold fast, they are being saved (sanctification) and enjoy fellowship with God. It is a great error to confuse justification with sanctification." From my book on Eternal Security.

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 02:53 AM
Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

It is possible to fall again and again into the yoke of slavery Are we implying that:

1. Jesus our Surety cannot cover for our defaults?
2. Jesus our Mediator cannot negotiate a win for us?
3. Jesus our High Priest didn’t already pay for those sins?
4. Jesus the Finisher of our Faith isn’t up to His assignment?
5. Jesus our Great Shepherd will let the wandering sheep go?
6. Jesus will be changeable from His past demonstrations of faithfulness?Falling to the yoke of slavery isn't the same as being unsaved.

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 02:53 AM
Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --
23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

I replied to that a while back.


Also in Colossians 1:23 "if" (eigi) is a first class conditional, which means that "continue in the faith" may be assumed as something which is true. Thus (eigi) can mean "since" you will persevere in the faith and is more of an motivation given by Paul rather than an admonition. However, if you feel as the "IF" clause is given so as to serve as the possibility that salvation can be lost, the text itself doesn't actually prove it. That is, those who do not persevere in the faith were actually saved. Hope this helps PP!

Love,
Madeline

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 03:44 PM
The John 8:31 passage was delivered to those who had believed in Jesus (the first part of the verse). Jesus relates endurance to that of true discipleship. But lack of endurance does not mean that one is not a disciple. It merely means that one is an unworthy disciple who will get fewer rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (see 1 Cor 3:11-15 – especially verse 15).

Love,
MadelineWhat do you think "lack of endurance" would mean then if it is endurance that Jesus says makes one a disciple?

As to an unworthy disciple getting less rewards... that passage in 1 Corinthians doesn't teach that at all.

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.
8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10 ¶According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.
14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.
16 ¶Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
18 ¶Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";
20 and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."
21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you,
23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

He continues that same line of thought into the next chapter.

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.
3 But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.
4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.
6 ¶Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.


Paul is talking about the stuff built upon the foundation... the Christian sitting underneath the teachings of these men. It is their teaching that will be be "burned" and that which remains is good and that which doesn't is simply wood, hay, and stubble. The stuff that is burned is what is suffered loss etc.

This is not talking about "lack of endurance" nor is it talking about sin or any such other. Context of this passage is widely misused.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 03:51 PM
This passage is stuck in the middle of an extended discourse on human depravity which began at Romans 1:18. This particular sub-section deals with Israelites who thought they were better than others because of the way God had dealt with them as His chosen people. The discussion points to God's faithfulness in judgment. Those who live outside the law will perish without the law (Rom 2:12). Those who live under the law (not under grace) will be judged fairly according to their works. We know the conclusion of this from Rom 3:19 where all will be so convinced of their guilt that they will not be able to speak one word in self-defense. Paul is not talking about those who live under grace.

Tell me then Madeline... doesn't Paul use the words "eternal life" in that passage? Notice his point.

Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

What do you make of the use of the words eternal life in this regard? Keep in mind that word perseverance as well.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 04:16 PM
"The immediate context has two important facts. First, the words are saved (present passive) and keep (present active) indicate that present salvation is being discussed. Present salvation is often equated with present sanctification. Second, the phrase "unless you believed in vain" uses an Aorist Tense. The Greek Present Tenses in combination with the Greek Perfect Tense highlight past salvation from the penalty of sin and present salvation from the power of sin. Present deliverance from the power of sin is contingent upon two things: a solid base of operations (justification) and a vital continuing faith (sanctification). The possibility of faith being in vain does not and should not look at fickle human faith. In context, Paul spends the rest of the chapter looking at the completeness, sufficiency, and worth of the Jesus' death and resurrection. Our faith is only in vain if it were the case Christ was not raised from the dead. Believers have been eternally saved (justified by faith) – period! Salvation is always secure. Even if they don’t persevere in the faith, their salvation is secure – but their fellowship is lost. If they presently hold fast, they are being saved (sanctification) and enjoy fellowship with God. It is a great error to confuse justification with sanctification." From my book on Eternal Security.A quick check of any concordance will clue us in on the fact that had Paul wanted to say "sanctification" then Paul knew the Greek word to use for sanctification. Instead Paul said "saved" and I think what Paul actually meant to say there was in fact what he said. Otherwise you'd of seen the word in the Greek "hagiazo" in that verse. It isn't there. ;) Sounds like whomever wrote that book was understanding enough to figure out that the passage presented a problem so a little Greek geek working and he came up with an answer that sounds good to folks. If Paul didn't know such a word as sanctify then perhaps he could make a better case. But Paul knew and used the word often enough where if that is what he meant to say then he would have used that word. Once again what I am seeing is reading doctrine into the clearly written text and in the end the doctrine has the verse saying something totally different than what it clearly says.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 04:31 PM
It is possible to fall again and again into the yoke of slavery Are we implying that:

1. Jesus our Surety cannot cover for our defaults?
2. Jesus our Mediator cannot negotiate a win for us?
3. Jesus our High Priest didn’t already pay for those sins?
4. Jesus the Finisher of our Faith isn’t up to His assignment?
5. Jesus our Great Shepherd will let the wandering sheep go?
6. Jesus will be changeable from His past demonstrations of faithfulness?Falling to the yoke of slavery isn't the same as being unsaved.
All of those questions are great questions to make that old emotional appeal to folks but ultimately emotional appeals fall short of what Scripture actually tells us. But none of those questions are addressing the passage in the least bit.

What did Paul tell the church in Galatia?

Galatians 1:6 ¶I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

They were deserting Christ for a different gospel. Quite the problem actually!

Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."


The implication that they were nullifying the grace of God... again a bit problematic. Keep in mind other such passages as Hebrews that speak of trampling under foot this grace. It is not a good thing madeline and one that Scripture speaks right negative about!

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
4 Did you suffer so many things in vain -- if indeed it was in vain?

Did they? Perhaps... they turned back to faith in Christ as opposed to the works of the Law. Perhaps not. But point being... the possibility that it was in vain was very real a possibility and even Paul understood that.

Galatians 4:19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you --
20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Think of the implication of that bolded part of the text Madeline. Paul understands clearly the seriousness of all this.

Then come the text we are discussing and a bit beyond.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 ¶Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

It says what it says and if you think that "falling from grace" and "severed from Christ" doesn't tell them that they are in fact fallen from grace and been severed from Christ then what will it take?

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 04:40 PM
I replied to that a while back.



Love,
Madeline
Whomever you are reading and getting this stuff from let me caution you to be more diligent in checking their work.

Here is the word.

eiâge or transliterated as eige.

Here is what it means Madeline.

"if, if so be that, if yet"


I am not sure where they came up with eigi at.

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 06:25 PM
Hi PP and good morning to you!:)


What do you think "lack of endurance" would mean then if it is endurance that Jesus says makes one a disciple?

As to an unworthy disciple getting less rewards... that passage in 1 Corinthians doesn't teach that at all.

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.
8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10 ¶According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.
14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.
16 ¶Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
18 ¶Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";
20 and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."
21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you,
23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

He continues that same line of thought into the next chapter.

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.
3 But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.
4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.
6 ¶Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.


Paul is talking about the stuff built upon the foundation... the Christian sitting underneath the teachings of these men. It is their teaching that will be be "burned" and that which remains is good and that which doesn't is simply wood, hay, and stubble. The stuff that is burned is what is suffered loss etc.

This is not talking about "lack of endurance" nor is it talking about sin or any such other. Context of this passage is widely misused.

I wanted to answer all your posts in one fell swoop but that would probably complicate things more than it already is. I'm not quite sure how John 8:31 turned into 1 Corinthians which is irrelevant. Once again, in John 8:31 the text is the exact opposite of Jesus' charge against the Pharisees. To those who believed (GPT=an historic unending fact) on Him, Jesus told them that if they would continue in His word, then they would be His disciples (30-2). Context shows Jesus' non-condemnation comes before His teaching. The forgiven woman was told to live a sanctified life. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 certainly does teach a loss of rewards to poor stewardship. Verse 9 states "We are laborers together with God" (lit., God's fellow workers") is the key to this chapter. This, in effect, restates the phrase in verse 8, he that planteth and he that watereth. Verse 15 explicitly says "He himself shall be saved," this passage clearly teaches the loss of reward, and not the loss of salvation. The stress in this entire passage is not on a person's relationship to Christ, but on service to Christ.:hug:

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 06:27 PM
Tell me then Madeline... doesn't Paul use the words "eternal life" in that passage? Notice his point.

Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

What do you make of the use of the words eternal life in this regard? Keep in mind that word perseverance as well.

Romans 2:5
This passage is ripped out of the context by many from the beginning with Rom 1:19 and ending at Rom 3:20. This extended passage condemns human based salvation for Jews and Gentiles - even the whole world. Romans 2:5 merely shows that we build up judgment by trying to please God based on our own righteousnesses. We only please God when we are IN CHRIST. It's really that simple.

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 06:29 PM
A quick check of any concordance will clue us in on the fact that had Paul wanted to say "sanctification" then Paul knew the Greek word to use for sanctification. Instead Paul said "saved" and I think what Paul actually meant to say there was in fact what he said. Otherwise you'd of seen the word in the Greek "hagiazo" in that verse. It isn't there. ;) Sounds like whomever wrote that book was understanding enough to figure out that the passage presented a problem so a little Greek geek working and he came up with an answer that sounds good to folks. If Paul didn't know such a word as sanctify then perhaps he could make a better case. But Paul knew and used the word often enough where if that is what he meant to say then he would have used that word. Once again what I am seeing is reading doctrine into the clearly written text and in the end the doctrine has the verse saying something totally different than what it clearly says.

1 Corinthians 15:1
Here, the underlying Greek for the phrase "continue to stand" is a Greek Perfect Tense which emphasizes the continued security of the gospel in which believers stand. The IF in verse 2 must be understood in context of the GPT. Lewis Sperry Chafer writes: "The Apostle is not implying that some of the Corinthian believers were lost for want of faith; rather it is that their faith has never been sufficient for salvation (cf. 2 Cor 13:5)." [Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 106. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1949; 2002, S. 106:399] I simply view it as "so what?" Believers fall into sin a lot. It is a big step to think that believing in vain is the equivalent to "lose one's eternal life." Fear is a great intimidator. Hope this helps!

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 06:32 PM
All of those questions are great questions to make that old emotional appeal to folks but ultimately emotional appeals fall short of what Scripture actually tells us. But none of those questions are addressing the passage in the least bit.

What did Paul tell the church in Galatia?

Galatians 1:6 ¶I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

They were deserting Christ for a different gospel. Quite the problem actually!

Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."


The implication that they were nullifying the grace of God... again a bit problematic. Keep in mind other such passages as Hebrews that speak of trampling under foot this grace. It is not a good thing madeline and one that Scripture speaks right negative about!

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
4 Did you suffer so many things in vain -- if indeed it was in vain?

Did they? Perhaps... they turned back to faith in Christ as opposed to the works of the Law. Perhaps not. But point being... the possibility that it was in vain was very real a possibility and even Paul understood that.

Galatians 4:19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you --
20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Think of the implication of that bolded part of the text Madeline. Paul understands clearly the seriousness of all this.

Then come the text we are discussing and a bit beyond.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 ¶Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

It says what it says and if you think that "falling from grace" and "severed from Christ" doesn't tell them that they are in fact fallen from grace and been severed from Christ then what will it take?

Galatians 5:1
Please tell me that you're joking PP.:) Name one person who has NOT fallen back into the yoke of bondage. When we fall into sin, we confess our sin (1 John 1:9). This is a passage related to sanctification. It is high error to yank sanctification passages out of context and redefine them as lose eternal life (justification) proofs. I'm speaking in general with those who confuse sanctification with justification.

*Madeline*
Feb 11th 2007, 06:35 PM
Whomever you are reading and getting this stuff from let me caution you to be more diligent in checking their work.

Here is the word.

eiâge or transliterated as eige.

Here is what it means Madeline.

"if, if so be that, if yet"


I am not sure where they came up with eigi at.

Sorry for the confusion PP. I will try and clarify. Colossians 1:21 is not a proof against OSAS. This is the basis FOR OSAS. We are reconciled! "Much more then, being now justified by Jesus' blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him! For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, muchmore, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life!" (Rom 5:9-10). Hope all this helps!:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 08:33 PM
Hi PP and good morning to you!:)



I wanted to answer all your posts in one fell swoop but that would probably complicate things more than it already is. I'm not quite sure how John 8:31 turned into 1 Corinthians which is irrelevant.Um... because you mentioned it in your response to this passage Madeline. :confused

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1148671&postcount=97



Once again, in John 8:31 the text is the exact opposite of Jesus' charge against the Pharisees. To those who believed (GPT=an historic unending fact) on Him, Jesus told them that if they would continue in His word, then they would be His disciples (30-2). Context shows Jesus' non-condemnation comes before His teaching. The forgiven woman was told to live a sanctified life.Would you mind my asking... what book are you getting this stuff from? To try and make that a "historic unending fact" is just one more case of someone taking a passage that doesn't help their cause and doing all sorts of whatever to it in order to make it work with what they believe Madeline.

Here is what the word means in fact.

pisteuo

to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ): -- believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Jesus was speaking to the Jews that believed he was the Messiah. It was as He spoke many came to believe in Him.

John 8:30 As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.
31 ¶Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

Here Jesus makes it clear to those who just came to believe in Him.

IF you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine. That there is one of them there conditions we talked about earlier. ;) It stands to reason then... if you don't abide in His word... what?




1 Corinthians 3:11-15 certainly does teach a loss of rewards to poor stewardship. Verse 9 states "We are laborers together with God" (lit., God's fellow workers") is the key to this chapter. This, in effect, restates the phrase in verse 8, he that planteth and he that watereth. Verse 15 explicitly says "He himself shall be saved," this passage clearly teaches the loss of reward, and not the loss of salvation. The stress in this entire passage is not on a person's relationship to Christ, but on service to Christ.:hug:

Love,
Madeline
Who was Paul using as an example of the laborers Madeline? Let me answer for you to save some time. Paul and Apollos. Who were they laboring over Madeline? Let me answer to save some time. All of the folks in the church.

They were the builders or the planter and one that watered... laborers.

The congregation is are the field that needs the planter and water person. The congregation (church) is the building that needs the builders.

The laborers Paul is speaking of... is he and Apollos. Not the church. That is the context and Paul continues it in the next chapter letting the writer know that he is using those two as an example. The works spoken of that will be tried by fire are the works of their ministry.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 08:37 PM
Romans 2:5
This passage is ripped out of the context by many from the beginning with Rom 1:19 and ending at Rom 3:20. This extended passage condemns human based salvation for Jews and Gentiles - even the whole world. Romans 2:5 merely shows that we build up judgment by trying to please God based on our own righteousnesses. We only please God when we are IN CHRIST. It's really that simple.
What does that passage actually say Madeline? Paul is obviously not talking about "human based salvation" because if he is then you will have to admit that according to that passage... one can receive eternal life by human based salvation and I know you don't think such as that.

Forget doctrine for just a second. Who, in this passage, will see eternal life? Who in this passage will receive trials and distress? Add nothing nor take anything away. What does it simply say?

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 09:04 PM
1 Corinthians 15:1
Here, the underlying Greek for the phrase "continue to stand" is a Greek Perfect Tense which emphasizes the continued security of the gospel in which believers stand. The IF in verse 2 must be understood in context of the GPT. Lewis Sperry Chafer writes: "The Apostle is not implying that some of the Corinthian believers were lost for want of faith; rather it is that their faith has never been sufficient for salvation (cf. 2 Cor 13:5)." [Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 106. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1949; 2002, S. 106:399] I simply view it as "so what?" Believers fall into sin a lot. It is a big step to think that believing in vain is the equivalent to "lose one's eternal life." Fear is a great intimidator. Hope this helps!This right here is why Theological Seminaries scare the fool out of me. Anymore... they are simply using their "education" to make the Scripture worthless. No different than years back when the average man was just to stupid to understand the Word... they had to run to the priest to tell them what it says. And we have many years of crazy church history to show how much a failure that truly is. Here we are in a different period in time when folks are by and large more educated than times past with information a mere finger stroke and an Internet connection away and information by the boat load! And yet even still... we dissect the verses with the Greek tense this and the UGT and the WKWET stuff to the point where the Word means nothing. It is like folks don't understand that the various translations such as the NASB, NKJ, NIV, NLT, etc. etc. already have translated it with all of that stuff in mind. So what you have is the UGT already being there... being re-text to water it down all the more.

And this is another example yet again where you are reading doctrine into the text as opposed to letting the text dictate the doctrine. Let me say on record here... if Chafer wrote that about this passage then he is guilty of that very thing.

Anyway... that's my rant on that.

Here is that passage once again to show that what you have here is in error.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

They received it (past). They stand (present)

2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

condition... if you endure to the end you will be saved. In context... you are saved unless you don't hold fast the word and by that you will have believed in vain... because you ain't going to see that eternal life which I shared with you when I preached the gospel to ya!



3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.


And yes Madeline... they did believe. Paul mentions nothing at all like they never did really have the faith to be saved but rather quite the contrary to that. So your choice... follow Chafer or follow what the Scripture actually says. His jump over to that passage in 2 Corinthians to try and make his case here... that is the "big step" if there's been a big step shown so far.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 09:31 PM
Galatians 5:1
Please tell me that you're joking PP.:) Name one person who has NOT fallen back into the yoke of bondage. When we fall into sin, we confess our sin (1 John 1:9).It isn't speaking about "sin" here Madeline and that wasn't the charge that Paul was leveling against the church. It was in falling back into slavery to the Law of Moses and circumcision. Look... you constantly are jumping all over the place and rarely do you focus on the actual context of a passage.

And it doesn't matter what John said in 1 John truth be told. Paul was addressing something totally different here and it is the passages in Galatians that I addressed. Not 1 John which is a totally different context!


This is a passage related to sanctification. It is high error to yank sanctification passages out of context and redefine them as lose eternal life (justification) proofs. I'm speaking in general with those who confuse sanctification with justification.Being severed from Christ is a sanctification problem? Madeline... let's talk about the severity of being severed from Christ because one didn't continue to abide in Him. We have a clear passage on that very thing and from Jesus Himself.

John 15:5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Those severed from Christ are worthless and they are gathered up and discarded and burned. While certainly they ain't on sanctification boulevard... but rest assured that their eternal abode is at issue.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2007, 09:39 PM
Sorry for the confusion PP. I will try and clarify. Colossians 1:21 is not a proof against OSAS. This is the basis FOR OSAS. We are reconciled! "Much more then, being now justified by Jesus' blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him! For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, muchmore, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life!" (Rom 5:9-10). Hope all this helps!:)

Love,
MadelineJust another wee problem here Madeline. While Colossians 1:21 is part of the passage we are discussing... the issue is actually verse 23. Let me post that again for you.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

Used to be... was... at a time before.... once upon a time... in other words... in a time past.

22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --

now you are in Christ and He has reconciled you in his flesh..... in other words Madeline... these are born again folk. Saved. Salvation recipients. Children of God. All of those fit who these people are.

23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

But here is one of them there conditions clearly laid out. You are IF INDEED you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast and NOT MOVED away.... So once again Madeline... in support of OSAS how?

Here is the thing Madeline... it really does say that. So all of the incorrect Greek words and all of the tenses and whatnot cannot change what it simply says can it?

*Madeline*
Feb 13th 2007, 03:02 AM
Hi PP!:)

Sorry for the delay, but I took some time carefully examining those passages. I squeezed all your posts into one if that's okay with you PP. Sooooo...here we go!


Um... because you mentioned it in your response to this passage Madeline. :confused

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1148671&postcount=97


Would you mind my asking... what book are you getting this stuff from? To try and make that a "historic unending fact" is just one more case of someone taking a passage that doesn't help their cause and doing all sorts of whatever to it in order to make it work with what they believe Madeline.

Here is what the word means in fact.

pisteuo

to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ): -- believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Jesus was speaking to the Jews that believed he was the Messiah. It was as He spoke many came to believe in Him.

John 8:30 As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.
31 ¶Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

Here Jesus makes it clear to those who just came to believe in Him.

IF you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine. That there is one of them there conditions we talked about earlier. ;) It stands to reason then... if you don't abide in His word... what?




Who was Paul using as an example of the laborers Madeline? Let me answer for you to save some time. Paul and Apollos. Who were they laboring over Madeline? Let me answer to save some time. All of the folks in the church.

They were the builders or the planter and one that watered... laborers.

The congregation is are the field that needs the planter and water person. The congregation (church) is the building that needs the builders.

The laborers Paul is speaking of... is he and Apollos. Not the church. That is the context and Paul continues it in the next chapter letting the writer know that he is using those two as an example. The works spoken of that will be tried by fire are the works of their ministry.

The "teaching" in John 8:31 is rather vague. Why not go instead to a place where Jesus specifically addresses the requirement for eternal life - as in John 6:28,29! Here, the human-centered crowds asked Jesus a self-righteous question: what must we do to what God requires? Jesus responded with a Christ-centered response: believe in Him. Thus, the only way John 8:31 refers to human-centered obedience is by taking the passage out of context, redefining it by a self-righteous standard, and then forcing it into an unholy man-made teaching. If there are is no human activity required to inherit eternal life, then it is foolish to imply that human activity (or the lack thereof) can make one lose the inherited eternal life. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with 1 Cor. 3:8, if the "laborers" are limited to Paul and Apollos then that passage would be taken out of context.

Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 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. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:12-17)

Is "any man" and "every man" Paul and Apollos PP?


What does that passage actually say Madeline? Paul is obviously not talking about "human based salvation" because if he is then you will have to admit that according to that passage... one can receive eternal life by human based salvation and I know you don't think such as that.

Forget doctrine for just a second. Who, in this passage, will see eternal life? Who in this passage will receive trials and distress? Add nothing nor take anything away. What does it simply say?

Ok, I re-examined the entire context of that passage. So here it goes.

Romans 2:5—But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

An "impenitent" heart is a heart that is unwilling to repent. Repentance is essential to Salvation (Mk. 6:12; Lk. 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). Who in this passage will see eternal life? Those who repent and turn from their sins. Who will not see eternal life? those who do not repent. How do you get saved without repentance? I'm not seeing how this passage teaches the loss of salvation or the possibility of it. Since they are "impenitent" (not willing to repent), Paul explains how God will judge these "impenitent" people. God will judge these people (both Jew and Gentile) and be completely fair in the process. How? The controlling principle will be accirding to their deeds (v.6). Verses 11-15 also explains this...how works demonstrate the true condition of the heart of the individual. And their deeds give incontrovertible proof of what is in the heart.


This right here is why Theological Seminaries scare the fool out of me. Anymore... they are simply using their "education" to make the Scripture worthless. No different than years back when the average man was just to stupid to understand the Word... they had to run to the priest to tell them what it says. And we have many years of crazy church history to show how much a failure that truly is. Here we are in a different period in time when folks are by and large more educated than times past with information a mere finger stroke and an Internet connection away and information by the boat load! And yet even still... we dissect the verses with the Greek tense this and the UGT and the WKWET stuff to the point where the Word means nothing. It is like folks don't understand that the various translations such as the NASB, NKJ, NIV, NLT, etc. etc. already have translated it with all of that stuff in mind. So what you have is the UGT already being there... being re-text to water it down all the more.

And this is another example yet again where you are reading doctrine into the text as opposed to letting the text dictate the doctrine. Let me say on record here... if Chafer wrote that about this passage then he is guilty of that very thing.

Anyway... that's my rant on that.

Here is that passage once again to show that what you have here is in error.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

They received it (past). They stand (present)

2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

condition... if you endure to the end you will be saved. In context... you are saved unless you don't hold fast the word and by that you will have believed in vain... because you ain't going to see that eternal life which I shared with you when I preached the gospel to ya!



3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.


And yes Madeline... they did believe. Paul mentions nothing at all like they never did really have the faith to be saved but rather quite the contrary to that. So your choice... follow Chafer or follow what the Scripture actually says. His jump over to that passage in 2 Corinthians to try and make his case here... that is the "big step" if there's been a big step shown so far.

1 Cor. 15:2, "by which also you are saved, if you hold fast".

"if", (i.e. Gr. "ei"). In the case of 1 Cor. 15:2 the "if" is in the indicative mood, the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact. "if",( i.e. Gr. "ean". it expresses the condition simply. In other words, if Paul had wanted to say that there was a condition attached to their salvation he would have used the Greek word, "ean". But he, through the Holy Spirit, did not use that word, he used the other word, "ei", wherein "the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact". In other words, Paul is not putting any conditions on their being saved. The word "endure" is not even used in 1 Cor. To "endure to the end" means endure to the end of the tribulation so one would be saved by the rapture from God's wrath. Let me know if you want me to show you that evidence again.


It isn't speaking about "sin" here Madeline and that wasn't the charge that Paul was leveling against the church. It was in falling back into slavery to the Law of Moses and circumcision. Look... you constantly are jumping all over the place and rarely do you focus on the actual context of a passage.

And it doesn't matter what John said in 1 John truth be told. Paul was addressing something totally different here and it is the passages in Galatians that I addressed. Not 1 John which is a totally different context!

Being severed from Christ is a sanctification problem? Madeline... let's talk about the severity of being severed from Christ because one didn't continue to abide in Him. We have a clear passage on that very thing and from Jesus Himself.

John 15:5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Those severed from Christ are worthless and they are gathered up and discarded and burned. While certainly they ain't on sanctification boulevard... but rest assured that their eternal abode is at issue.

I don't understand your point of Gal. 5, I would throw out Galatians 5:1 as an argument for or against OSAS though. Paul is warning about the burdens of the OT sacrificial system and circumcision. He isn't exhorting people to stand firm in their salvation but rather to stop trying to work for it.

On John 15:5. May I remind you that the OT stresses the truth of faith being proved by one's works. :) In verse 2 we read, "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away....". In other words, if one's fruit does not prove his faith he will be taken away. But that person was not saved in the first pace or his fruit would have proved it. Verse 5 is not talking about losing salvation either. The point of verse 5 is that we can do nothing apart from Christ. Verse 6 "if a man abideth not in Me" is also speaking of one who is not saved, i.e. one who does not abide in Christ is not saved. Even if we were to take your view it would posit a problem in scripture. The argument of the vine and branches is a good argument because it warns of punishment for those who do not abide in Christ. However, there is a counter to this argument on a national level. Israel was a part of the vine and was cut off. However, Romans speaks about the branch being grafted back in and Romans 11 makes it clear that all Israel will be saved. (see verse 26) However, this is talking about a national group, not individuals. Those who rejected Christ 2000 years ago lost out and were not saved. It is by belief that Israel will be grafted in and by unbelief that people are cut off.


Just another wee problem here Madeline. While Colossians 1:21 is part of the passage we are discussing... the issue is actually verse 23. Let me post that again for you.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

Used to be... was... at a time before.... once upon a time... in other words... in a time past.

22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --

now you are in Christ and He has reconciled you in his flesh..... in other words Madeline... these are born again folk. Saved. Salvation recipients. Children of God. All of those fit who these people are.

23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

But here is one of them there conditions clearly laid out. You are IF INDEED you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast and NOT MOVED away.... So once again Madeline... in support of OSAS how?

Here is the thing Madeline... it really does say that. So all of the incorrect Greek words and all of the tenses and whatnot cannot change what it simply says can it?

I'm afraid I disagree. The tense matter much PP. The "if" in Col. 1:23 is the same Greek word as is found in 1 Cor. 15:2. There is no condition, "the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact". It seems to boil down to this. A person who believes in OSAS will look at these passages and say that these are simply hypothetical situations and that it could not actually happen. Some will say that by virtue of the warning people will not lose their salvation because they have been warned. If you tell your child not to play in the street or else they will get hit by a car, they are not guaranteed to get hit by a car the first time they play in the street. But because they have been warned not to play in the street, they will not, and thus have no chance to get hit by a car. Others take a more spiritual approach to explaining this passage by saying that the Holy Spirit will keep people from falling away and that even though this is a conditional statement it can't happen because the person is sealed with the Holy Spirit and He won't let it happen. I believe the point of these warnings then is simply to spur people on to live holy lives and not take the Christian life for granted. Phew!!!

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 03:53 AM
Hi PP!:)

Sorry for the delay, but I took some time carefully examining those passages. I squeezed all your posts into one if that's okay with you PP. Sooooo...here we go!

The "teaching" in John 8:31 is rather vague.Vague? It isn't vague at all Madeline and there is no need to go elsewhere. The verse right before it says... while he spoke those thing many Jews believed in Him and here he speaks to those that believe in Him. How in the world is that vague?


Why not go instead to a place where Jesus specifically addresses the requirement for eternal life - as in John 6:28,29!Because that is just picking at the Bible and ignoring other parts of the Bible because it just ain't working with what you believe. That verse in chapter 6 is not that verse in chapter 8. Remember madeline... that whole Scripture concept eh? Not just part and parcel?


Here, the human-centered crowds asked Jesus a self-righteous question: what must we do to what God requires? Jesus responded with a Christ-centered response: believe in Him. Thus, the only way John 8:31 refers to human-centered obedience is by taking the passage out of context, redefining it by a self-righteous standard, and then forcing it into an unholy man-made teaching.Um... wow. Now I really do understand why you are all over the place in what you believe.


If there are is no human activity required to inherit eternal life, then it is foolish to imply that human activity (or the lack thereof) can make one lose the inherited eternal life. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with 1 Cor. 3:8, if the "laborers" are limited to Paul and Apollos then that passage would be taken out of context. Um... as I stated Madeline. Paul makes it clear in that very next chapter that he used them as an example to make his point. Perhaps you just missed that eh?

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 04:04 AM
Blah... it is after 11 here and I am way too tired to do this now!!! I'll do it tomorrow over some coffee! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 03:29 PM
Hi PP!:)


Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 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. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:12-17)

Is "any man" and "every man" Paul and Apollos PP?

Follow it along Madeline.

1 Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?

This is where Paul is taking them. Their was faction between the various church groups as Paul makes clear earlier in the writing.


5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

Paul makes it clear that they are just the laborers. They can only plant and water but that is as much as they can do. It is God that causes the growth. They are mere men working in the fields.

8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

They are equal... both the planter and the one that waters. But each of them will receive their own reward. Each of who? The planter and the one that waters. Not the field. Speaking of the laborers

9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

God's fellow workers... you (the church) are God's field, God's building. Keep in mind who gets the reward... the worker. Not the field or the building.

10 ¶According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.

Paul laid the foundation in Corinth. Apollos is building on that foundation. There were others we know of as well. Each builder that was building on that foundation laid needed to be careful how they build upon the foundation. The house nor the field are the builders... keep that in mind.

11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The others building on the building... or watering and planting... the analogy would be the same.

12 Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

Remember... each worker will receive his own reward. Their work will become evident because come one day it will be revealed with fire and that fire will test their work.

14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.

Each man's work... building upon the foundation laid with Christ as the cornerstone... if it remains he will receive an award. Remember earlier where Paul made this clarification that each worker will receive his own reward.


15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

The good work will survive and the bad work won't. The minister will be saved... yet so as through fire.

16 ¶Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

If any man (worker) destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. The temple is holy... you are holy... God will destroy those who destroys the temple.

18 ¶Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";
20 and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."
21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you,
23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

STOP BOASTING IN MEN. You belong to Christ. Not Paul. Not Apollos. Not Peter... etc.

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Look at us as stewards of the mysteries of God. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't hold up your pastor to a standard higher than this. You follow Christ... not man. Be wise. This whole thing is speaking of ministers and their building on the foundation... planting... watering. It is speaking of them... not the building itself nor the field. This is enough to make the point but you can continue reading a few more verses and you will see that it is continuing to talk about the stewards.

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 03:54 PM
Ok, I re-examined the entire context of that passage. So here it goes.

Romans 2:5—But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

An "impenitent" heart is a heart that is unwilling to repent. Repentance is essential to Salvation (Mk. 6:12; Lk. 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). Who in this passage will see eternal life? Those who repent and turn from their sins. Who will not see eternal life? those who do not repent. How do you get saved without repentance?Shoot madeline! Almost seems here that you are making repentance a condition for salvation!!!! ;)


I'm not seeing how this passage teaches the loss of salvation or the possibility of it. Since they are "impenitent" (not willing to repent), Paul explains how God will judge these "impenitent" people. God will judge these people (both Jew and Gentile) and be completely fair in the process. How? The controlling principle will be accirding to their deeds (v.6). Verses 11-15 also explains this...how works demonstrate the true condition of the heart of the individual. And their deeds give incontrovertible proof of what is in the heart. Here is that passage again and here is where all of what you are saying is going to come falling apart again.

Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

Paul makes the statement to them that God will render to every man according to his deeds. He chides a group here for being unrepentant and stubborn. Then warns them that God will judge them... every man according to his deeds.

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

How can this person who as you say is not willing to repent... persevere in doing good? How can they obtain eternal life? Paul put this in here not to be ignore Madeline. And the words are there... eternal life. You aren't addressing this but tap dancing all around the area! You have to get this in your understanding of the passage because so far... what you are saying isn't working because it is getting all hung up on this point.

8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

This is what will happen to those that don't persevere in doing good but are instead disobedient. This is what will happen to that stubborn, refusing to repent person if they don't start persevering in doing good... etc.


10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

Paul again brings up the positive. Both to Jew and Gentile... glory and honor and peace to the one who does good. God is not partial

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 04:02 PM
1 Cor. 15:2, "by which also you are saved, if you hold fast".

"if", (i.e. Gr. "ei"). In the case of 1 Cor. 15:2 the "if" is in the indicative mood, the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact. "if",( i.e. Gr. "ean". it expresses the condition simply. In other words, if Paul had wanted to say that there was a condition attached to their salvation he would have used the Greek word, "ean". But he, through the Holy Spirit, did not use that word, he used the other word, "ei", wherein "the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact". In other words, Paul is not putting any conditions on their being saved. The word "endure" is not even used in 1 Cor. To "endure to the end" means endure to the end of the tribulation so one would be saved by the rapture from God's wrath. Let me know if you want me to show you that evidence again.

Here is the passage again.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Here is what you want it to say.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, since you hold fast the word which I preached to you.

If that is how it read then perhaps you have a shot at this working as an "actual fact." But this is what you are having to discard totally for this to be an actual fact. Paul adds... "unless you believed in vain." If Paul said all of that before as an actual fact... then he shot it down as merely a possibility since it is possible that they in "actual fact" could have believed in vain. So simple reasoning here. It wasn't a statement of "actual fact" at all.

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 04:08 PM
I don't understand your point of Gal. 5, I would throw out Galatians 5:1 as an argument for or against OSAS though. Paul is warning about the burdens of the OT sacrificial system and circumcision. He isn't exhorting people to stand firm in their salvation but rather to stop trying to work for it.Let's try that again Madeline because I covered much more than just a bit of Galatians 5.

What did Paul tell the church in Galatia?

Galatians 1:6 ¶I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

They were deserting Christ for a different gospel. Quite the problem actually!

Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."


The implication that they were nullifying the grace of God... again a bit problematic. Keep in mind other such passages as Hebrews that speak of trampling under foot this grace. It is not a good thing madeline and one that Scripture speaks right negative about!

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
4 Did you suffer so many things in vain -- if indeed it was in vain?

Did they? Perhaps... they turned back to faith in Christ as opposed to the works of the Law. Perhaps not. But point being... the possibility that it was in vain was very real a possibility and even Paul understood that.

Galatians 4:19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you --
20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Think of the implication of that bolded part of the text Madeline. Paul understands clearly the seriousness of all this.

Then come the text we are discussing and a bit beyond.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 ¶Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

It says what it says and if you think that "falling from grace" and "severed from Christ" doesn't tell them that they are in fact fallen from grace and been severed from Christ then what will it take?

I'll do the John and Romans part in their own post so as to not get them lost and allow for you to discuss the Galatians passages as well as those others.

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 04:39 PM
On John 15:5. May I remind you that the OT stresses the truth of faith being proved by one's works. :) In verse 2 we read, "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away....". In other words, if one's fruit does not prove his faith he will be taken away.Oh you are leaving off a whole bunch there Madeline. He isn't taken away until FIRST HE is taken off the vine.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

Jesus is the vine. No doubt of that. The only vine that matters a lick! Hopefully we agree here.


2 "Every branch in Me

Every branch IN CHRIST. Now... no way you are going to make a case that there are non believers who are "in Christ."

that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.

Two types of branches... fruit bearing branches (persevere in doing good comes to mind) and non-fruit bearing branches (those who disobey... as it is laid out in Romans 2).

3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Talking to His disciples... already clean because of His teaching. Now direction on what they must do now that they are clean.

4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.

You have to abide in me. STAY in Me. CONTINUE in Me. ENDURE in Me. REMAIN in Me. TARRY in Me. The message is clear. Why? Because apart from Jesus... you can't bear fruit. Why the need to bear fruit?

6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

They are no longer in Christ. They are taken away... gathered up... tossed away and cast into the fire and burned. They are severed from Christ. They dry up. No good but to be burned.



But that person was not saved in the first pace or his fruit would have proved it.Non-saved folks can be a part of the "true vine?" How do you make that work biblically?



Verse 5 is not talking about losing salvation either. The point of verse 5 is that we can do nothing apart from Christ. Verse 6 "if a man abideth not in Me" is also speaking of one who is not saved, i.e. one who does not abide in Christ is not saved.And the only way that you can make that work is by reading your doctrine into the passage Madeline. Again... let's see first how you show that a non-believer can be a part of the true vine?



Even if we were to take your view it would posit a problem in scripture. The argument of the vine and branches is a good argument because it warns of punishment for those who do not abide in Christ.Tell me Madeline. Keeping in mind what you are saying here about the warning of those who do not abide in Christ. Who is Jesus speaking to in this passage of John? It is His disciples. Right before His death on the cross. He isn't talking to the masses. He is spending a very intimate time with His disciples, preparing them for what was to come. He has just finished Passover with His disciples. This is speaking to His followers. Why warn them about not abiding/continuing/enduring in Him? We know by that passage that these boys were already washed clean by his word. Yet here Jesus is... warning them to endure. You are trying to make this an "they were never saved in the first place" issue and goodness... think of the context. What you say is simply lacking.


However, there is a counter to this argument on a national level. Israel was a part of the vine and was cut off. However, Romans speaks about the branch being grafted back in and Romans 11 makes it clear that all Israel will be saved. (see verse 26) However, this is talking about a national group, not individuals. Those who rejected Christ 2000 years ago lost out and were not saved. It is by belief that Israel will be grafted in and by unbelief that people are cut off. We can certainly bring in Roman 11 and I'll do that on a separate post. But understand that Jesus isn't speaking to the Jews on a "national level" in this passage in John. Jesus was speaking only to His disciples. His followers.

Why did Jesus tell them this Madeline? The answer is in that portion of Scripture... just a little further reading.

John 16:1 "These things I have spoken to you, that you may be kept from stumbling.
2 "They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.
3 "And these things they will do, because they have not known the Father, or Me.

There is no case to be made trying to tie this into national Israel. To do so is to grossly take this passage out of context and that would be a shame to see.

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2007, 04:56 PM
I'm afraid I disagree. The tense matter much PP. The "if" in Col. 1:23 is the same Greek word as is found in 1 Cor. 15:2. There is no condition, "the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact". It seems to boil down to this. A person who believes in OSAS will look at these passages and say that these are simply hypothetical situations and that it could not actually happen. Some will say that by virtue of the warning people will not lose their salvation because they have been warned. If you tell your child not to play in the street or else they will get hit by a car, they are not guaranteed to get hit by a car the first time they play in the street. But because they have been warned not to play in the street, they will not, and thus have no chance to get hit by a car. Others take a more spiritual approach to explaining this passage by saying that the Holy Spirit will keep people from falling away and that even though this is a conditional statement it can't happen because the person is sealed with the Holy Spirit and He won't let it happen. I believe the point of these warnings then is simply to spur people on to live holy lives and not take the Christian life for granted. Phew!!!

Love,
MadelineThere may not be a guarantee that they will get hit by the car madeline but then if out of disobedience they go in the street... they very well could get hit by that car. And there is no guarantee, just because they are warned, that they won't go on out in the street anyway. So that analogy is just another example that is full of holes.

Loved the way you tossed in the words "a more spiritual approach" when laying out your view though! But your "spiritual" outlook ain't necessary the Spirit's outlook. ;)

You can't rewrite Scripture just because seems to contradict you madeline. There is a reason why all of the self-prescribed Greek text scholars out there aren't invited to these Bible committee's to help them translate.

I will post to you what I posted to BadDog in the peanut gallery.

NKJ

if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

NIV

if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

ASV

if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.

KJV

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

HCSB

if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a minister of it.

NLT

But you must continue to believe this truth and stand in it firmly. Don't drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News. The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed by God to proclaim it.

NRSV

provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul, became a servant of this gospel.

I mean here you say that it is Greek 101 stuff and such and such is a much better translation and all of these other Greek scholar folk just hosed this one all up! I mean let's face it here. If what you and madeline are saying is the fact... then that whole verse has to be totally changed to read completely different than how all these other translator's figured it should read. You change that to "since" then here is how it should read.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --
23 SINCE indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

That is a total rewrite, meaning something totally different, if you are correct and every other major translation that we have out there just messed this all up as you guys seem to be trying to get us to believe. Gotta be honest with you here... you know I ain't going to buy that! ;)

The Parson
Feb 14th 2007, 02:46 AM
Haven't gotten to that point yet. Just running intercept on your doctrine that man can live like the devil himself and still get into heaven... call it preventive maintenance. ;) You haven't shown as well that this can never be undone so I am simply setting up your "doctrine" so folks can be clear of it as we progress.ProPet, you livin like the devil again???:rolleyes:

Actually, the "doctrine" of living like the devil and still going to heaven isn't one I have heard preached. What I hear from the brethren and myself is: Galations 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. and also: Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Which brings me to a question. If salvation can be lost, what need would there be for chastisment from the Lord? Got a couple more questions after this one...

BadDog
Feb 14th 2007, 06:11 AM
ProPet, you livin like the devil again???:rolleyes:

Actually, the "doctrine" of living like the devil and still going to heaven isn't one I have heard preached. What I hear from the brethren and myself is: Galations 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. and also: Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Which brings me to a question. If salvation can be lost, what need would there be for chastisment from the Lord? Got a couple more questions after this one...
Good question, Parson.

BD

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 01:21 PM
ProPet, you livin like the devil again???:rolleyes:

Actually, the "doctrine" of living like the devil and still going to heaven isn't one I have heard preached. What I hear from the brethren and myself is: Galations 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. and also: Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Which brings me to a question. If salvation can be lost, what need would there be for chastisment from the Lord? Got a couple more questions after this one...
To keep you from going where you ought not go.

Using Madeline's analogy of warning the kid not to play in the street. You can warn them and if they don't listen then you make them stand in the corner and if they still don't listen you may stink some skin off the fanny. And if they yet don't listen you may ground them a week and take some more skin cells off the fanny. They still didn't listen and that next time they got run over by a car. All of your warnings and chastising was to stop them from getting hit by a car. But just because you warn them and even chastise them doesn't mean you are guaranteed the result you are looking for. Goodness... a read of the Old Testament. God chastised and chastised the Israelites. And we think spanking a kid is harsh... look at some of the things God did with them and all to try and bring about a result that He desired of them. Some listened. Most did not.

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 01:32 PM
ProPet, you livin like the devil again???:rolleyes:

Actually, the "doctrine" of living like the devil and still going to heaven isn't one I have heard preached. What I hear from the brethren and myself is: Galations 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. and also: Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Which brings me to a question. If salvation can be lost, what need would there be for chastisment from the Lord? Got a couple more questions after this one...
And let me add too. If you've not read in Centurion's post that one can live like the devil himself and still go to heaven as long as they are believers then read closer. It's in there and keep in mind that is who I was commenting to in that particular post. I know, and have made the distinction, that many who believe in OSAS don't go there. Madeline doesn't adhere to that sort of doctrine at all and meaniecalvinist as a Calvinist wouldn't hold to that either.

And while Baddog (since he's popped in again :)) doesn't advocate anyone living a sinful lifestyle, BD would tell you too that their lifestyle practices ultimately won't ultimately matter as long as they are believers. BD reminds me of Stanley in many ways. He can give some of the best sermons out there on obedience and leave you saying wow! And then gets near the end and says BUT... :lol: It is after that when the message just got burried because they make it just a temporal bad if you do live as such with a loss of a jewell come one day. You would have to ask BD his stand on this but I heard Stanley say it personally in a teaching. It doesn't matter if you deny Christ and live like the devil himself, if you truly believed at a point in your life, Jesus Christ will not deny you. I've heard him say it with my own ears and I know there are some teachings on the web out there of his where people have put stuff like that. Stanley is Southern Baptist but he holds closer in my opinion to the Free Grace teachers out there such as Bob George and the like.

BadDog
Feb 14th 2007, 01:43 PM
Perhaps in much the same way we have red lights, and stop signs. They all teach us to not do destructive things....like don't drive into fast moving traffic at an angle that is not parallel to traffic flow and a speed that does not match the flow.Right. But do you threaten your children with death if they do not obey? Is that even an option for you, in terms of discipline?

That is the position of OSAS.

BD

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 02:34 PM
Right. But do you threaten your children with death if they do not obey? Is that even an option for you, in terms of discipline?

That is the position of OSAS.

BD
This is exactly where we get all sort of strange with our human behavior analogies though Baddog.

God not only threatens them with death but God has in fact taken out boatloads of folks throughout time. We say stuff like this and then we get new believers in who actually do pick up their Bible one day and they start to read and they see where the Bible actually does say God took out vast numbers of people by death. And it does nothing but breed confusion.

We might not threaten them with death today because society has greatly changed. But it hasn't always been that way one... and two the simple fact of the matter is that God did in fact not only threaten with death... he brought death about on a number of occassions.

The Parson
Feb 14th 2007, 02:59 PM
Actiually, BadDog beat me to it ProPet and I may not be heading in the direction you may think. We could get even more simplistic than that. Jesus said: Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. So we are to enter the kingdom like a child. Is that the faith of a child or the ignorance of a child. Answer me that.

If you say the ignorance of a child, you would be discounting the fact that it's the Holy Spirit leading such a one to salvation in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus and his propitiation.

If you were to say the faith of a child you would be right on the money. Most children don't really have a care in the world because they know that momma and daddy are going to take care of their needs. Most don't even know what they need, but trust their parents/parent to supply whatever. These children also know that if they do wrong, mom or dad will spank their backsides if they are a God fearing family.

Even more than this and the one thing that a child should NOT even begin to have to grasp, is the idea that if they do wrong, momma and daddy wouldn't be their momma and daddy any more. If they had to grasp such a terrible thing, they would be denied the peace that God gives that can't be understood. Phillipians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. That would be the most miserable of children who would think that... Hardly any peace there my friend and brother.

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 04:35 PM
Actiually, BadDog beat me to it ProPet and I may not be heading in the direction you may think. We could get even more simplistic than that. Jesus said: Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. So we are to enter the kingdom like a child. Is that the faith of a child or the ignorance of a child. Answer me that.Tim, that isn't at all to be confused with staying immature as a child. There are too many passages in Scripture, especially the epistles, that tell us that we are to mature as well. Our faith should be as all inclusive as a little child in that we totally rely on the Father. But to take that here is in my opinion going way beyond the bounds that Christ intended it to go. Jesus isn't telling folks to be as a child in all things. There is a time we are to become a man and put away childish things (for lack of a better way to put it).


If you say the ignorance of a child, you would be discounting the fact that it's the Holy Spirit leading such a one to salvation in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus and his propitiation.I would hope no one says ignorance. That would be ignorant in my opinion.


If you were to say the faith of a child you would be right on the money. Most children don't really have a care in the world because they know that momma and daddy are going to take care of their needs. Most don't even know what they need, but trust their parents/parent to supply whatever. These children also know that if they do wrong, mom or dad will spank their backsides if they are a God fearing family.

Even more than this and the one thing that a child should NOT even begin to have to grasp, is the idea that if they do wrong, momma and daddy wouldn't be their momma and daddy any more. If they had to grasp such a terrible thing, they would be denied the peace that God gives that can't be understood.

Phillipians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. That would be the most miserable of children who would think that... Hardly any peace there my friend and brother.And here is again where our human reasoning gets all messed up when we try and bring it into God's reasoning. Example... the threat of death to your child. We say GOD FORBID! We'd never even think of doing such a thing as that. But then we read in the Law...

Deuteronomy 21:18 ¶"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them,
19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town.
20 "And they shall say to the elders of his city, `This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.´
21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.

Yes, we are free from the Law of Moses but the point isn't that we are to follow that law. Point is... today we do things a whole bunch different than they did in those days and while we might not ponder something so tough as having our child put to death... just because that thought shocks the snot out of us... doesn't mean that this is something that sure enough gives us a more clear understanding of how God punishes folks and it is there for us to understand. Just because we wouldn't fathom the thought doesn't mean that this is how God operates.

Here is something that I ask you to really ponder. If you don't agree with it then fine but honestly ponder it.

Take for example the shepherd who has a lost sheep. He goes out and hunts for that lost sheep. Looks and looks until he finds that sheep. Beautiful analogy there and one that we all love to think on. It is also a passage that comes up in this discussion and that's a guarantee. But let's bring it in here with this discussion because it is appropriate.

Luke 15:1 Now all the tax-gatherers and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him.
2 And both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
3 ¶And He told them this parable, saying,
4 "What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it?
5 "And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 "And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, `Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!´
7 "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Jesus isn't talking about believers here who are lost. The context of this is that Jesus received sinners, all those undesirable folk that the Pharisee looked down on. These were those that didn't even care about the Law of Moses or any such thing but they were none the less God's chosen people. They were lost sheep. To try and make this a Christian who has lost their way is not the context Jesus is using here. But the point I want to make in introducing the passage in this discussion is the fact that the lost... Jesus went out of His way to bring them into the fold. And when one came... there was great rejoicing. He went out and found them... they were lost and needing the Shepherd.

But the rebellious child... pay attention to that wording. A child of the Father. Not a lost sinner but a rebellious child... that is a totally different thing. Bringing in this passage now.

Luke 15:11 ¶And He said, "A certain man had two sons;
12 and the younger of them said to his father, `Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.´ And he divided his wealth between them.
13 "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.
14 "Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need.
15 "And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 "And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.
17 "But when he came to his senses, he said, `How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!
18 `I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight;
19 "I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."´
20 "And he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him.
21 "And the son said to him, `Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.´
22 "But the father said to his slaves, `Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet;
23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry;
24 for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.´ And they began to be merry.
25 "Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.
26 "And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things might be.
27 "And he said to him, `Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.´
28 "But he became angry, and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began entreating him.
29 "But he answered and said to his father, `Look! For so many years I have been serving you, and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a kid, that I might be merry with my friends;
30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with harlots, you killed the fattened calf for him.´
31 "And he said to him, `My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.
32 `But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.´"

This is not a lost "sheep". This is a rebellious son that decides he is done with the home stuff. Notice that the father didn't run after the son. The father didn't go find the son while he was wallowing with the pigs and eating with them. The father was still at home. Mind you when the son repented and turned back to the father, the father, being father, was faithful and just to forgive the son. But the father didn't go get him.

Did the father still love him? Just as God still loves the children of Israel, of that I have no doubt. But understand that while he was gone... that son was dead. It wasn't until that son came home (not father went and got him) that the son was alive again. But understand the significance there... while he was away from the father... the son was dead. In that the son ceased to be a living son. The biblical implication there about him being dead should not be ignored. If he was "always saved/alive" then it would be impossible for him to be dead. It would equally be impossible for him to be alive "again".

And just for those that want to say he was "never saved in the first place" sort of thing... Here is the Greek for "alive again".

anazao -- to recover life (literally or figuratively): -- (be a-)live again, revive.

Anyway... got longer than I planned so I'll stop for now after saying that there are other such passages too. But these draw very vivid pictures that hopefully makes the point show a bit more clearly.

The Parson
Feb 14th 2007, 04:45 PM
And here you are describing the "Sin unto Death". Not the loss of Salvation. Not sure how deep you would want to get into this but it is my belief that:

1. The sin unto death is only commited by the believer who has gotten so much into the flesh the Lord simply brings them home.
2. The unpardonable sin is commited by the unbeliever who rejects the calling of the Holy Spirit.
Do you want me to delve deeper into it sir?

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 05:12 PM
And here you are describing the "Sin unto Death". Not the loss of Salvation. Not sure how deep you would want to get into this but it is my belief that:

1. The sin unto death is only commited by the believer who has gotten so much into the flesh the Lord simply brings them home.
2. The unpardonable sin is commited by the unbeliever who rejects the calling of the Holy Spirit.
Do you want me to delve deeper into it sir?You certainly can although you are going to crash on that one in this parable if you do. ;)

The father didn't bring this son home nor was the "dead" here speaking of physically dead. If that is the case then the son left the fathers estate (Heaven) and came to earth and sinned like the devil, and then the father killed him. Then when he killed him the son went back home, repented, and the father welcomed him back with open arms. There are a whole lot of theological mine fields with trying to make this passage work within that doctrine.

But feel free to go there... but you probably ought to introduce that separate from this particular passage because this isn't "the sin unto death" that the son committed. ;) If it was... then he could not have become "alive again."

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 05:14 PM
I have heard about that one, Parson, but have never studied the attendant theology. My bigger point is how we use some metaphors, or descriptions, and not others. However, I have always wondered about it.......so fire away. I will be on and off all day...so any answer might have to wait....
You ain't even supposed to be in here!!! Rest assured that someone will complain that the guidelines are being violated!!! Even those who seem to hate and holler about rules! :lol:

The Parson
Feb 14th 2007, 06:09 PM
You certainly can although you are going to crash on that one in this parable if you do. ;)

The father didn't bring this son home nor was the "dead" here speaking of physically dead. If that is the case then the son left the fathers estate (Heaven) and came to earth and sinned like the devil, and then the father killed him. Then when he killed him the son went back home, repented, and the father welcomed him back with open arms. There are a whole lot of theological mine fields with trying to make this passage work within that doctrine.

But feel free to go there... but you probably ought to introduce that separate from this particular passage because this isn't "the sin unto death" that the son committed. ;) If it was... then he could not have become "alive again."But, but, but, I hadn't even mentioned the prodigal. That one was as far from my mind as losing my salvation would be.:rolleyes:

When one studies a precept, for instance, eternal security, the context and the ones who were being addressed in the context have to be considered.

Sin unto death:

Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
1st John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
The Unpardonable Sin or Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men
This one is easy. Look at the surrounding Scriptures of each of these verses and you will see that with Romans 6:16 & 1st John 5:16 the subject, which is the Sin unto Death, is being addressed to the believer. Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 6:16: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?



1st John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.



When we look at the context of Matthew 12, we see the subject is to the unbeliever. Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.





The sin unto death would then be simply put, that we have gotten so bad that we ignore the chastisment of God. Don't tell me you haven't seen a brother or sister not pay no mind to a clear spanking from the Lord God. Sooooo, the "Sin Unto Death" is simply where the Lord brings that soul home instead of allowing them to bring more shame on the name of God in the flesh. (If God can't do anything with you here, he'll just bring you home before you cause any more harm). After all, it isn't the soul thats doing the sinning because it is born of God, it is the flesh. 1st John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.



The Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the total rejection of the call of the Holy Spirit to come to God for salvation. These two terms are different and seperatly distinct things.



Your servant sir...
Tim

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 07:24 PM
But, but, but, I hadn't even mentioned the prodigal. That one was as far from my mind as losing my salvation would be.:rolleyes:My bad... that was the post that you replied to so I assumed when you said I just made a case for... I assumed you'd be going there.



When one studies a precept, for instance, eternal security, the context and the ones who were being addressed in the context have to be considered.

Sin unto death:

Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
1st John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
The Unpardonable Sin or Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men
This one is easy. Look at the surrounding Scriptures of each of these verses and you will see that with Romans 6:16 & 1st John 5:16 the subject, which is the Sin unto Death, is being addressed to the believer. Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 6:16: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?



1st John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.



When we look at the context of Matthew 12, we see the subject is to the unbeliever. Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.





The sin unto death would then be simply put, that we have gotten so bad that we ignore the chastisment of God. Don't tell me you haven't seen a brother or sister not pay no mind to a clear spanking from the Lord God. Sooooo, the "Sin Unto Death" is simply where the Lord brings that soul home instead of allowing them to bring more shame on the name of God in the flesh. (If God can't do anything with you here, he'll just bring you home before you cause any more harm). After all, it isn't the soul thats doing the sinning because it is born of God, it is the flesh. 1st John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.



The Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the total rejection of the call of the Holy Spirit to come to God for salvation. These two terms are different and seperatly distinct things.



Your servant sir...
Tim

Let's start first with the sin unto death as used in your references.



Romans 6:12 ¶Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.
15 ¶What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Here Paul makes it clear that he isn't talking about "natural death" but simply as that chapter ends... death is the wage of sin.

Contrast that with John.

1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.
17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.
18 ¶We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him.

Here John is talking about sin leading to death and yes sin not leading to death. That would not align itself as the same thing that Paul was speaking of when he is stating the fact that the wages of sin (all unrighteousness) is death.

We know that even the righteous die physically and that wasn't the message that either Paul or John were trying to get across I don't figure. Death for sin is spiritual death... a good place for that prodigal son passage. One must return to the Father to be alive again.

So I can't see Paul speaking of "physical death" in that passage of Romans no doubt.

John... his writing gets a little tricker because in contrasting what Paul says here and with what John agrees, that all unrighteousness is sin... and Paul makes it clear that the wages of sin is death... one has to also explain the sin that doesn't lead to death which John is speaking of. That is going to have to make sense when compared with the sin that does lead to death. What sin leads to death that there would be no reason to pray for the person(s) committing said sin? There is only one that I can think of.

And just to add about the Romans text... you do on as far as chapter 8 and Paul is still speaking on this matter of sin leading to death. The one that sins according to the flesh must die but the one that lives according to the Spirit and putting to death the deeds of the flesh will live... so I don't think it is workable to try and make this a physical death issue unless one in turns believe that if you live according to the Spirit you will physically live forever. We know that according to Scripture that we're all going to die physically. Adam sort of set that in motion a while back!

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 07:27 PM
Hi PP!:)


Vague? It isn't vague at all Madeline and there is no need to go elsewhere. The verse right before it says... while he spoke those thing many Jews believed in Him and here he speaks to those that believe in Him. How in the world is that vague?

Because that is just picking at the Bible and ignoring other parts of the Bible because it just ain't working with what you believe. That verse in chapter 6 is not that verse in chapter 8. Remember madeline... that whole Scripture concept eh? Not just part and parcel?

Um... wow. Now I really do understand why you are all over the place in what you believe.

Um... as I stated Madeline. Paul makes it clear in that very next chapter that he used them as an example to make his point. Perhaps you just missed that eh?

Let's take a look at the the preceding verses. The passage is directed towards the Jews and who and who isn't Abraham's true descendants. In verses 30-36 Jesus identifies the "true" disciples as those who (1) believed in Him (v.30); (2) continued in His word (v.31), unlike the Jews in verses 27,43,47; (3) will be freed from sin by the truth (vv. 32-36). They will not be sinless, but blameless—free from the power of sin. In verses 37-59 Jesus shows that discipleship depends on having the right Father. Those who "IF" continue in His word will have proven to be true disciples, and those who don't will have been proven to be false disciples.

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 07:28 PM
Follow it along Madeline.

1 Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?

This is where Paul is taking them. Their was faction between the various church groups as Paul makes clear earlier in the writing.


5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

Paul makes it clear that they are just the laborers. They can only plant and water but that is as much as they can do. It is God that causes the growth. They are mere men working in the fields.

8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

They are equal... both the planter and the one that waters. But each of them will receive their own reward. Each of who? The planter and the one that waters. Not the field. Speaking of the laborers

9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

God's fellow workers... you (the church) are God's field, God's building. Keep in mind who gets the reward... the worker. Not the field or the building.

10 ¶According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.

Paul laid the foundation in Corinth. Apollos is building on that foundation. There were others we know of as well. Each builder that was building on that foundation laid needed to be careful how they build upon the foundation. The house nor the field are the builders... keep that in mind.

11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The others building on the building... or watering and planting... the analogy would be the same.

12 Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

Remember... each worker will receive his own reward. Their work will become evident because come one day it will be revealed with fire and that fire will test their work.

14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.

Each man's work... building upon the foundation laid with Christ as the cornerstone... if it remains he will receive an award. Remember earlier where Paul made this clarification that each worker will receive his own reward.


15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

The good work will survive and the bad work won't. The minister will be saved... yet so as through fire.

16 ¶Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

If any man (worker) destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. The temple is holy... you are holy... God will destroy those who destroys the temple.

18 ¶Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";
20 and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."
21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you,
23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

STOP BOASTING IN MEN. You belong to Christ. Not Paul. Not Apollos. Not Peter... etc.

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Look at us as stewards of the mysteries of God. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't hold up your pastor to a standard higher than this. You follow Christ... not man. Be wise. This whole thing is speaking of ministers and their building on the foundation... planting... watering. It is speaking of them... not the building itself nor the field. This is enough to make the point but you can continue reading a few more verses and you will see that it is continuing to talk about the stewards.

PP, I really don't see where we are disagreeing. I agree that Paul and Apollos are one, not one person, but one in Unity. I also agree that it is speaking of ministers and building their foundation, but I don't see how this is relevant to NOSAS. Please explain.

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 07:28 PM
Shoot madeline! Almost seems here that you are making repentance a condition for salvation!!!! ;)

Here is that passage again and here is where all of what you are saying is going to come falling apart again.

Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

Paul makes the statement to them that God will render to every man according to his deeds. He chides a group here for being unrepentant and stubborn. Then warns them that God will judge them... every man according to his deeds.

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

How can this person who as you say is not willing to repent... persevere in doing good? How can they obtain eternal life? Paul put this in here not to be ignore Madeline. And the words are there... eternal life. You aren't addressing this but tap dancing all around the area! You have to get this in your understanding of the passage because so far... what you are saying isn't working because it is getting all hung up on this point.

8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

This is what will happen to those that don't persevere in doing good but are instead disobedient. This is what will happen to that stubborn, refusing to repent person if they don't start persevering in doing good... etc.


10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

Paul again brings up the positive. Both to Jew and Gentile... glory and honor and peace to the one who does good. God is not partial

Please bear with me if it seems that I am not addressing the issue, but in order to make my point most clearly, I will start with Rom. 2:13.
Rom. 2:13 reads, "For not the hearer of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Now compare that with Rom. 3:20-21, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight.....But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all....".

Do you see the apparent contradiction in these passages? In Romans 2 Paul wrote that it is the "doers of the law", (i.e. works) that shall be justified. But in the very next chapter he wrote that "by the deeds of the law" none will be justified.

There are, of course, no contradictions in the Word of God. Both are absolutely true. That is to say that one's faith is proved by their works, that's what the passage in Romans 2 is about. But it is equally true that one is made just by faith, not by works. There are, in these two passages, two sides of the very same coin, one without the other is incomplete. That "coin" is that one is saved by grace through faith, and that one's works prove that he has faith, or that he does not have faith.

In short, Romans 2 is about one proving his faith by his works. Those who show by their works that they do not have faith were, of course, never saved. You cannot lose what you never had. And because they are unbeleivers they will suffer the wrath of God. In fact let's talk about the phrase "the day of wrath". When is the day of wrath? It is spoken of in Rev. 6:17, "for the great day of His wrath is come: and who shall be able to stand?" The context is exceedingly clear that the day of wrath is the day of the Lord.

But the rapture will save believers, and only believers, from the day of wrath. Therefore, Rom. 2 is referring to unbelievers who will not be saved from the day of wrath by the rapture.

Let me summarize:

Those that will "treasure up unto themselves wrath" are those who have proved by their ungodly works that they are not believers. Because they are not believers they will suffer the day of God's wrath. That is to say they will not be raptured, they will be on earth when God's wrath is meted out.

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 07:29 PM
Here is the passage again.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Here is what you want it to say.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, since you hold fast the word which I preached to you.

If that is how it read then perhaps you have a shot at this working as an "actual fact." But this is what you are having to discard totally for this to be an actual fact. Paul adds... "unless you believed in vain." If Paul said all of that before as an actual fact... then he shot it down as merely a possibility since it is possible that they in "actual fact" could have believed in vain. So simple reasoning here. It wasn't a statement of "actual fact" at all.

Unless you believed in vain (ektos ei me eike pisteuo).

Vain (eike)

G1500
εἰκῆ
eikē
i-kay'
Probably from G1502 (through the idea of failure); idly, that is, without reason (or effect): - without a cause, (in) vain (-ly.)

How can they have genuine belief if they "believed" without a cause? That passage does not say that the actually had genuine belief, but rather their faith is dead or without purpose. Even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19), but that doesn't mean that the demons are saved—and yet they have belief.

.

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 07:30 PM
Let's try that again Madeline because I covered much more than just a bit of Galatians 5.

What did Paul tell the church in Galatia?

Galatians 1:6 ¶I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

They were deserting Christ for a different gospel. Quite the problem actually!

Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."


The implication that they were nullifying the grace of God... again a bit problematic. Keep in mind other such passages as Hebrews that speak of trampling under foot this grace. It is not a good thing madeline and one that Scripture speaks right negative about!

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
4 Did you suffer so many things in vain -- if indeed it was in vain?

Did they? Perhaps... they turned back to faith in Christ as opposed to the works of the Law. Perhaps not. But point being... the possibility that it was in vain was very real a possibility and even Paul understood that.

Galatians 4:19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you --
20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Think of the implication of that bolded part of the text Madeline. Paul understands clearly the seriousness of all this.

Then come the text we are discussing and a bit beyond.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 ¶Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

It says what it says and if you think that "falling from grace" and "severed from Christ" doesn't tell them that they are in fact fallen from grace and been severed from Christ then what will it take?

I'll do the John and Romans part in their own post so as to not get them lost and allow for you to discuss the Galatians passages as well as those others.

PP, The plain and simple context suggests that those who have "fallen" FROM grace were never saved. It doesn't say that those who try and be justified by the Law were fallen "out" of grace, but "from" grace. If Paul would have said that they have fallen "out" of grace then that would imply that they were once "in" Grace. You can fall "from" a building, however that doesn't mean that you were actually "in" the building. Hope this helps!

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 07:32 PM
Oh you are leaving off a whole bunch there Madeline. He isn't taken away until FIRST HE is taken off the vine.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

Jesus is the vine. No doubt of that. The only vine that matters a lick! Hopefully we agree here.


2 "Every branch in Me

Every branch IN CHRIST. Now... no way you are going to make a case that there are non believers who are "in Christ."

that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.

Two types of branches... fruit bearing branches (persevere in doing good comes to mind) and non-fruit bearing branches (those who disobey... as it is laid out in Romans 2).

3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Talking to His disciples... already clean because of His teaching. Now direction on what they must do now that they are clean.

4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.

You have to abide in me. STAY in Me. CONTINUE in Me. ENDURE in Me. REMAIN in Me. TARRY in Me. The message is clear. Why? Because apart from Jesus... you can't bear fruit. Why the need to bear fruit?

6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

They are no longer in Christ. They are taken away... gathered up... tossed away and cast into the fire and burned. They are severed from Christ. They dry up. No good but to be burned.

Non-saved folks can be a part of the "true vine?" How do you make that work biblically?

And the only way that you can make that work is by reading your doctrine into the passage Madeline. Again... let's see first how you show that a non-believer can be a part of the true vine?

Tell me Madeline. Keeping in mind what you are saying here about the warning of those who do not abide in Christ. Who is Jesus speaking to in this passage of John? It is His disciples. Right before His death on the cross. He isn't talking to the masses. He is spending a very intimate time with His disciples, preparing them for what was to come. He has just finished Passover with His disciples. This is speaking to His followers. Why warn them about not abiding/continuing/enduring in Him? We know by that passage that these boys were already washed clean by his word. Yet here Jesus is... warning them to endure. You are trying to make this an "they were never saved in the first place" issue and goodness... think of the context. What you say is simply lacking.

We can certainly bring in Roman 11 and I'll do that on a separate post. But understand that Jesus isn't speaking to the Jews on a "national level" in this passage in John. Jesus was speaking only to His disciples. His followers.

Why did Jesus tell them this Madeline? The answer is in that portion of Scripture... just a little further reading.

John 16:1 "These things I have spoken to you, that you may be kept from stumbling.
2 "They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.
3 "And these things they will do, because they have not known the Father, or Me.

There is no case to be made trying to tie this into national Israel. To do so is to grossly take this passage out of context and that would be a shame to see.

First of all, the scriptures clearly teach that "fruits" are the mark of Genuine Save persons. Jesus said that "ye shall know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:20)," the prodctive branches are pruned whilst the barren branches are simply cut off and separated. I would be please PP if you can show me how unproductive barren branches which wither away can possibly refer to saved persons. Please use scripture to back up your position. Also notice how Jesus says that "without" Him they can do NOTHING, which means that they cannot bear fruit. Those who "abideth" in Him can produce fruit, thus those who don't produce fruit and are cast into the fire failed to abide in Him. Abiding in Christ and being in Christ are not the same.

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 07:33 PM
There may not be a guarantee that they will get hit by the car madeline but then if out of disobedience they go in the street... they very well could get hit by that car. And there is no guarantee, just because they are warned, that they won't go on out in the street anyway. So that analogy is just another example that is full of holes.

Loved the way you tossed in the words "a more spiritual approach" when laying out your view though! But your "spiritual" outlook ain't necessary the Spirit's outlook. ;)

You can't rewrite Scripture just because seems to contradict you madeline. There is a reason why all of the self-prescribed Greek text scholars out there aren't invited to these Bible committee's to help them translate.

I will post to you what I posted to BadDog in the peanut gallery.

NKJ

if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

NIV

if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

ASV

if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.

KJV

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

HCSB

if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a minister of it.

NLT

But you must continue to believe this truth and stand in it firmly. Don't drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News. The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed by God to proclaim it.

NRSV

provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul, became a servant of this gospel.

I mean here you say that it is Greek 101 stuff and such and such is a much better translation and all of these other Greek scholar folk just hosed this one all up! I mean let's face it here. If what you and madeline are saying is the fact... then that whole verse has to be totally changed to read completely different than how all these other translator's figured it should read. You change that to "since" then here is how it should read.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --
23 SINCE indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

That is a total rewrite, meaning something totally different, if you are correct and every other major translation that we have out there just messed this all up as you guys seem to be trying to get us to believe. Gotta be honest with you here... you know I ain't going to buy that! ;)

Ok, PP, lets say that you're correct. If they continue in the faith would prove that they were genuine believer since genuine believers persevere in the faith. This is similar to John 8:31 - Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" The Jews in John 8:31 claimed that they were also the sons of God (Jn. 8:41), which Jesus shows to be false in verse 42. They were not children of God but rather they are the sons of the devil (v. 44). Continuing in the faith shows that one is a true disciple (1 Jn. 5:4,5; 1 Jn. 2:19). Hope this helps PP! :hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 07:43 PM
The Unpardonable Sin or Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men


When we look at the context of Matthew 12, we see the subject is to the unbeliever. Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.






The Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the total rejection of the call of the Holy Spirit to come to God for salvation. These two terms are different and seperatly distinct things.



Your servant sir...
Tim

Problem with this Tim is that blaspheming the Spirit it isn't rejecting the Spirit's call to salvation.

It doesn't only apply to believers or non-believers but could apply to any person with a voice (pen/typewriter/computer). To blaspheme is to rail against the Spirit of God... to revile against Him... In other words to speak harshly of Him. This is what the Pharisee was doing by saying that Jesus was casting demons out of folks by the power of Beelzebub (dung-god) aka satan. In that they were railing or speaking harshly against the Spirit of God which will not be forgiven in either lifetimes.

Could even go further in this but this is enough because the premise has to be correct before anything else can be established.

Rejection of Christ is simply that... they will too end up judged and spend eternity in hell... but that isn't blaspheming the Spirit. That is rejecting the gospel... unbelievers... etc. Like I said... many places to go but let's see where this leads first so we are at least on the same page here. Without it not sure that anything else I could say would make sense anyway.

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 08:21 PM
Hi PP!:)

Let's take a look at the the preceding verses. The passage is directed towards the Jews and who and who isn't Abraham's true descendants. In verses 30-36 Jesus identifies the "true" disciples as those who (1) believed in Him (v.30); (2) continued in His word (v.31), unlike the Jews in verses 27,43,47; (3) will be freed from sin by the truth (vv. 32-36). They will not be sinless, but blameless—free from the power of sin. In verses 37-59 Jesus shows that discipleship depends on having the right Father. Those who "IF" continue in His word will have proven to be true disciples, and those who don't will have been proven to be false disciples.And while certainly they will prove to be true disciples... it doesn't make them false believers right now. It is clear in the verse before that they believed in Him... but it wasn't just about believing. They had to abide in His words... abide in Him. Otherwise their believing in him right now was simply in vain. His words were hard words. Many walked away.

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 08:25 PM
PP, I really don't see where we are disagreeing. I agree that Paul and Apollos are one, not one person, but one in Unity. I also agree that it is speaking of ministers and building their foundation, but I don't see how this is relevant to NOSAS. Please explain.Madeline... go back in time a bit. You are the one that introduced the passage and I responded to that passage. As to your agreeing that this is speaking of ministers and building foundations... if you agree to that then you have most definitely changed your mind there! You've been arguing against it now for three days hence my post again on the subject! :lol:

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 08:40 PM
And while certainly they will prove to be true disciples... it doesn't make them false believers right now. It is clear in the verse before that they believed in Him... but it wasn't just about believing. They had to abide in His words... abide in Him. Otherwise their believing in him right now was simply in vain. His words were hard words. Many walked away.

PP, it's really quite simple. Jesus says that if ye "continue" in my word then you are His disciples. So what happens if you don't "continue" in His word? then obviously you aren't His disciple. No, it doesn't make them false disciples at the moment, however if they fail to continue in His word then they will have been proven false disciples. Please see 1 John 2:19.

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 08:43 PM
Unless you believed in vain (ektos ei me eike pisteuo).

Vain (eike)

G1500
εἰκῆ
eikē
i-kay'
Probably from G1502 (through the idea of failure); idly, that is, without reason (or effect): - without a cause, (in) vain (-ly.)

How can they have genuine belief if they "believed" without a cause? That passage does not say that the actually had genuine belief, but rather their faith is dead or without purpose. Even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19), but that doesn't mean that the demons are saved—and yet they have belief.

.Let's look at it again and I'll highlight a couple of points for you Madeline.

THE bold is who Paul is talking to.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

These folks heard the gospel, received the gospel, stand on that gospel and are saved by that gospel. IF........... So the "they weren't saved in the first place" is going to be problematic since they have clearly met the standard of being "saved"... right?

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 09:10 PM
PP, The plain and simple context suggests that those who have "fallen" FROM grace were never saved. It doesn't say that those who try and be justified by the Law were fallen "out" of grace, but "from" grace. If Paul would have said that they have fallen "out" of grace then that would imply that they were once "in" Grace. You can fall "from" a building, however that doesn't mean that you were actually "in" the building. Hope this helps!
They were never saved? Okay then... let's see what Paul says about these folks and you can explain to everyone how it is that these folks aren't really saved.

Galatians 1:6 ¶I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Here is your Greek word for deserting.

metatithemi -- to transfer, i.e. (literally) transport, (by implication) exchange, (reflexively) change sides, or (figuratively) pervert: -- carry over, change, remove, translate, turn.

How can one desert something that they never had? How can they change sides if they were always on the wrong side?

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

They began by the Spirit. What is it that they began by the Spirit?

Galatians 4:8 ¶However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

How can one be turning back to bondage if they were never free from bondage?

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Christ set them free. They must stand firm and not get all caught up in the yoke of slavery again.

Paul is speaking to folks that were no doubt saved but had gotten caught up in false teaching that one must live by the law of Moses and circumcision to be saved.

As to the Can fall off a building and not be in the building analogy... no clue what you are getting at there.

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 10:08 PM
First of all, the scriptures clearly teach that "fruits" are the mark of Genuine Save persons.So then the person that believes on that day of salvation... they become a productive tree with fruit on them? No process? Just all the sudden they are fruitful?

Scripture doesn't teach that madeline... shoot... most don't even know how to produce fruit yet. They are merely a branch in the vine.



Jesus said that "ye shall know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:20)," the prodctive branches are pruned whilst the barren branches are simply cut off and separated.[/qupte]Agree there.

[quote] I would be please PP if you can show me how unproductive barren branches which wither away can possibly refer to saved persons. Please use scripture to back up your position.Goodness gracious... I am not saying they are saved madeline. They aren't. What you have to do is show how it is that this branch, in Christ, is an unbeliever in Christ. There isn't anything in the Bible that says that unbelievers are in Christ. Not that I know of anyway. I don't have to show that the branch is not saved because it ain't! But for it to be a branch, IN CHRIST, then it was at some point in time but wasn't bearing fruit as it should and was cut off... severed from Christ... no longer in the vine... __________ (insert analogy of choice :)).


Also notice how Jesus says that "without" Him they can do NOTHING, which means that they cannot bear fruit. Those who "abideth" in Him can produce fruit, thus those who don't produce fruit and are cast into the fire failed to abide in Him. Abiding in Christ and being in Christ are not the same.Sounds a whole lot like what Paul told the church in Galatia as well as in many of his other letters.

And abiding in Christ isn't the same as being "in Christ?" How can one abide IN HIM unless they are IN HIM and how can one be IN HIM without being saved?

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 10:11 PM
Ok, PP, lets say that you're correct. If they continue in the faith would prove that they were genuine believer since genuine believers persevere in the faith. This is similar to John 8:31 - Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" The Jews in John 8:31 claimed that they were also the sons of God (Jn. 8:41), which Jesus shows to be false in verse 42. They were not children of God but rather they are the sons of the devil (v. 44). Continuing in the faith shows that one is a true disciple (1 Jn. 5:4,5; 1 Jn. 2:19). Hope this helps PP! :hug:

Love,
MadelineNot going to disagree with that. But again, like John, it is speaking to those that are true believers. There would be no need to tell them they are IF they do something... if it is a guarantee that they will automatically do something.

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 10:18 PM
Let's look at it again and I'll highlight a couple of points for you Madeline.

THE bold is who Paul is talking to.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

These folks heard the gospel, received the gospel, stand on that gospel and are saved by that gospel. IF........... So the "they weren't saved in the first place" is going to be problematic since they have clearly met the standard of being "saved"... right?

PP, how do you reconcile vain belief or belief without a purpose to being saved? It is obviously a mixed crowd, a belief which has yet to take effect cannot possibly be salvific--this would posit a contradiction and an oxmymoron within that verse. It is mixed crowd. Preached to you (Don't see how this equates to salvation). You received (Don't see how this equates to salvation). You stand, you is a singular pronoun and yet refers to the entire church at Corinth--but not speaking of individual persons.
You are saved, cannot be proven to refer to the entire church at Corinth because again that would posit a contradiction to a belief (without purpose or cause) that cannot save. So in his letter Paul is speaking to a mixed crowd.

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 14th 2007, 10:20 PM
They were never saved? Okay then... let's see what Paul says about these folks and you can explain to everyone how it is that these folks aren't really saved.

Galatians 1:6 ¶I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Here is your Greek word for deserting.

metatithemi -- to transfer, i.e. (literally) transport, (by implication) exchange, (reflexively) change sides, or (figuratively) pervert: -- carry over, change, remove, translate, turn.

How can one desert something that they never had? How can they change sides if they were always on the wrong side?

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

They began by the Spirit. What is it that they began by the Spirit?

Galatians 4:8 ¶However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

How can one be turning back to bondage if they were never free from bondage?

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Christ set them free. They must stand firm and not get all caught up in the yoke of slavery again.

Paul is speaking to folks that were no doubt saved but had gotten caught up in false teaching that one must live by the law of Moses and circumcision to be saved.

As to the Can fall off a building and not be in the building analogy... no clue what you are getting at there.

The phrase is found in Gal. 5:4. Let me quote the first 4 verses of this chapter.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justifed by the law, ye are fallen from grace".

The whole purpose of the epistle is to tell the Gentile believers that they were saved by faith, and that they are not to obligate themselves by circumcision to be under the law.

Now let's look at some of the phrases found in the first 4 verses. For example, "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing". Paul could not have meant that literally because the Jews had all been circumcised, and it is certainly not true that Christ profited them nothing. What he was saying was that they must see that circumcision is of no profit when it comes to being saved, that only faith in Christ is of any profit in that regard. That is the whole point of the letter. Let's look at the phrase, "whosoever of you are justifed by the law". We know that no one is ever justified by the law, that was the point of the letter. Then the phrase, "have fallen from grace". The point is that no one has ever been justified by the law, and if one tries to be so justified by the law (which is what they were doing by being circumcised) then he has denied the truth that he was saved by grace. But their mistaken doctrine did not result in loss of salvation, there is no hint of that anywhere in this epistle or any where else in the Word of God. This verse is not saying that one can lose his salvation, it is saying that if the Gentiles try to be justified by the law then they are denying the truth that they are justified by faith. "whosoever of you are justifed by the law, ye are fallen from grace".

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 14th 2007, 11:44 PM
PP, how do you reconcile vain belief or belief without a purpose to being saved? It is obviously a mixed crowd, a belief which has yet to take effect cannot possibly be salvific--this would posit a contradiction and an oxmymoron within that verse. It is mixed crowd. Preached to you (Don't see how this equates to salvation). You received (Don't see how this equates to salvation). You stand, you is a singular pronoun and yet refers to the entire church at Corinth--but not speaking of individual persons.
You are saved, cannot be proven to refer to the entire church at Corinth because again that would posit a contradiction to a belief (without purpose or cause) that cannot save. So in his letter Paul is speaking to a mixed crowd.

Love,
MadelineIt didn't say vain belief Madeline. It says unless you have believed in vain. I believed without a cause... I believed without reason... I believed and it ultimately served no purpose because I did not hold fast the word that Paul preached to me. That is believe in vain. Just as if I washed my car in the middle of a bog. When I drove out of the bogs my wash job was in vain. It didn't do me any good because I washed it in a mud hole. For a while the car was clean. But once I moved it a foot... it was all in vain. You are trying to again make this say something different than it says by using "vain belief." That is not what it says.

The rest of what you say there... you know... that is truly about the only stand that most folks that believe in OSAS can take. Problem is... you believe, you stand, by which you ARE SAVED... you want to try the "mixed bunch" argument then that's up to you. But that letter was written to the church. The gathering of believers. Paul makes no such distinction and that is about the weakest argument one can attempt.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 12:00 AM
The phrase is found in Gal. 5:4. Let me quote the first 4 verses of this chapter.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justifed by the law, ye are fallen from grace".

The whole purpose of the epistle is to tell the Gentile believers that they were saved by faith, and that they are not to obligate themselves by circumcision to be under the law.

Now let's look at some of the phrases found in the first 4 verses. For example, "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing". Paul could not have meant that literally because the Jews had all been circumcised, and it is certainly not true that Christ profited them nothing. What he was saying was that they must see that circumcision is of no profit when it comes to being saved, that only faith in Christ is of any profit in that regard. That is the whole point of the letter. Let's look at the phrase, "whosoever of you are justifed by the law". We know that no one is ever justified by the law, that was the point of the letter. Then the phrase, "have fallen from grace". The point is that no one has ever been justified by the law, and if one tries to be so justified by the law (which is what they were doing by being circumcised) then he has denied the truth that he was saved by grace. But their mistaken doctrine did not result in loss of salvation, there is no hint of that anywhere in this epistle or any where else in the Word of God. This verse is not saying that one can lose his salvation, it is saying that if the Gentiles try to be justified by the law then they are denying the truth that they are justified by faith. "whosoever of you are justifed by the law, ye are fallen from grace".

Love,
MadelineUm... fallen from grace is not alone there Madeline. Severed from Christ implies what? The King James says that Christ is of no effect to them. Here is your Greek word for that.

katargeo -- to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: -- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

Now please tell me how that is wrongly translated too and that this is speaking of saved folk and telling them that they are ok just need to work out that little bit of Law problem they have!

Christ has been rendered idle, abolished to you. Ceased with you. ... none of those definitions are going to be easily explained away as not meaning what it actually means. None of it good. Paul isn't telling them that this is a possibility if they don't knock it off. He isn't telling them that they are okay.. he is telling them that you have made Christ of no effect... you've been cut off... you've fallen from grace you who seek to be justified by the law.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 07:03 PM
I am going to post this again in this discussion and see if any of you OSAS folk might actually take a stab at actually discussing Hebrews.

Hebrews is a major letter in this discussion so here are some things for folks to ponder on some of the major chapters that I believe clearly show that NOSAS is the correct doctrine.


Hebrews 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;
2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.
3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.
4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.
5 Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;This would be major league to the Jew being that Moses was the Law Giver so to speak. I think of the way the Pharisee acted pretty much any time Jesus mentioned Moses. This is one of the reasons that I think that people who say that this was just written to the Jews fall way short. I doubt an unbelieving Jew would have made it beyond chapter 1 but had they got to this point... there'd of been some head spinning and green stuff flying! I know no one is saying that in the thread of yet... but it usually happens before too long once Hebrews gets tossed into the discussion so this is simply answering that in advance! ;)



6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house -- whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.This verse is important to understand and pay heed to. Christ is faithful as a Son over His house. We are that house IF WE HOLD FAST our confidence and the boast of our hope FIRM UNTIL THE END. Those that don't figure we must endure to the end... they aren't agreeing with this passage of Scripture. We will see it again in this chapter as well as in other verses throughout Hebrews.



7 ¶Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
8 DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
9 WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me, AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.
10 "THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, `THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS´;
11 AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, `THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.´"
12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.Now the writer quotes Psalms 95: 7-11 here. And for those that don't think the Old Testament Scripture apply to us today... someone forgot to tell the writer of Hebrews such. We are warned that we (remember that the writer of Hebrews is writing Christians) should take care that we don't be like the children of Israel and try God by testing Him as they did. It also makes it clear the possibility of a believer can wind up with an unbelieving heart and can fall away from God. The warning continues.


13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. A believer can become hardened by sin.


14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,Again that message that we have become partakers of Christ IF we HOLD FAST the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Not sure how folks can even think enduring to the end is not required.


15 while it is said, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME."
16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?
17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.
Why was God angry with the children of Israel? Because of sin. Why could they not enter into His rest? They were disobedient. Why were they not able to enter? Because it was counted as unbelief. Their hearts were hardened by their sin and disobedience and it produced an unbelieving heart and they fell away from the living God.

Chapter four just continues right from that third one. Notice that the chapters just roll together as 2,3 and 4 all begin with "therefore".


Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.What is therefore there for? Go back to chapter three.

Hebrews 3:7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
8 DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
9 WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me, AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.
10 "THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, `THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART; AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS´;
11 AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, `THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.´"
12 Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God.
13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end;
15 while it is said, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME."
16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?
17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19 And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.


So why should we fear? I mean we are promised that rest right? You hear it all the time... God said it therefore he can't go back on His word. That rest is promised... we have eternal life. But yet the writer uses strange language here. Therefore let us fear lest we come short of that rest. Yes... it is promised. But we can still fall short just as the children of Israel fell short.



2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.The children of Israel had the good news preached to them as well. God was delivering them and offering them wonderful rest. Ultimately for the older generation of Israel, it didn't profit them because when it was said and done... they didn't believe (last verse back in chapter 3).


3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";
5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST."
6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.
9 There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.There are those that teach that the rest spoken of in Chapter 3 is the actual Promised Land (Israel) but that is not what the writer is speaking of here. He makes that clear in verse 8. The rest spoken of is still available today for us to enter. But notice too in that 6th verse... those who haven't entered failed to do so because of disobedience.


11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience.Here it is again lest anyone think differently. Be diligent.... in other words labor to enter that rest so that you don't fall through doing the same thing the Israelites did, following their example of disobedience.


12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
14 ¶Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.There is nothing that we will hide. One day we will all give an account to the Lord and that account will be according to His word. We, as man, have weaknesses. But we can draw near to the throne of grace because Jesus knows how it is. He's been here, done that in other words and He did it without sin. When we do that, with faith, we'll receive mercy and find the grace to help when help is needed.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 07:13 PM
Hebrews 5:11 ¶Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Much is said in this discussion about the way folks act and as I can testify... if you mention obey or stop sinning then here comes the "works" fuss. Then as sure as the sun'll come up tomorrow, someone is going to lay out a scenario about the person that just received Jesus, then goes out and gets a bit drunk or sleeps with his girlfriend... whatever... and a meteorite falls and squishes his skull. Is he going to hell?

This passage makes it clear that there are those that haven't yet the basic prinicples and this type person would certainly be a good example. But then after some time... there has to be a maturity and as you mature your senses are trained to discern good and evil. Naturally I would again recommend 2 Peter 1:1-11 at this point. Other than that I think enough said on this point.

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
3 And this we shall do, if God permits.

I really enjoy this passage for a number of reasons but what I'd like to do right now is just ask everyone to really read that list of things considered "elementary teaching." Everything listed there is milk and yet still some of the most hotly debated topics within Christiandome.

Then we get into another one of the most discussed passages of Scripture whenever the topic of OSAS or NOSAS come up.

Hebrews 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.
7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

Here is the straight skinny on this verse.

If you have been enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, a partake of the Holy Spirit, tasting the good word of God and the powers of the age to come and you have fallen away.... that's it. You are done. Finished. No more. As that 8th verse says... you are worthless, close to being cursed and you end up burned. That's sure enough what it says and we can hem, haw, kick and fuss. But that's what it says.

When you read the criterea set aside here it doesn't take rocket science to understand that this is not speaking of that milk fed Christian that they spoke of earlier... but to the one that is mature and has tasted of all these things... if they fall... that's it.

Hebrews 6:9 ¶But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
12 that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Now many might come to this part of that passage and say that the writer says this showing that what he described above can't possibly happen if you are a believer. Thing is... it doesn't say that. I am sure that when Paul left the church in Gatlatia... he was convinced that they'd move on pretty well. Nonetheless being convinced of better things is a far cry from saying "what I just said can't happen because ....." Be diligent and not sluggish. Often you see that "endure" message in the letter of Hebrews.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 07:14 PM
Hebrews 10:19 ¶Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.

Again we are encourage to hold fast without wavering. Another way of saying that we are to endure. Then we are told to stimulate one another to love and good deeds. Here the writer uses what is seemingly a four letter word in Christianity today... deed aka work. Not forsaking our own assembling together (what we call church today when we gather in the building or homes) all the more now as you see the day approaching. If the writer way back then pointed out the urgency because the day was approaching... how much more should that mean to us today? I think it safe to say that it is even more urgent that we pay attention to these words.

Hebrews 10:26 ¶For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This is pretty much saying the same thing again as was said back in chapter six. Now it is even more clear... if we go on willfully sinning... it doesn't say that we were never saved in the first place. It doesn't say that it is impossible for us to go on sinning willfully... instead it says if we do this then there is no sacrifice remaining for us but what we have remaining is a certain expectation of judgment.

Again the writer gives an example using those in the day of the Law of Moses. If they, on the testimony of two or three witnesses, died without mercy then who in the world do we think we are who could trample the Son of God underfoot and insulting the Spirit of grace. Very strong language used in this warning. That is what this is too... a warning to those hearing this letter read and or reading the letter. All of the tap dancing around isn't going to change that as fact. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

There are those that say that the key to this is that it is speaking to those that receive the knowledge and then reject it. Those that hear the gospel and reject the gospel. Well here is the flaw there. If that be true then if you heard the gospel and then you rejected it only to come to the Lord a while later... maybe a month later or a year... maybe ten years. According to this (using their logic) then that rejection and willful sinning after hearing the gospel... you cannot be saved. In other words, if what they say is true then your acceptance would be a one time deal.

Naturally they would reject such a notion as that but in doing so they also reject the logic behind their explaining away this passage. Nonetheless... I think reading on explains it out.

Hebrews 10:32 ¶But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,
33 partly, by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.
34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one.
35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.
37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

The writer encourages them again... Look, remember after you became enlightened (I saw the light) you endured great persecution while being made a spectacle but in all that you accepted it joyfully? You did all of this knowing that your earthly possessions meant nothing in the grand scheme of things because you had a much greater possession. Don't throw away that confidence that you had then because great is its reward.

Then comes the 36th verse.... this flies in the face of many a doctrine out there today. You have need of endurance or in other words... you have to endure to the end... why? Because when you have done the will of God you will receive what was promised (not at the moment you became born again) because here in a bit... The Lord is coming back and if you have shrunk back (backslid) then He will take no pleasure in you.

Then the writer encourages them... a common skill of a Pastor, teacher, etc... seen throughout all of the writings of the Epistles... even in Galatians where Paul ripped into them pretty well he would now and again offer them encouragement while not weakening the seriousness of what they were doing.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 07:16 PM
Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.
4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin;
5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."
7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness.
11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.[quote]

Since we have such great examples (the folks mentioned in chapter 11) then let us put aside the sin that weighs us down and let us endure as these folks did. Nothing that we will go through hasn't been gone through by others and like them, we must endure.

We must keep in mind that God disciplines us and while that discipline doesn't bring us great joy at the moment... there is a reason. It trains us so that we can share in holiness because when it is finished it yields the fruit of righteousness.

Also remember that discipline doesn't always denote punishment because something was done wrong. Take for example the military which trains folks to be disciplined and that training is grueling. You parents (hopefully) teach you discipline as well. While that training can seem grueling and you'd like the lesson to end early... you learn, when done, that the reaons served a necessary purpose. It can just as well happen when you err and are disciplined. No one likes a paddle upside the fanny but when you grow up and have your own younguns... you begin to understand the necessity of that discpline.

12 Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble,
13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.

Now that we understand that God disciplines His children and we endure that discipline for a purpose... Take a firm hold on this truth and get a grasp even though in discipline your hands may seem feeble and your knees a bit wobbly and endure this walking in the straight path that those in chapter 11 walked. Doing this then those that follow you will not be in error but will rather be on that straight path as well and you become part of that great cloud of witnesses.

14 ¶Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;
16 that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

Pursue... chase after... run towards... push towards... peace with everyone. But it doesn't start there either... it tells you to follow after sanctification because without that... you aren't going to see the Lord.

An example is given here that I find most interesting... also the words used. It speaks of making sure that no one comes short of God's grace and no root of bitterness crop up because that causes trouble and can defile a lot of folks. Then he speaks of having no godless person like Esau... even though he wanted the blessing and even though the blessing was his by inheritance and right of birth and even though he plead with tears... it was simply to late to repent. This example should speak much to us because remember... this wasn't at Esau's death when he was rejected. That very much is in line with the other parts of this letter which speak of a person going to the point where there is no sacrifice left for them. In essence, Esau trampled his right of birth underfoot, taking things lightly and assuming that it was rightfully his therefore he was very secure in that knowledge.


18 ¶For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind,
19 and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word should be spoken to them.
20 For they could not bear the command, "IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED."
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling."
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,
24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

This can't be any more clear that the writer is establishing that these folks are in Christ... Christians... saved... enrolled in heaven.

25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.
26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, "YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN."
27 And this expression, "Yet once more," denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, in order that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;
29 for our God is a consuming fire.

As made clear in that last set of verses... these are Christian folk. But this begins with another warning. Don't refuse Him because if they didn't escape (Esau and the children of Israel as given as examples before in the letter and in this chapter) we won't either if we turn away from Christ. We must show gratitude (unlike Esau) so that our service to God, in reverance and awe, will be acceptable.

*Madeline*
Feb 15th 2007, 08:05 PM
Hi PP!:)


So then the person that believes on that day of salvation... they become a productive tree with fruit on them? No process? Just all the sudden they are fruitful?

Scripture doesn't teach that madeline... shoot... most don't even know how to produce fruit yet. They are merely a branch in the vine.

[QUOTE]
Jesus said that "ye shall know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:20)," the prodctive branches are pruned whilst the barren branches are simply cut off and separated.[/qupte]Agree there.

Goodness gracious... I am not saying they are saved madeline. They aren't. What you have to do is show how it is that this branch, in Christ, is an unbeliever in Christ. There isn't anything in the Bible that says that unbelievers are in Christ. Not that I know of anyway. I don't have to show that the branch is not saved because it ain't! But for it to be a branch, IN CHRIST, then it was at some point in time but wasn't bearing fruit as it should and was cut off... severed from Christ... no longer in the vine... __________ (insert analogy of choice :)).

Sounds a whole lot like what Paul told the church in Galatia as well as in many of his other letters.

And abiding in Christ isn't the same as being "in Christ?" How can one abide IN HIM unless they are IN HIM and how can one be IN HIM without being saved?

I have absolutely no idea how anyone could get from me comments that I was saying that one was in Christ, or did "abide" in Christ as an unbeliever. This is what I believe, In verse 2 we read, "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away....". In other words, if one's fruit does not prove his faith he will be taken away. But that person was not saved in the first pace or his fruit would have proved it. Verse 5 is not talking about losing salvation either. The point of verse 5 is that we can do nothing apart from Christ. Verse 6 "if a man abideth not in Me" is also speaking of one who is not saved, i.e. one who does not abide in Christ is not saved.

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 15th 2007, 08:07 PM
Hi PP!:)


It didn't say vain belief Madeline. It says unless you have believed in vain. I believed without a cause... I believed without reason... I believed and it ultimately served no purpose because I did not hold fast the word that Paul preached to me. That is believe in vain. Just as if I washed my car in the middle of a bog. When I drove out of the bogs my wash job was in vain. It didn't do me any good because I washed it in a mud hole. For a while the car was clean. But once I moved it a foot... it was all in vain. You are trying to again make this say something different than it says by using "vain belief." That is not what it says.

The rest of what you say there... you know... that is truly about the only stand that most folks that believe in OSAS can take. Problem is... you believe, you stand, by which you ARE SAVED... you want to try the "mixed bunch" argument then that's up to you. But that letter was written to the church. The gathering of believers. Paul makes no such distinction and that is about the weakest argument one can attempt.

OK, I see now what you are driving at. You are focusing on the phrase, "unless you have believed in vain". What did Paul mean by that phrase?

First of all, I see nothing in the context that tells us that believing in vain means that they may lose their salvation. I suggest we look at the context for the answer to what Paul meant that they may have believed in vain.

Verse 12, "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Verse 14, "If Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain".

Because there is no hint in this entire chapter that a believer may lose his salvaiton, I believe that what Paul was referring to in verse 2 by the phrase "unless you have believed in vain" was the fact that some had been preaching that there is no resurrection, and if that was the case, their faith really was in vain.

So let's take this example about the car washing. Just as the car washing would have been in vain because of the bog, so too, the beleif in Christ was in vain if Christ had not risen from the dead. That is to say, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preacihing vain and your faith is also in vain" (vs. 14). This is the only thing that fits the context. Hope this helps!:hug:

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 15th 2007, 08:10 PM
Hi again PP!:)


Um... fallen from grace is not alone there Madeline. Severed from Christ implies what? The King James says that Christ is of no effect to them. Here is your Greek word for that.

katargeo -- to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: -- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

Now please tell me how that is wrongly translated too and that this is speaking of saved folk and telling them that they are ok just need to work out that little bit of Law problem they have!

Christ has been rendered idle, abolished to you. Ceased with you. ... none of those definitions are going to be easily explained away as not meaning what it actually means. None of it good. Paul isn't telling them that this is a possibility if they don't knock it off. He isn't telling them that they are okay.. he is telling them that you have made Christ of no effect... you've been cut off... you've fallen from grace you who seek to be justified by the law.


he is telling them that you have made Christ of no effect... you've been cut off... you've fallen from grace you who seek to be justified by the law.

That is exactly what I said. ;) A closer look at the meaning of the Greek does not change that at all. The difference is that where he sees "fallen from grace" as losing salvation, I see it as the Galatians thinking that they are saved by the Law cuts them off from the truth that they are saved by grace. Since the entire letter to the Galatians is about law versus grace, I believe my interpretation is more in keeping with the context that is there. But you will, of course, need to decide that for yourself. Hope this helps PP!:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 08:46 PM
Hi PP!:)


I have absolutely no idea how anyone could get from me comments that I was saying that one was in Christ, or did "abide" in Christ as an unbeliever.If they are a branch, IN THE TRUE VINE, (which is Christ) and you are saying that they were never saved in the first place... what do you call that? You are in fact saying that the branch (whomever/person) is a branch in the true vine (in Christ) and they aren't saved. That is what you are saying Madeline so that is how.



This is what I believe, In verse 2 we read, "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away....". In other words, if one's fruit does not prove his faith he will be taken away. But that person was not saved in the first pace or his fruit would have proved it.And here you just showed exactly why you are saying one "in Christ" is not a believer.




Verse 5 is not talking about losing salvation either. The point of verse 5 is that we can do nothing apart from Christ. Verse 6 "if a man abideth not in Me" is also speaking of one who is not saved, i.e. one who does not abide in Christ is not saved.

Love,
MadelineThe person that doesn't abide in Christ is not an unsaved person otherwise they couldn't be "in Christ." That being the case... the one that doesn't bear fruit is the one that was saved yes (in the True Vine)... but they did not continue in Christ. They did not endure. They did not remain. They did not stand fast. They did not tarry... etc.

Here is again the Greek for that word "abide."

meno -- to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): -- abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 08:56 PM
Hi PP!:)



OK, I see now what you are driving at. You are focusing on the phrase, "unless you have believed in vain". What did Paul mean by that phrase? Not exactly. That phrase along with the phrase... 'if you hold fast the word which I preached to you."



First of all, I see nothing in the context that tells us that believing in vain means that they may lose their salvation. I suggest we look at the context for the answer to what Paul meant that they may have believed in vain.

Verse 12, "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Verse 14, "If Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain".

Because there is no hint in this entire chapter that a believer may lose his salvaiton, I believe that what Paul was referring to in verse 2 by the phrase "unless you have believed in vain" was the fact that some had been preaching that there is no resurrection, and if that was the case, their faith really was in vain.

So let's take this example about the car washing. Just as the car washing would have been in vain because of the bog, so too, the beleif in Christ was in vain if Christ had not risen from the dead. That is to say, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preacihing vain and your faith is also in vain" (vs. 14). This is the only thing that fits the context. Hope this helps!:hug:

Love,
Madelineby which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.


That does say "saved" correct? The if condition is right there behind that by which you are saved which is the context of that there passage. How can one say otherwise?

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2007, 09:03 PM
Hi again PP!:)





That is exactly what I said. ;) A closer look at the meaning of the Greek does not change that at all. The difference is that where he sees "fallen from grace" as losing salvation, I see it as the Galatians thinking that they are saved by the Law cuts them off from the truth that they are saved by grace. Since the entire letter to the Galatians is about law versus grace, I believe my interpretation is more in keeping with the context that is there. But you will, of course, need to decide that for yourself. Hope this helps PP!:)

Love,
Madeline
Okay, this is where your doctrine gets all sorts of sporadic Madeline. In the John 15 passage... they aren't ever saved in the first place... they are too severed from Christ therefore they couldn't have been saved in the first place.

In this passage... they can be cut off from Christ and they were saved but they just don't understand the difference between grace and the law and are simply "cut off from the truth" and are in fact saved.

Surely you see these inconsistencies... right?

And by the way... Paul didn't say they were cut off from the truth of grace but said they've been cut off from Christ. He follows that with they have fallen from grace.

*Madeline*
Feb 16th 2007, 01:20 AM
Hi PP!:)


Okay, this is where your doctrine gets all sorts of sporadic Madeline. In the John 15 passage... they aren't ever saved in the first place... they are too severed from Christ therefore they couldn't have been saved in the first place.

In this passage... they can be cut off from Christ and they were saved but they just don't understand the difference between grace and the law and are simply "cut off from the truth" and are in fact saved.

Surely you see these inconsistencies... right?

And by the way... Paul didn't say they were cut off from the truth of grace but said they've been cut off from Christ. He follows that with they have fallen from grace.

PP, Galatians 5:4 doesn't say "severed" or "cut off" from Christ and I'm not sure which translation you are using. Cut off usually refers to death in the bible, unless you believe that Paul is speaking with dead people PP--see Daniel 9:26. ;) But the Greek does not read that way, "ye have fallen from" (ekpipto) which means that they were deviating from the grace of God. They didn't fall "out" of Grace, they fell "from" Grace. You can fall "from" your bed, that doesn't mean you were actually "in" your bed. Same analogy applies to the Galatians PP.:)

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 16th 2007, 01:22 AM
Hi again PP!:)


Not exactly. That phrase along with the phrase... 'if you hold fast the word which I preached to you."

by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.


That does say "saved" correct? The if condition is right there behind that by which you are saved which is the context of that there passage. How can one say otherwise?

The only answer to my post was this statement, "The "if" condition is right there behind that by which you are saved which is the context of that there passage. I don't think anyone can say otherwise?"

I have already commented on the "if condition". But I will address it one more time. Followed by the Indicative Mood, the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact, the condition being unfulfilled, but no doubt being thrown upon the supposition". If Paul, through the Holy Spirit, wanted to convey a condition, he would have used the Greek word "ean", not the one he did use, i.e. "ei". In other words, the "if" is "assumed as an actual fact" it is not a conditional "if".

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 16th 2007, 01:23 AM
If they are a branch, IN THE TRUE VINE, (which is Christ) and you are saying that they were never saved in the first place... what do you call that? You are in fact saying that the branch (whomever/person) is a branch in the true vine (in Christ) and they aren't saved. That is what you are saying Madeline so that is how.

And here you just showed exactly why you are saying one "in Christ" is not a believer.

The person that doesn't abide in Christ is not an unsaved person otherwise they couldn't be "in Christ." That being the case... the one that doesn't bear fruit is the one that was saved yes (in the True Vine)... but they did not continue in Christ. They did not endure. They did not remain. They did not stand fast. They did not tarry... etc.

Here is again the Greek for that word "abide."

meno -- to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): -- abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

Ok, I get it, sorry for the confusion.

The question is, are the branches in the vine which represents Christ believers, or are they unbelievers who are followers of Christ?

To whom was Christ saying these things recorded in Jn. 15? To the 12 with whom he had shared the passover. Note vs. 16, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain".

We know that Judas was one of the 12 and he was an unbeliever. "For He knew who should betray Him' therefore said He, 'ye are not all clean'" (Jn. 13:11).

Therefore, since Jesus knew that Judas was not a believer, but only a follower, Christ spoke of Judas when He said, "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away" (Jn. 15:4).

Let us also consider verse 6, "If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned". Note the phrase "a man". That tells us that Christ is now referring to anyone, not just the 12. But what does it mean to "abide in Him"? The Greek word translated "abide" means "to dwell", to "remain" "to tarry". In other words, if a man remains a follower of Christ, he abides in Him.

I suppose it could be said that he who abides in Christ is not just a follower, but a believer. In order to determine if that is true we must consider the context. The entire context is Christ's message to the 12, of whom He knew one was a follower, but not a believer. Because Christ, in verse 4 was referring to Judas as "a branch in Me" I think we must conclude that that branch was an unbeliever. So too, the branches in verse 6 that "abide not in Me" are also unbelievers. That is to say, there were some branches that were unbelievers.

Therefore, I believe that the branches who were cast off from the vine were followers but unbelievers. Therefore, because they were unbelievers, they never were saved and, of course, did not lose something they never had. Hope this helps PP!:spin:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2007, 02:29 AM
Hi PP!:)



PP, Galatians 5:4 doesn't say "severed" or "cut off" from Christ and I'm not sure which translation you are using. Cut off usually refers to death in the bible, unless you believe that Paul is speaking with dead people PP--see Daniel 9:26. ;) But the Greek does not read that way, "ye have fallen from" (ekpipto) which means that they were deviating from the grace of God. They didn't fall "out" of Grace, they fell "from" Grace. You can fall "from" your bed, that doesn't mean you were actually "in" your bed. Same analogy applies to the Galatians PP.:)

Love,
MadelineThen change it to the King James... hence the reason I posted that. The words, "fallen from grace" still do not stand alone. Christ is of no effect to them. Again here is the Greek.

katargeo -- to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: -- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

You know it means it is there so not sure why you seem to avoid the first part of that passage. And once again... just as your building analogy... not sure how you can fall from bed without being in the bed. No clue how that is supposed to work unless one wants to take some legalistic view and say well... they aren't really in the bed but are laying on top of the bed or whatever... but that is nothing more than that... a legalistic way of avoiding the fact that you were in the bed and thus fell out of the bed no longer being in the bed.

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2007, 02:35 AM
Hi again PP!:)



The only answer to my post was this statement, "The "if" condition is right there behind that by which you are saved which is the context of that there passage. I don't think anyone can say otherwise?"

I have already commented on the "if condition". But I will address it one more time. Followed by the Indicative Mood, the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact, the condition being unfulfilled, but no doubt being thrown upon the supposition". If Paul, through the Holy Spirit, wanted to convey a condition, he would have used the Greek word "ean", not the one he did use, i.e. "ei". In other words, the "if" is "assumed as an actual fact" it is not a conditional "if".

Love,
MadelineThe only fact there madeline is that one must continue in... the if is purely conditional. When I say you can have this book IF you read the book then the way you can have the book is to read it. But in that... there is no guarantee that you are going to read the book although when you take it then I assume that you will. If you don't... then the book doesn't belong to you because you didn't abide by the condition.

The word "IF you hold fast... coupled with unless you believed in vain... doesn't at all allow the context to work the way you describe.

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2007, 02:50 AM
Ok, I get it, sorry for the confusion.

The question is, are the branches in the vine which represents Christ believers, or are they unbelievers who are followers of Christ? Sure... unless you know of any other way that one can be "in Christ".



To whom was Christ saying these things recorded in Jn. 15? To the 12 with whom he had shared the passover. Note vs. 16, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain".

We know that Judas was one of the 12 and he was an unbeliever. "For He knew who should betray Him' therefore said He, 'ye are not all clean'" (Jn. 13:11).

Therefore, since Jesus knew that Judas was not a believer, but only a follower, Christ spoke of Judas when He said, "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away" (Jn. 15:4).

Let us also consider verse 6, "If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned". Note the phrase "a man". That tells us that Christ is now referring to anyone, not just the 12. But what does it mean to "abide in Him"? The Greek word translated "abide" means "to dwell", to "remain" "to tarry". In other words, if a man remains a follower of Christ, he abides in Him.You need to study this a bit better there Madeline. Jesus was not speaking to the 12. He was speaking to just the 11 that were left. Judas had already left to betray Jesus so your whole premise here again falls apart.

John 13:22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.
23 There was reclining on Jesus' breast one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking."
25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' breast, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?"
26 Jesus therefore answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
27 And after the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Jesus therefore said to him, "What you do, do quickly."
28 Now no one of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this to him.
29 For some were supposing, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, "Buy the things we have need of for the feast"; or else, that he should give something to the poor.
30 And so after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night.




I suppose it could be said that he who abides in Christ is not just a follower, but a believer. In order to determine if that is true we must consider the context. The entire context is Christ's message to the 12, of whom He knew one was a follower, but not a believer. Because Christ, in verse 4 was referring to Judas as "a branch in Me" I think we must conclude that that branch was an unbeliever. So too, the branches in verse 6 that "abide not in Me" are also unbelievers. That is to say, there were some branches that were unbelievers.

Therefore, I believe that the branches who were cast off from the vine were followers but unbelievers. Therefore, because they were unbelievers, they never were saved and, of course, did not lose something they never had. Hope this helps PP!:spin:

Love,
MadelineAgain... built on a faulty premise. So you need to rethink it and change it up. Because your whole thing here is just flat out built on very shaky ground.

*Madeline*
Feb 16th 2007, 02:51 AM
Hi PP!:)


Then change it to the King James... hence the reason I posted that. The words, "fallen from grace" still do not stand alone. Christ is of no effect to them. Again here is the Greek.

katargeo -- to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: -- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

You know it means it is there so not sure why you seem to avoid the first part of that passage. And once again... just as your building analogy... not sure how you can fall from bed without being in the bed. No clue how that is supposed to work unless one wants to take some legalistic view and say well... they aren't really in the bed but are laying on top of the bed or whatever... but that is nothing more than that... a legalistic way of avoiding the fact that you were in the bed and thus fell out of the bed no longer being in the bed.

PP, that's what I have been saying all along, of no effect. It means that they have renounced grace through faith as the only way of salvation. Circumcision was the external ritual symbolizing acceptance of the law (v.3). :D In such as case, one depended on legal works rather than on God's Grace as the means of salvation. It simply says that you cannot be justified by the law, then God's grace will become ineffectual. Hope this helps PP!:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2007, 02:57 AM
Alrighty... it's been presented and folks can decide. No since going back full-circle again. Both cases have been made and folks can decide from there.

And just in case you missed it... back about a dozen post or so... I posted some stuff on several parts of Hebrews. Take a tackle at that when you get a chance.

I will be gone most of the morning tomorrow... so might be the afternoon before I can respond back to any of that.

*Madeline*
Feb 16th 2007, 03:46 AM
Hi pp!:)


The only fact there madeline is that one must continue in... the if is purely conditional. When I say you can have this book IF you read the book then the way you can have the book is to read it. But in that... there is no guarantee that you are going to read the book although when you take it then I assume that you will. If you don't... then the book doesn't belong to you because you didn't abide by the condition.

The word "IF you hold fast... coupled with unless you believed in vain... doesn't at all allow the context to work the way you describe.

You are assuming that because in the English language "if" is conditional", that the Greek language has the same limitations. But we know that the English language is quite limited in some words where the Greek langauge is not. For example, everyone knows that the Greek has several words translated "love" where the English langauge has only one. There is one Greek word translated "if" when a condition is implied, and a different word is used when the condition "is assumed as an actual fact". In the case of 1 Cor. 15:1 the "if" is "assumed as an actual fact".

Love,
Madeline

*Madeline*
Feb 16th 2007, 03:48 AM
...getting sleepy.


Sure... unless you know of any other way that one can be "in Christ".

You need to study this a bit better there Madeline. Jesus was not speaking to the 12. He was speaking to just the 11 that were left. Judas had already left to betray Jesus so your whole premise here again falls apart.

John 13:22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.
23 There was reclining on Jesus' breast one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking."
25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' breast, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?"
26 Jesus therefore answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
27 And after the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Jesus therefore said to him, "What you do, do quickly."
28 Now no one of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this to him.
29 For some were supposing, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, "Buy the things we have need of for the feast"; or else, that he should give something to the poor.
30 And so after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night.

Again... built on a faulty premise. So you need to rethink it and change it up. Because your whole thing here is just flat out built on very shaky ground.

You're right, Jesus was not speaking to Judas. But that hardly negates the fact that it was Judas who was the one about whom He was speaking when our Lord said in verse 2, "Every branch that beareth not fruit He taketh away". The point is that this is in reference to Judas, who was a follower, but not a believer. Judas became no longer a follower, but he never lost his salvation, because he never had it.

The premise does not fall apart just because Judas was not there. The premise is that those who were cast out of the vine were followers, but not believers. Judas not being there for this discourse does not change that at all. It was followers who did not bear fruit that were cast out of the vine, it wasn't believers who lost their salvation. Hope this helps this time PP! *:)*

Love,
Madeline

BadDog
Feb 16th 2007, 06:42 AM
This is exactly where we get all sort of strange with our human behavior analogies though Baddog.

God not only threatens them with death but God has in fact taken out boatloads of folks throughout time. We say stuff like this and then we get new believers in who actually do pick up their Bible one day and they start to read and they see where the Bible actually does say God took out vast numbers of people by death. And it does nothing but breed confusion.

We might not threaten them with death today because society has greatly changed. But it hasn't always been that way one... and two the simple fact of the matter is that God did in fact not only threaten with death... he brought death about on a number of occassions.Physical death - got no problem with that. This does not deal with the fact that Christ paid the penalty for all of our sin. It also does not fit the attributes of God either.

That IS the point. It is valid to ask if God would love us unconditionally or not.

BD

The Parson
Feb 16th 2007, 04:08 PM
As always, I'm playing catch up here...
Tim, that isn't at all to be confused with staying immature as a child. There are too many passages in Scripture, especially the epistles, that tell us that we are to mature as well. Our faith should be as all inclusive as a little child in that we totally rely on the Father. But to take that here is in my opinion going way beyond the bounds that Christ intended it to go. Jesus isn't telling folks to be as a child in all things. There is a time we are to become a man and put away childish things (for lack of a better way to put it).ProPet, never did say they were to stay immature. That would be anti scriptural. But as you said, this is how we rely on the Lord God. And that is skirting the premise. It would be just as devistating to me as a man in his 40's to think that if I sinned, I would no longer be my fathers son.

BadDog
Feb 16th 2007, 05:17 PM
Hi pp!:)

You are assuming that because in the English language "if" is conditional", that the Greek language has the same limitations. But we know that the English language is quite limited in some words where the Greek langauge is not. For example, everyone knows that the Greek has several words translated "love" where the English langauge has only one. There is one Greek word translated "if" when a condition is implied, and a different word is used when the condition "is assumed as an actual fact". In the case of 1 Cor. 15:1 the "if" is "assumed as an actual fact".

Love,
MadelineMadeline,

Let me try to clarify the 1st class conditional statement, as it can be confusing.

Now it is true that in the 1st class conditional stmt that the statement made is assumed by the person making it to be a fact... it is not necessarily a fact though. It is a conditional statement. It is in the indicative mood with EI in the prodasis (condition statement). EAN is used in other than indicative moods usually. The 1st class should not be confused with the 3rd class - which is referred to as the "probable future" conditional.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5 Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. You are also saved by it (the gospel), if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you--unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

So Paul tells these Corinthian believers that they are saved by the gospel provided they "hold to it" (and he assumes that they will).

What does it mean to "hold to the message" given to them (the gospel message)? He clarifies that in the verses that follows: that Christ died, was buried, rose and appeared to many. To hold to the message means to accept it, to embrace it. That is faith.

Now the "saved" here refers to more than just initially coming to Christ, IMO. That's where the idea of "to no purpose" comes in. Some of these Christians were being told that there wass n oresurrection from the dead. Paul is dealing with this. The "in vain" or "to no purpose" relates to what he says later where he tells them that what use is it to believe the gospel if Christ never really rose from the dead. So the believing here "to no purpose" really has to do with IF there was no resurrection:

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, "There is no resurrection of the dead"? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith.

Thx, and keep preaching the truth.

BD

Peter,

Am I trying to use the Greek grammar here to distort things? Why not just let Madeline's statement stand as it was without commenting, otherwise?

*Madeline*
Feb 16th 2007, 10:01 PM
Amen The Parson, and thanks Bob for clarifying. I realized earlier that I needed to study John 15 much more carefully than I had, which I did. and I would like to share.

Jn. 15:1-2, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the Husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit".

It is obvious that when our Lord said, "I am the true vine" that He was not speaking literally, because He was not a vine, He was a Man. The "vine" therefore is a metaphor. As is true of all figures of speech, this metaphor enhances the truth for which the metaphor was used. What is that truth that is enhanced by the metaphor of the vine? The answer to that question is given quite specifically by our Lord and recorded in verses 4-5, "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing". The truth that is enhanced by the metaphor of the vine is put most succinctly in the phrase, " for without Me ye can do nothing".

It is also important to know who is represented by the branches. I suggest that that question is answered once we determine what Christ meant by the "fruit" of the branches. The fruit of the branches can be one of two things. It can be, 1) the fruit of the spirit, or it can be 2) the fruit of one's labors. Gal. 5:22 speaks of the fruits of the spirit, "But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith...". The more immediate context gives us an example of the fruit of one's labour. We read in Jn. 15:16, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain....". Note the phrase, "that ye should go".Going is not required to bring forth the fruits of the spirit. Therefore, I believe the most logical conclusion is that the fruits of the vine refers to the fruits of one's labor, not to the fruits of the holy spirit.

I believe that the context will give the same answer to the question as to which fruit is meant in John 15. This chapter is part of a long discourse given by our Lord to His disciples at the last supper, or rather to eleven of them, as Judas had departed earlier (see Jn. 13:30). Jn. 13:1 sets the time of His discourse, "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father.....". In other words, this discourse was given to the 11 at a time when Christ knew that His earthly ministry was coming to a rapid close.

Taking into consideration that chapter 15 comes in Christ's last message before the end of His earthly ministry to His disciples, I believe it is more logical to conclude that the "fruits" of the branches of the vine are not the fruits of the spirit of Gal. 5, but the fruits of the labors of the disciples. That is to say, the 'fruits" are those who the disciples "bring forth".

We are now ready to discuss who is represented by the figure of the branches of the vine. We have already learned that Christ was speaking to the 11 disciples. The question is: was He speaking to them as followers or as believers. These 11 were, of course, both followers and believers, so the distinction is not that obvious. We read in verse 16, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit". In my opinion, the phrase "I have chosen you and ordained you" points to the conclusion that Christ was speaking to them primarily as His followers. That is to say, not every believer has been "chosen" and "ordained" to go bring forth fruit. It is true that all believers are expected to bring forth fruits of the holy spirit as listed in Ga. 5:22, but not all believers have been chosen and ordained to go forth to bring forth other believers. But there are a few more hints in the context that Christ is speaking to the 11 primarily as His followers.

We read in 13:35, "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another". It is true of course, that this can be said of believers, but it is significant that our Lord said that their love will show that they are His disciples, not that it will show that they are believers.

Consider also 15:8, "Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples". Every word in the Bible is God inspired. Note that Christ did not say that their fruits showed that they were believers, but that their works showed that they were His disciples. I am suggesting that because the fruit of the branches represented those to whom the disciples were sent forth to reach for Christ, that the branches of the vine represented Christ's disciples primarily as followers, not primarily as believers.

Having determined that the branches of the vine represented the followers of Christ, more specifically the disciples, we are now ready to consider who is represented by the branch of verse 2, the one that was cast away. I believe the branch of verse 2 was Judas. The branches represent Christ's followers, Judas was was a follower. Consider also verse 3, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you". Compare that with Jn. 13:10-11, "......and ye are not all clean. For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, 'Ye are not all clean'". In my opinion, there is an implied reference in this comparison to Judas, who was not clean and who was therefore, a branch that was taken out of the vine.

But Judas was not a believer (see the discussion of Judas in the section below "Individual who Are Said To Have Lost Their Salvation"). Therefore, when the branch that was taken out of the vine Judas did not lose his salivation, because Judas as an unbeliever never was saved. Judas lost his place as a disciple of Christ, but he could not have lost what he never had, i.e. salvation.

We must consider verse 6, because that verse is not about just the 11, it is about any man. Verse 6 reads, "If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered....". Logic plus the context demands that if the branch of verse 2 is Judas who was a follower, but not a believer who did not bring forth fruit, then the man of verse 6 is also a follower, but not a believer, one that did not bring forth fruit.

I believe that the branches that are taken out of the vine are those followers who do not bring forth other followers who will "remain". This passage does not speak of loss of salvation, it speaks of followers who will be cast out of the Vine because they fail to bring forth the fruit for which they are sent, i.e. followers who will "remain". Verse 2 sets the precedence for the conclusion that these followers who do not produce fruit, are unbelievers. So again, they did not lose their salvation because as unbelievers, they were never saved.

For the sake of thoroughness, we must consider the objection by some that we are told that these branches are "in Christ", which makes them believers. In truth, we are never told that the branches are "in Christ". The phrase "in Christ" is never used in this passage. We do read in 15:2, "Every branch in Me" and of course, the "Me" is Christ". But again, every word is God inspired and we must judge from the context. how the Holy Spirit wants us to understand the phrase "in Me". I am "open" to correction. :)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 03:12 AM
Hi pp!:)



You are assuming that because in the English language "if" is conditional", that the Greek language has the same limitations. But we know that the English language is quite limited in some words where the Greek langauge is not. For example, everyone knows that the Greek has several words translated "love" where the English langauge has only one. There is one Greek word translated "if" when a condition is implied, and a different word is used when the condition "is assumed as an actual fact". In the case of 1 Cor. 15:1 the "if" is "assumed as an actual fact".

Love,
MadelineIt was conditional in the Greek as well Madeline. Hence the reason the various translators over the many years used the English word "if." ;)

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 03:41 AM
...getting sleepy.



You're right, Jesus was not speaking to Judas. But that hardly negates the fact that it was Judas who was the one about whom He was speaking when our Lord said in verse 2, "Every branch that beareth not fruit He taketh away". The point is that this is in reference to Judas, who was a follower, but not a believer. Judas became no longer a follower, but he never lost his salvation, because he never had it.

The premise does not fall apart just because Judas was not there. The premise is that those who were cast out of the vine were followers, but not believers. Judas not being there for this discourse does not change that at all. It was followers who did not bear fruit that were cast out of the vine, it wasn't believers who lost their salvation. Hope this helps this time PP! *:)*

Love,
Madeline
Alrighty then... let's look at Scripture once again and see who Jesus is speaking to.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me.


Now... already clean because of Christ.

Abide in me... STAY IN ME... STAND FIRM... STICK IT OUT.

You can't bear fruit UNLESS you abide in me. All of this passage... Jesus is speaking to these 11. There is no possible way that you can make this have Judas fitting into the passage. Well... not without some pushing and shoving to try and make the verse fit your doctrine.

Jesus is make this very point to the 11. Not Judas. Judas had left and one need but read the rest of the words from the end of John 13 to 17 to see that this is where Jesus really gets down to some serious business with the 11 left.

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 03:56 AM
As always, I'm playing catch up here...ProPet, never did say they were to stay immature. That would be anti scriptural. But as you said, this is how we rely on the Lord God. And that is skirting the premise. It would be just as devistating to me as a man in his 40's to think that if I sinned, I would no longer be my fathers son.It doesn't really matter that it would be devastating to you and I am right certain that there will be a whole lot of devastated folks come one day when they hear they are going to that side with the goats!

Keep in mind that passage that I posted earlier from Hebrews. It speaks of folks that, in time, get to a point where they have to have the elementary principles again. They are sliding back from maturity. There is a grave warning attached to that hence the three or however many post that I did from the Hebrews letter.

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 04:06 AM
What does it mean to "hold to the message" given to them (the gospel message)? He clarifies that in the verses that follows: that Christ died, was buried, rose and appeared to many. To hold to the message means to accept it, to embrace it. That is faith. It means to retain it... keep it... hold on to it... stay with it. See this is where it gets confusing to me when you say things like to "accept it, to embrace it." I can accept a lot of things and even embrace it. But that isn't the same as retaining it... staying with it... keeping it... etc.


Peter,

Am I trying to use the Greek grammar here to distort things? Why not just let Madeline's statement stand as it was without commenting, otherwise?Thanks for sharing BadDog. I believe Madeline is absolutely wrong here just as I think you are as well. That would be the answer to your why, eh? ;)

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 06:25 PM
Amen The Parson, and thanks Bob for clarifying. I realized earlier that I needed to study John 15 much more carefully than I had, which I did. and I would like to share.

Jn. 15:1-2, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the Husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit".

It is obvious that when our Lord said, "I am the true vine" that He was not speaking literally, because He was not a vine, He was a Man. The "vine" therefore is a metaphor. As is true of all figures of speech, this metaphor enhances the truth for which the metaphor was used. What is that truth that is enhanced by the metaphor of the vine? The answer to that question is given quite specifically by our Lord and recorded in verses 4-5, "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing". The truth that is enhanced by the metaphor of the vine is put most succinctly in the phrase, " for without Me ye can do nothing".

Let me add that there was a purpose for this metaphor. The fact that Jesus call Himself the "true vine" is very significant if one is familiar with the books of the Prophets... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. There is great significance in that regard here.


It is also important to know who is represented by the branches. I suggest that that question is answered once we determine what Christ meant by the "fruit" of the branches. The fruit of the branches can be one of two things. It can be, 1) the fruit of the spirit, or it can be 2) the fruit of one's labors. Gal. 5:22 speaks of the fruits of the spirit, "But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith...". The more immediate context gives us an example of the fruit of one's labour. We read in Jn. 15:16, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain....". Note the phrase, "that ye should go".Going is not required to bring forth the fruits of the spirit. Therefore, I believe the most logical conclusion is that the fruits of the vine refers to the fruits of one's labor, not to the fruits of the holy spirit.

I believe that the context will give the same answer to the question as to which fruit is meant in John 15. This chapter is part of a long discourse given by our Lord to His disciples at the last supper, or rather to eleven of them, as Judas had departed earlier (see Jn. 13:30). Jn. 13:1 sets the time of His discourse, "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father.....". In other words, this discourse was given to the 11 at a time when Christ knew that His earthly ministry was coming to a rapid close.

Taking into consideration that chapter 15 comes in Christ's last message before the end of His earthly ministry to His disciples, I believe it is more logical to conclude that the "fruits" of the branches of the vine are not the fruits of the spirit of Gal. 5, but the fruits of the labors of the disciples. That is to say, the 'fruits" are those who the disciples "bring forth".

Actually what you will see in this entire discourse is the idea that he disciples are to do what Jesus commanded. And it is in fact tied in with the Spirit.

John 14

19 "After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.
20 "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?"
23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
25 ¶"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
28 "You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.´ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
29 "Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.
30 "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
31 but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.

John 15

1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
8 "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
12 ¶"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14 "You are My friends if you do what I command you.
15 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
17 "This I command you, that you love one another.
18 ¶"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
20 "Remember the word that I said to you, `A slave is not greater than his master.´ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
21 "But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.
22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
23 "He who hates Me hates My Father also.
24 "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.
25 "But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, `THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.´
26 ¶"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.


I wanted to point that out because I think to try and separate the obedience aspect from the Spirit aspect doesn't work. After all... Whom is the one that has the Spirit of God so they can bear such fruit?

Acts 5:32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."



We are now ready to discuss who is represented by the figure of the branches of the vine. We have already learned that Christ was speaking to the 11 disciples. The question is: was He speaking to them as followers or as believers. These 11 were, of course, both followers and believers, so the distinction is not that obvious. We read in verse 16, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit". In my opinion, the phrase "I have chosen you and ordained you" points to the conclusion that Christ was speaking to them primarily as His followers. That is to say, not every believer has been "chosen" and "ordained" to go bring forth fruit. It is true that all believers are expected to bring forth fruits of the holy spirit as listed in Ga. 5:22, but not all believers have been chosen and ordained to go forth to bring forth other believers. But there are a few more hints in the context that Christ is speaking to the 11 primarily as His followers.

We read in 13:35, "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another". It is true of course, that this can be said of believers, but it is significant that our Lord said that their love will show that they are His disciples, not that it will show that they are believers.

Consider also 15:8, "Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples". Every word in the Bible is God inspired. Note that Christ did not say that their fruits showed that they were believers, but that their works showed that they were His disciples. I am suggesting that because the fruit of the branches represented those to whom the disciples were sent forth to reach for Christ, that the branches of the vine represented Christ's disciples primarily as followers, not primarily as believers.

Having determined that the branches of the vine represented the followers of Christ, more specifically the disciples, we are now ready to consider who is represented by the branch of verse 2, the one that was cast away. I believe the branch of verse 2 was Judas. The branches represent Christ's followers, Judas was was a follower. Consider also verse 3, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you". Compare that with Jn. 13:10-11, "......and ye are not all clean. For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, 'Ye are not all clean'". In my opinion, there is an implied reference in this comparison to Judas, who was not clean and who was therefore, a branch that was taken out of the vine.

But Judas was not a believer (see the discussion of Judas in the section below "Individual who Are Said To Have Lost Their Salvation"). Therefore, when the branch that was taken out of the vine Judas did not lose his salivation, because Judas as an unbeliever never was saved. Judas lost his place as a disciple of Christ, but he could not have lost what he never had, i.e. salvation.

We must consider verse 6, because that verse is not about just the 11, it is about any man. Verse 6 reads, "If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered....". Logic plus the context demands that if the branch of verse 2 is Judas who was a follower, but not a believer who did not bring forth fruit, then the man of verse 6 is also a follower, but not a believer, one that did not bring forth fruit.

I believe that the branches that are taken out of the vine are those followers who do not bring forth other followers who will "remain". This passage does not speak of loss of salvation, it speaks of followers who will be cast out of the Vine because they fail to bring forth the fruit for which they are sent, i.e. followers who will "remain". Verse 2 sets the precedence for the conclusion that these followers who do not produce fruit, are unbelievers. So again, they did not lose their salvation because as unbelievers, they were never saved.

For the sake of thoroughness, we must consider the objection by some that we are told that these branches are "in Christ", which makes them believers. In truth, we are never told that the branches are "in Christ". The phrase "in Christ" is never used in this passage. We do read in 15:2, "Every branch in Me" and of course, the "Me" is Christ". But again, every word is God inspired and we must judge from the context. how the Holy Spirit wants us to understand the phrase "in Me". I am "open" to correction. :)

Love,
MadelineI bolded the comment you made there at the end. You are saying here that the passage doesn't say that they are "in Christ" but then you agree that the "ME" is Christ and that passage does say "in Me". So if it says they are "in Me" and the Me is Christ... um... what sense are you making here? Of course the branches are in Christ... that is how the passage starts and ends and is in the middle.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

And again... the Greek for "abide."

meno -- a primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): -- abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

And again... you are trying to fit doctrine into the passage by making this a thing about there being a difference between a believer and a follower when that isn't even closed to accurate. In order for you to make this work you are going to have to show how Jesus is going to allow an unbeliever "in Him."

John has already made it clear earlier in His writing that Jesus doesn't commit Himself to folks that are just "followers." That is seen through the four gospel in truth. But here is a passage in John for folks to read.

John 2:23 ¶Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.
24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,
25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.


Jesus doesn't let anyone but "true" believers to partake of the "true vine." This should be obvious to most folks I do hope.

*Madeline*
Feb 17th 2007, 06:56 PM
Hi PP!:)


It was conditional in the Greek as well Madeline. Hence the reason the various translators over the many years used the English word "if." ;)

PP, can you please explain to me how in 1 Corinthians 15:2 how a belief that is in (vain) "without effect" or useless is a faith that saves?

Love,
Madeline

BadDog
Feb 17th 2007, 07:29 PM
It means to retain it... keep it... hold on to it... stay with it. See this is where it gets confusing to me when you say things like to "accept it, to embrace it." I can accept a lot of things and even embrace it. But that isn't the same as retaining it... staying with it... keeping it... etc.

Thanks for sharing BadDog. I believe Madeline is absolutely wrong here just as I think you are as well. That would be the answer to your why, eh? ;)
Peter,

Are you saying that the word means to DO or to OBEY something? Careful... you're close to doing what you upbraided me for supposedly doing.

Now, you never addressed my previous questions... You say that I am wrong in what I said about the Greek. Where so? Please be specific.


Peter, you really didn't address this, but I don't want to drag this on. The point is that you jumped on me for my Greek analysis without showing where it was wrong. You also did accuse me of twisting scripture by using the Greek so as to change the meaning from what various translations say. Yet if you look at my specific translation I didn't do that. Go back and look at what you said. You attacked my motives.

Anyway, let's just drop it. I think part of the problem is that I didn't make it clear and you assumed I was saying that the conditionality was really not there. I didn't say that, and did not intend to imply that either.

Now, back to the text... though I won't have much time for that.

If you go back to that original quote (in the PG) you'll see that the strength of my argument was in looking at the context, not in referring to the 1st class Greek. The purpose of looking at the 1st class Greek idea is to prevent people from assuming that Peter was threatening his readers, as many read that text. Now, if you believe me to be wrong about the 1st class Greek, then you need to support your position - to just say someone is wrong without saying why is not right. I know you believe me to be wrong in my interpretation of the entire text, and I have no problem with that. But if you say I am wrong in how I handled the 1st class Greek there, and in intentionally giving it slant which supports my position, knowing it didn't really say that... well, I got a big problem with that.

So then if that is what you are saying then you need to explain - from a Greek perspective. I listed a couple of online commentaries about the 1st class Greek conditional statement. I'm sure you can easily find others. If you do the research, you'll see that I did not misrepresent it.

Now, are you going to address what you did there, or not? Because you accused me of distorting the meaning:

I mean here you say that it is Greek 101 stuff and such and such is a much better translation and all of these other Greek scholar folk just hosed this one all up! I mean let's face it here. If what you and madeline are saying is the fact... then that whole verse has to be totally changed to read completely different than how all these other translator's figured it should read. You change that to since then here is how it should read.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach --
23 SINCE indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

That is a total rewrite, meaning something totally different, if you are correct and every other major translation that we have out there just messed this all up as you guys seem to be trying to get us to believe. Gotta be honest with you here... you know I ain't going to buy that!;)
Now I see that you have a misunderstanding here - thinking I am saying that it should be translated as "since," and also thinking that even if it was translated as "since" that the conditionality is removed. It is not in such a case.

I didn't re-write that, Peter. I gave my translation as...

EI GE EPIMENETE TH PISTEI TEQEMELIWMENOI KAI EDRAIOI
If indeed (emphasis) you are firm in the faith, having laid the foundation (established) and being steadfast

KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO KAI THS ELPIDOS TOU EUAGGELIOU OU HKOUSATE
And without shifting from the hope of the gospel which you’ve heard.
See any "since" there? Actually, it reads similar to the HCSB - just noticed:

HCSB - if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

So as you can see, it was not "a total rewrite." I focused on the GE ("indeed") not the "EI" - the emphasis added. You may not agree with how someone views a Bible text. But let's not accuse them of distorting it and in doing so impugn their motives. I can't help it. I have studied some Greek. I do use it all the time when I study the Bible. I don't feel comfortable studying it anymore without going to the Greek. That affects how I interpret some texts - can't be helped. Any knowledge I may have of the Greek does not make my interpretation superior to others one bit. But it can help me to see what the original writers were saying perhaps more easily. The best thing is just reading it in context. That's what I did in that original post for Colossians 1:23. (I quoted Col. 2:5, 8, 18, 19 and explained how they all tied together IMO.) I did not make the text (in English) read totally differently. Perhaps you are misunderstanding some of what Peter is saying there. Undoubtedly I am as well.

Madeline believes the text to fit a particular interpretation, you see it differently. I do not think that either of you are intentionally trying to distort the meaning. Both of you have to read the text through the filter of the rest of scripture. It's OK to show how Madeline or myself are wrong, and to explain how you interpret it. But some of your arguments are to attack our motives and hence our character. That should not happen on this board. Madeline has been very gracious, though I am sure she is frustrated by your methods.

BD

This dog would really just as soon sleep...

*Madeline*
Feb 17th 2007, 07:41 PM
Hi again PP!:)


Let me add that there was a purpose for this metaphor. The fact that Jesus call Himself the "true vine" is very significant if one is familiar with the books of the Prophets... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. There is great significance in that regard here.



Actually what you will see in this entire discourse is the idea that he disciples are to do what Jesus commanded. And it is in fact tied in with the Spirit.

John 14

19 "After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.
20 "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?"
23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
25 ¶"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
28 "You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.´ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
29 "Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.
30 "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
31 but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.

John 15

1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
8 "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
12 ¶"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14 "You are My friends if you do what I command you.
15 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
17 "This I command you, that you love one another.
18 ¶"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
20 "Remember the word that I said to you, `A slave is not greater than his master.´ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
21 "But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.
22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
23 "He who hates Me hates My Father also.
24 "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.
25 "But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, `THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.´
26 ¶"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.


I wanted to point that out because I think to try and separate the obedience aspect from the Spirit aspect doesn't work. After all... Whom is the one that has the Spirit of God so they can bear such fruit?

Acts 5:32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."


I bolded the comment you made there at the end. You are saying here that the passage doesn't say that they are "in Christ" but then you agree that the "ME" is Christ and that passage does say "in Me". So if it says they are "in Me" and the Me is Christ... um... what sense are you making here? Of course the branches are in Christ... that is how the passage starts and ends and is in the middle.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

And again... the Greek for "abide."

meno -- a primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): -- abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

And again... you are trying to fit doctrine into the passage by making this a thing about there being a difference between a believer and a follower when that isn't even closed to accurate. In order for you to make this work you are going to have to show how Jesus is going to allow an unbeliever "in Him."

John has already made it clear earlier in His writing that Jesus doesn't commit Himself to folks that are just "followers." That is seen through the four gospel in truth. But here is a passage in John for folks to read.

John 2:23 ¶Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.
24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,
25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.


Jesus doesn't let anyone but "true" believers to partake of the "true vine." This should be obvious to most folks I do hope.


Concerning the context:

In John 14 Jesus tells His disciples what He would be doing for them, and in John 15 He tells them what they would be doing for Him. Probably the words of chapters 15 and 16 are spoken as they walk from the upper room (Jn. 14:31) through the streets of Jerusalem toward Gethsemane (Jn. 18:1).

When interpreting the Bible we start with the exegetically clear passages, so, when one who denies the nature of justification (all those who are justified will be glorified (cf. Rom. 8:30), thus, eternal saved) asserts a passage such as Hebrews 6 or John 15 at least we know what it does not mean.

With John 15 there is a few things to say from the start. Not to bore with Greek, but in the chapter there is a contrast of two terms: 1. en ("in") as with verse 2 and the other term is meno (the "o" being the last letter in the Greek alphabet (i.e., a long "o") translated "remain" (NIV).

Meno means to live, dwell, *remain* in Christ as with one whose faith was the result of the regeneration by God, a true faith, not a man centered faith, which can waiver. John 15:5-6 reads: "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains (meno, "lives") in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain ("live") in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."

But note that the meno (remain/live) here is a present tense participle (menon, literally, remaining, living), thus, it shows an on-going action. As with the *believe* passage in John (3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 1 John 5:12; etc.) the term *believe* is in the same form: an active present tense participle, literally, the believing one. Scripture knows of no one that has faith for a while and then no faith. That kind of faith is not a faith that is the result of regeneration.

Jesus says that if anyone does not live in me": This is not to say that such a man ever actually lived in Christ to begin with. But those who have a real faith, i.e., real Christians will certainly produce fruit, not by their own efforts, but because Jesus Christ produces such fruits through them.

In John 15:2 Jesus says that the Father *cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit." Here the term is not meno (live, remain, dwell, etc.), but the term en ("in"). Seems that He is speaking of those who merely associate with the church (as with a Judas), who have a exterior knowledge of Christ, but who have not established a true living relationship with Christ.

Also note that from verse 5, it is inevitable that branches that have a true living relationship (meno) produce fruit. Btu why do some branches not produce fruit? Because they are only attached on the surface, but have not a true faith.

Now, the term en does denote a true Christ (see 2 Cor. 5:17: en Xristo kaine ktisis ("in Christ (is a) new creation"). Hope this helps PP! :) :hug:

Love,
Madeline

BadDog
Feb 17th 2007, 08:26 PM
Hi pp!


You are assuming that because in the English language "if" is conditional", that the Greek language has the same limitations. But we know that the English language is quite limited in some words where the Greek langauge is not. For example, everyone knows that the Greek has several words translated "love" where the English langauge has only one. There is one Greek word translated "if" when a condition is implied, and a different word is used when the condition "is assumed as an actual fact". In the case of 1 Cor. 15:1 the "if" is "assumed as an actual fact".

Love,
Madeline


It was conditional in the Greek as well Madeline. Hence the reason the various translators over the many years used the English word "if." ;)Peter,

Actually, Madeline does have a point here. In Greek we have EI in the indicative mood (most common mood) in the protasis ("if" part of clause - sets up condition). The 1st class affirms the reality of the if clause. It is not purely the same as "if..." in English. We need to specify more. IOW, we cannot simply say that EI in Greek means "if" in English. Language does not work that simply.

Essentials of NT Greek, Summers - p. 108 has...


EI MAQHTAI ESMEN TOU KURIOU SWQESWMEQA. "If we are disciples of the Lord, we shall be saved." This construction confirms the condition and is best translated "since we are, etc."

So perhaps you can see here where Madeline got the idea of best translating EI with the indicative mood as "since..." She was not distorting anything.

Now IMO to say that it is ALWAYS best translated as "since" is not valid. More advanced grammars (Summers is a 1st year Greek grammar) warn against this. But you ought to give her a little slack. And when I respond to Madeline's post earlier, saying that the 1st class conditional is a conditional statement still, supporting you, you say simply that both Madeline and I are wrong.

BD

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 09:12 PM
Hi PP!:)



PP, can you please explain to me how in 1 Corinthians 15:2 how a belief that is in (vain) "without effect" or useless is a faith that saves?

Love,
Madeline

It doesn't. That's why they must continue.... stand... endure... etc.

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 10:08 PM
Peter,

Are you saying that the word means to DO or to OBEY something? Careful... you're close to doing what you upbraided me for supposedly doing.It means what it says and exactly what I said... they must retain it... keep it... hold on to it... etc. I am doing nothing of the sort in defining the word as that what with that word meaning exactly that. ;)



Now, you never addressed my previous questions... You say that I am wrong in what I said about the Greek. Where so? Please be specific.



If you go back to that original quote (in the PG) you'll see that the strength of my argument was in looking at the context, not in referring to the 1st class Greek. The purpose of looking at the 1st class Greek idea is to prevent people from assuming that Peter was threatening his readers, as many read that text. Now, if you believe me to be wrong about the 1st class Greek, then you need to support your position - to just say someone is wrong without saying why is not right. I know you believe me to be wrong in my interpretation of the entire text, and I have no problem with that. But if you say I am wrong in how I handled the 1st class Greek there, and in intentionally giving it slant which supports my position, knowing it didn't really say that... well, I got a big problem with that.

So then if that is what you are saying then you need to explain - from a Greek perspective. I listed a couple of online commentaries about the 1st class Greek conditional statement. I'm sure you can easily find others. If you do the research, you'll see that I did not misrepresent it.

Now, are you going to address what you did there, or not? Because you accused me of distorting the meaning:

Now I see that you have a misunderstanding here - thinking I am saying that it should be translated as "since," and also thinking that even if it was translated as "since" that the conditionality is removed. It is not in such a case.

I didn't re-write that, Peter. I gave my translation as...

See any "since" there? Actually, it reads similar to the HCSB - just noticed:

HCSB - if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

So as you can see, it was not "a total rewrite." I focused on the GE ("indeed") not the "EI" - the emphasis added. You may not agree with how someone views a Bible text. But let's not accuse them of distorting it and in doing so impugn their motives. I can't help it. I have studied some Greek. I do use it all the time when I study the Bible. I don't feel comfortable studying it anymore without going to the Greek. That affects how I interpret some texts - can't be helped. Any knowledge I may have of the Greek does not make my interpretation superior to others one bit. But it can help me to see what the original writers were saying perhaps more easily. The best thing is just reading it in context. That's what I did in that original post for Colossians 1:23. (I quoted Col. 2:5, 8, 18, 19 and explained how they all tied together IMO.) I did not make the text (in English) read totally differently. Perhaps you are misunderstanding some of what Peter is saying there. Undoubtedly I am as well.

Madeline believes the text to fit a particular interpretation, you see it differently. I do not think that either of you are intentionally trying to distort the meaning. Both of you have to read the text through the filter of the rest of scripture. It's OK to show how Madeline or myself are wrong, and to explain how you interpret it. But some of your arguments are to attack our motives and hence our character. That should not happen on this board. Madeline has been very gracious, though I am sure she is frustrated by your methods.

BD

This dog would really just as soon sleep...[/QUOTE]Bob... you need to go back and read what madeline said.

Here is how you started your post and you are still going on about this after I explained why I said what I did already to you.


Saw that new OSAS thread that Peter's having fun with. I had something to share regarding that Colossians 1:23 text - which Madeline handled very nicely. WIA suggested that I post it here rather than in the thread since I will be too busy to interact with any responses for Peter, and that wouldn't be fair. So here goes:

Madeline,

Nice comments. I think you explained that text nicely.

Madeline was introducing the idea that it was saying "since" in that passage. You agreed with that or at least the quote above sure enough sounds as such.

Madeline knows exactly how I think of her graciousness as I have told her on more than one instance both publicly and privately.. But again... thanks for sharing.

Are you getting into the debate or just popping in again?

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 10:31 PM
And again BD... those folks that translated it in English (lot smarter than I am at the Greek stuff) have translated that instance it is the English word "if" what with those being English Bibles and all. It is not always best translated as "since" and it hasn't been translated as "since" by all of those other translations that I posted earlier. It was translated as "if" which is clearly conditional. IF you do what it says.... then that is there is a reality to that clause, if you will.

But again... I don't want to get into a bunch of post with you unless you re actually going to participate. It isn't fun having to answer post on one track and every three or four days when you toss in a post... I have to get off that track... go back and hunt our discussion so I can even remember what in the world we were talking about. So if you are in then cool. If not... we can do this in the Peanut gallery. That way I can get to it as I have time as well.

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2007, 11:06 PM
Hi again PP!:)

Concerning the context:

In John 14 Jesus tells His disciples what He would be doing for them, and in John 15 He tells them what they would be doing for Him. Probably the words of chapters 15 and 16 are spoken as they walk from the upper room (Jn. 14:31) through the streets of Jerusalem toward Gethsemane (Jn. 18:1). Works for me.



When interpreting the Bible we start with the exegetically clear passages, so, when one who denies the nature of justification (all those who are justified will be glorified (cf. Rom. 8:30), thus, eternal saved) asserts a passage such as Hebrews 6 or John 15 at least we know what it does not mean.Why not the other way around? Why not figure Romans my not be what you think it is because of passages such as Hebrews 6 or John 15? ;)


With John 15 there is a few things to say from the start. Not to bore with Greek, but in the chapter there is a contrast of two terms: 1. en ("in") as with verse 2 and the other term is meno (the "o" being the last letter in the Greek alphabet (i.e., a long "o") translated "remain" (NIV).

Meno means to live, dwell, *remain* in Christ as with one whose faith was the result of the regeneration by God, a true faith, not a man centered faith, which can waiver. John 15:5-6 reads: "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains (meno, "lives") in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain ("live") in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."

But note that the meno (remain/live) here is a present tense participle (menon, literally, remaining, living), thus, it shows an on-going action. As with the *believe* passage in John (3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 1 John 5:12; etc.) the term *believe* is in the same form: an active present tense participle, literally, the believing one. Scripture knows of no one that has faith for a while and then no faith. That kind of faith is not a faith that is the result of regeneration. Right... one must endure to the end... stand fast, etc. A condition.

As to Scripture knowing of "no one." Sure it does.

Example: 1 Timothy 1:18 ¶This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight,
19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.
20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.

Here we have a couple of men mentioned that didn't do as Paul was instructing Timothy... keeping their faith and a good conscience. They rejected these things and their faith was shipwrecked. I think your King James translates it "put away" their faith.

In the second letter we see...

2 Timothy 2:17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.

Gone astray from the truth... and thus overturning the faith of others... subverting the faith of others... overthrowing their faith etc. The fact that Paul compares their teaching with gangrene (a very deadly thing) Paul was speaking very loudly the danger that these men (once in the truth... once had faith ... at least Hymenaeus as Philetus is not the same spoken in the first letter... we now just as dangerous as an infection that brought CERTAIN death back in that day in time.

There are other examples but hopefully this is understood by those following along.


Jesus says that if anyone does not live in me": This is not to say that such a man ever actually lived in Christ to begin with. But those who have a real faith, i.e., real Christians will certainly produce fruit, not by their own efforts, but because Jesus Christ produces such fruits through them.

In John 15:2 Jesus says that the Father *cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit." Here the term is not meno (live, remain, dwell, etc.), but the term en ("in"). Seems that He is speaking of those who merely associate with the church (as with a Judas), who have a exterior knowledge of Christ, but who have not established a true living relationship with Christ.

Also note that from verse 5, it is inevitable that branches that have a true living relationship (meno) produce fruit. Btu why do some branches not produce fruit? Because they are only attached on the surface, but have not a true faith.

Now, the term en does denote a true Christ (see 2 Cor. 5:17: en Xristo kaine ktisis ("in Christ (is a) new creation"). Hope this helps PP! :) :hug:

Love,
MadelineAnd again Madeline. That passage doesn't say "every branch that is only outwardly attached to me that doesn't bear fruit..." It says every branch IN Me.

Nor does that branch say that Jesus is bearing the fruit "through you" either. It simply says that you cannot bear fruit unless you abide in Christ.

Here it is again.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The reason some don't produce fruit... because they aren't abiding in Christ. They aren't doing what He commands... what He says... not loving others... all of the stuff I highlighted before in the post... and that is the context of the passage. Keep reading.

John 15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you.
8 "By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14 "You are My friends, if you do what I command you.
15 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give to you.
17 "This I command you, that you love one another.


And if you go on up in that 14th chapter... you will see where Jesus is also speaking of the same thing there as well. You will do what he commands and in that you are abiding in Him. If you don't then you aren't. Simple as that really.

BadDog
Feb 18th 2007, 12:25 AM
Madeline was introducing the idea that it was saying "since" in that passage. You agreed with that or at least the quote above sure enough sounds as such.
Peter,

I see. Madeline was right in saying that the general meaning of ther 1st class condition is usually best translated as "since." The point is to try to make it clear to the reader that the person is assuming the truth about what he is saying. But it doesn't always bring out the Greek the best to do so. But regardless, "since" or "if" - both have are conditionals. And since the most common translation is as "since," don't you think you should at least consider how to deal with the text that way? Here's the text both ways:

Colossians 1:22, 23 ("if") - But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him--if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

Colossians 1:22, 23 ("since") - But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him--since indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

There isn't that much difference. In the 1st case, being presented before God holy, faultless, etc. is dependent on their remaining steadfast, etc.. In the 2nd case, it is also dependent on the same thing. The only difference is that Paul is saying, "Since you guys are doing this, Christ will present you..." The conditions are the same. The difference is that in the 2nd case it is assumed that they will remain steadfast. It could be argued that ifthey did not remain steadfast they would not be presented before God as blameless. (Actually, logically we have to take the contrapositive, but I'd vote for a pure inverse as well.) It doesn't really affect the argument of OSAS-NOSAS.

So in saying that I agreed with Madeline I was not saying that I agreed with her regarding "since" but with her handling in general. I do agree with the value of recognizing the 1st class condition there.


Madeline knows exactly how I think of her graciousness as I have told her on more than one instance both publicly and privately.. But again... thanks for sharing.

Are you getting into the debate or just popping in again?
:P Just popping in. I don't have time for this. I've gotten embroiled in a creatrion-evolution thread recently as well. Ugh. No time.

Anyway, my concern was in your saying that Madeline and I are distorting the text. That's what I wanted you to address. You did say that. Better to just say that you do not agree with our interpretation rather than implying that our desire to support OSAS has motivated us to distort the natural reading of the text. You go down that path, and I will jump in with both feet and demand that you support your accusations... These threads should not be handled in such a manner as to malign people's motives. It doesn't edify, and is not the biblical manner of handling things.

BD

ProjectPeter
Feb 18th 2007, 12:53 AM
Peter,

I see. Madeline was right in saying that the general meaning of ther 1st class condition is usually best translated as "since." The point is to try to make it clear to the reader that the person is assuming the truth about what he is saying. But it doesn't always bring out the Greek the best to do so. But regardless, "since" or "if" - both have are conditionals. And since the most common translation is as "since," don't you think you should at least consider how to deal with the text that way? Here's the text both ways:

Colossians 1:22, 23 ("if") - But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him--if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

Colossians 1:22, 23 ("since") - But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him--since indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

There isn't that much difference. In the 1st case, being presented before God holy, faultless, etc. is dependent on their remaining steadfast, etc.. In the 2nd case, it is also dependent on the same thing. The only difference is that Paul is saying, "Since you guys are doing this, Christ will present you..." The conditions are the same. The difference is that in the 2nd case it is assumed that they will remain steadfast. It could be argued that ifthey did not remain steadfast they would not be presented before God as blameless. (Actually, logically we have to take the contrapositive, but I'd vote for a pure inverse as well.) It doesn't really affect the argument of OSAS-NOSAS.

So in saying that I agreed with Madeline I was not saying that I agreed with her regarding "since" but with her handling in general. I do agree with the value of recognizing the 1st class condition there.


:P Just popping in. I don't have time for this. I've gotten embroiled in a creatrion-evolution thread recently as well. Ugh. No time.

Anyway, my concern was in your saying that Madeline and I are distorting the text. That's what I wanted you to address. You did say that. Better to just say that you do not agree with our interpretation rather than implying that our desire to support OSAS has motivated us to distort the natural reading of the text. You go down that path, and I will jump in with both feet and demand that you support your accusations... so that you'll be convinced (or at least others will) that I have tried to allow the text to speak for itself. These threads should not be handled in such a manner as to malign people's motives. It doesn't edify, and is not the biblical manner of handling things.

BD
Well... you and I understand English totally different if you don't think there is a MASSIVE difference in those two translations... which I might add was the point I made to both you and Madeline in the first place... using that same point with making the Scripture say "if" and "since. That is a large difference and I find it just totally odd that one would try and argue they are even some what the same.

And again let me make the point that I wasn't using that passage to make the case for or against OSAS/NOSAS (although I think it is a right good one for it). Madeline was trying to make the case that it enduring to the end was not a condition as salvation is unconditional. I said it most certainly was conditional in a number of ways. One that we must believe is a condition. That we must endure to the end is another condition. And this is exactly why I made the point that you aren't following the discussion but only responding to post as you happen along. And I know that aggrevates you when folks do that in a discussion that you are part of... it does me too because as this proves... here we are going on and on and you really aren't even clear on the root of our conversation.

As to my saying that you "distorted" the passages and all that whatnot. Coming from someone that says those two translations are pretty much saying the same thing... I can see why you would take something like "making your doctrine fit the passage as opposed to the passage fitting the doctrine" as "distort", "malign people's motives", and all that sort of stuff you've said now what... four or five times since yesterday when you mentioned the idea that you were just dropping it? ;)

I still think that is exactly what you guys are doing BD... and I still think to make it "since" is a total rewrite of the passage. I am not saying that to be mean or malign anyone. But dude... those passages the way you guys are presenting them (as the same) aren't even close and I read it, read it again, and then even again and for you to try and say that... I don't get it. Call it a bad translation and whatnot and okay... that's your opinion. But to try and say they are saying pretty much the same... no way.

BadDog
Feb 19th 2007, 10:49 PM
As to my saying that you "distorted" the passages and all that whatnot. Coming from someone that says those two translations are pretty much saying the same thing... I can see why you would take something like "making your doctrine fit the passage as opposed to the passage fitting the doctrine" as "distort", "malign people's motives", and all that sort of stuff you've said now what... four or five times since yesterday when you mentioned the idea that you were just dropping it?

I still think that is exactly what you guys are doing BD... and I still think to make it "since" is a total rewrite of the passage. I am not saying that to be mean or malign anyone. But dude... those passages the way you guys are presenting them (as the same) aren't even close and I read it, read it again, and then even again and for you to try and say that... I don't get it. Call it a bad translation and whatnot and okay... that's your opinion. But to try and say they are saying pretty much the same... no way.
What I said was that conditionality is there regardless. I quoted my translation in which I did NOT use "since." Why do continue to ignore this?

ALso, my concern is the manner in which you disagreed - claiming that we were distorting the text to match our OSAS perspective. have I ever even hinted at such a thing wit hyou... ever. Stay away from people's motives on this board. The issue is not the text. The issue is the manner in which you are debating. Does it bring honor to Christ?

I am done with this thread.

ProjectPeter
Feb 19th 2007, 10:58 PM
What I said was that conditionality is there regardless. I quoted my translation in which I did NOT use "since." Why do continue to ignore this?

ALso, my concern is the manner in which you disagreed - claiming that we were distorting the text to match our OSAS perspective. have I ever even hinted at such a thing wit hyou... ever. Stay away from people's motives on this board. The issue is not the text. The issue is the manner in which you are debating. Does it bring honor to Christ?

I am done with this thread.Please BD... point out the post where I said you were "distorting" and all that stuff? You can't dude because I didn't.

As to you not using "since"... you used it again in that post I replied to implying that there is no difference really. As I stated... it is a vast difference. Here is what you said again.


Colossians 1:22, 23 ("if") - But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him--if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

Colossians 1:22, 23 ("since") - But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him--since indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

There isn't that much difference. In the 1st case, being presented before God holy, faultless, etc. is dependent on their remaining steadfast, etc.. In the 2nd case, it is also dependent on the same thing. The only difference is that Paul is saying, "Since you guys are doing this, Christ will present you..." The conditions are the same. The difference is that in the 2nd case it is assumed that they will remain steadfast. It could be argued that ifthey did not remain steadfast they would not be presented before God as blameless. (Actually, logically we have to take the contrapositive, but I'd vote for a pure inverse as well.) It doesn't really affect the argument of OSAS-NOSAS.

My case in that post was the fact that you pitch them as saying the same thing BD when they no way do. You are the one that is taking what I say and making into something I ain't even close to saying man!

BadDog
Feb 19th 2007, 11:34 PM
Peter,

I simply said here that even using "since," which my translation did not do, there is really the same conditionality. They are not as different as you may think.

I had a little comment I wanted to make about Colossians 1, and then get out. Most of what I shared had to do with the context of the text in question and what I consider the warning to be about.

Peter, please... let's stop this give-n-take. It does not honor the Lord. I had hoped you would acknowledge that you said things about our motives, which should not happen on this board. That was what bothered me. These OSAS-NOSAS threads often descend to such things.

Now your friendship is more important than winning an argument. So let me be the one to apologize - for getting too hot under the collar.

So let me say "goodbye" to this thread - just not worth it.

BD

ProjectPeter
Feb 19th 2007, 11:58 PM
Dude... and my point to you was that it makes no sense to say they are same. Not that you were a horribly bad person or any such as that!!! I think doing that and using since would in fact be a total rewrite because sense isn't "assuming a condition" but making it a fact instead.

And as I said... I have in cases both publicly and privately expressed how I enjoy discussing stuff with Madeline. I think she is as wrong as wrong can be wrong just as I think you are. But I don't at all question her (or your) love for the Lord nor her love for discussing the Word as well. She is fun and keeps me hopping. That works for me! When you guys learn come one day I am right... then I will have even more fun!

*Madeline*
Feb 20th 2007, 04:06 AM
Hi PP!:)


Works for me.

Why not the other way around? Why not figure Romans my not be what you think it is because of passages such as Hebrews 6 or John 15? ;)

Right... one must endure to the end... stand fast, etc. A condition.

As to Scripture knowing of "no one." Sure it does.

Example: 1 Timothy 1:18 ¶This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight,
19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.
20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.

Here we have a couple of men mentioned that didn't do as Paul was instructing Timothy... keeping their faith and a good conscience. They rejected these things and their faith was shipwrecked. I think your King James translates it "put away" their faith.

In the second letter we see...

2 Timothy 2:17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.

Gone astray from the truth... and thus overturning the faith of others... subverting the faith of others... overthrowing their faith etc. The fact that Paul compares their teaching with gangrene (a very deadly thing) Paul was speaking very loudly the danger that these men (once in the truth... once had faith ... at least Hymenaeus as Philetus is not the same spoken in the first letter... we now just as dangerous as an infection that brought CERTAIN death back in that day in time.

There are other examples but hopefully this is understood by those following along.

And again Madeline. That passage doesn't say "every branch that is only outwardly attached to me that doesn't bear fruit..." It says every branch IN Me.

Nor does that branch say that Jesus is bearing the fruit "through you" either. It simply says that you cannot bear fruit unless you abide in Christ.

Here it is again.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The reason some don't produce fruit... because they aren't abiding in Christ. They aren't doing what He commands... what He says... not loving others... all of the stuff I highlighted before in the post... and that is the context of the passage. Keep reading.

John 15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you.
8 "By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14 "You are My friends, if you do what I command you.
15 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give to you.
17 "This I command you, that you love one another.


And if you go on up in that 14th chapter... you will see where Jesus is also speaking of the same thing there as well. You will do what he commands and in that you are abiding in Him. If you don't then you aren't. Simple as that really.

PP, I see the reason why some branches are cast into the fire to be burned is because they were never saved. Fruitless branches are a sign that they were never born again (Matt. 7:16,20; Gal. 5:22,23). Only the fruitless branches are cast into the fire, the branches that produce fruit are pruned to produce more (Jn. 15:2). The person never "remained" in the vine, it is an active tense or an ongoing action. It is similar to the one who receives seed among stony places (Matt 13:20,21)...he has no root. The Gospel never really takes effect in their lives, their fruitless. I think you should have bolded this::)

John 15:16 - Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

So those who are saved are branches that aren't cast into the fire, because their fruit remain. :)

Romans 8:30 - Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This is a guarantee from the Lord Himself. :)

Hope this helps!:)

Love,
Madeline

The Parson
Feb 20th 2007, 02:48 PM
Just one thing I see a danger of here ProPet and BD... With the line of reasoning you're heading into, it may turn into a translators debate. Do you want to go down that road?

Amen Madeline!!!

ProjectPeter
Feb 20th 2007, 04:22 PM
Just one thing I see a danger of here ProPet and BD... With the line of reasoning you're heading into, it may turn into a translators debate. Do you want to go down that road?

Amen Madeline!!!Ha! We already did that! ;) You're a day late and a buck or so short! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Feb 20th 2007, 06:14 PM
Hi PP!:)

PP, I see the reason why some branches are cast into the fire to be burned is because they were never saved. Fruitless branches are a sign that they were never born again (Matt. 7:16,20; Gal. 5:22,23). Only the fruitless branches are cast into the fire, the branches that produce fruit are pruned to produce more (Jn. 15:2). The person never "remained" in the vine, it is an active tense or an ongoing action. It is similar to the one who receives seed among stony places (Matt 13:20,21)...he has no root. The Gospel never really takes effect in their lives, their fruitless. I think you should have bolded this::)

John 15:16 - Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

So those who are saved are branches that aren't cast into the fire, because their fruit remain. :)

Romans 8:30 - Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This is a guarantee from the Lord Himself. :)

Hope this helps!:)

Love,
MadelineAnd again that leaves us with the problem of how those branches are in Christ but not part of Christ. What you are saying in essence is that these weren't really branches to begin with because they didn't bear fruit. That is how you have to make it work in keeping with the analogy John used. And the fact remains that when Jesus says "abides in me" He is telling them that they must remain and it gets back to just plain common sense. How can someone remain in a place where they have never been (in Christ)? And if they have been "in Christ" then how do they pull this off being an unbeliever and all? Just as Jesus chose Judas... he was ultimately cut off because he didn't remain in Christ.

Explain it to me so I can make sense of this Madeline because really... it has to be made sense of if all this is going to work as you say.

Abide... we have already shown what it means and I'll do it again here.

continue: How can you continue with something if you never started that something?

dwell: How can you dwell somewhere if you have never been there?

endure: How can one endure something never started?

be present: How can one be present if they aren't even there in the first place?

remain: How can one remain in a place where they have never been?

How does this work if what you say is true?

ProjectPeter
Feb 20th 2007, 09:16 PM
And just a reminder about those Hebrew passages... post 158-161 when you get the time. Seems the other ones are winding down now and what can be said has been said.

*Madeline*
Feb 21st 2007, 12:59 AM
:wasup: PP!


And again that leaves us with the problem of how those branches are in Christ but not part of Christ. What you are saying in essence is that these weren't really branches to begin with because they didn't bear fruit. That is how you have to make it work in keeping with the analogy John used. And the fact remains that when Jesus says "abides in me" He is telling them that they must remain and it gets back to just plain common sense. How can someone remain in a place where they have never been (in Christ)? And if they have been "in Christ" then how do they pull this off being an unbeliever and all? Just as Jesus chose Judas... he was ultimately cut off because he didn't remain in Christ.

Explain it to me so I can make sense of this Madeline because really... it has to be made sense of if all this is going to work as you say.

Abide... we have already shown what it means and I'll do it again here.

continue: How can you continue with something if you never started that something?

dwell: How can you dwell somewhere if you have never been there?

endure: How can one endure something never started?

be present: How can one be present if they aren't even there in the first place?

remain: How can one remain in a place where they have never been?

How does this work if what you say is true?

John 15:6 - If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Ok, we have 2 types of branches. 1. A branch that "abideth in Him" (v.5) and as a result bringeth forth much fruit. 2. A branch that "does not abide in Him" and produces no fruit (without me ye can do nothing), this is cast into the fire. Branch number 2 is cast into the fire because it does not "abide" in Him. We have two entirely different branches--one that produces fruit and one that just withers away and cast into the fire by men. How can branch number 2 refer to saved people? Branch number 2 never is barren and can do nothing (v.5) because it does not "abide" in Christ. How would you explain that PP? How can branch number 2 refer to saved persons? And why does it say *men* gather the branches to be burned...not angels, or God? I look forward to your reply. :hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 21st 2007, 03:07 AM
:wasup: PP!



John 15:6 - If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Ok, we have 2 types of branches. 1. A branch that "abideth in Him" (v.5) and as a result bringeth forth much fruit. 2. A branch that "does not abide in Him" and produces no fruit (without me ye can do nothing), this is cast into the fire. Branch number 2 is cast into the fire because it does not "abide" in Him. We have two entirely different branches--one that produces fruit and one that just withers away and cast into the fire by men. How can branch number 2 refer to saved people? Branch number 2 never is barren and can do nothing (v.5) because it does not "abide" in Christ. How would you explain that PP? How can branch number 2 refer to saved persons? And why does it say *men* gather the branches to be burned...not angels, or God? I look forward to your reply. :hug:

Love,
MadelineI have explained it a number of times Madeline! The branch is IN HIM. It ain't an oak tree branch in the vine but the branch belongs to, is part of, (IN HIM) the vine. The only one can be part of (grafted in for us there Gentiles) is through believing in Him.

I have never said that the CUT OFF branches were saved Madeline. I've said they aren't saved. But while they are in the branch... they are partakers of the holy vine Christ... (in Him).

As to why it says men... it's an analogy using something they would all be familiar with Madeline.

I mean the kingdom of heaven isn't a mustard seed. You aren't a head of wheat. And as you were correct earlier when speaking of this... Jesus ain't a vine and you and I aren't branches sticking out of the vine.

*Madeline*
Feb 21st 2007, 08:11 PM
Hi PP!:)


I have explained it a number of times Madeline! The branch is IN HIM. It ain't an oak tree branch in the vine but the branch belongs to, is part of, (IN HIM) the vine. The only one can be part of (grafted in for us there Gentiles) is through believing in Him

Yes, the branch is "in Him". But the branches are followers, but not necessarily believers, in Christ. Therefore, the statement that it is "through believing in Him" is IMO completely incorrect. I think you are confusing this with the olive tree of Rom. 11. In that metaphor of the olive tree the branches were grafted in and represented believers, but the Vine is something different altogether. The branches are followers, which does not automatically mean that they were beleivers, as in the case of Judas.:)


I have never said that the CUT OFF branches were saved Madeline. I've said they aren't saved. But while they are in the branch... they are partakers of the holy vine Christ... (in Him)

The problem here again is that the Vine, unlike the olive tree has nothing to do with believers/saved. It has to do with followers. If those followers did not produce fruit that "remains" (i.e. other followers who were true believers) then they were cut off. But again, the branches of the Vine do not reperesent saved, they represent followers. Of course, some followers were saved because they believed, but not all followers of Christ were beleivers in Christ.


As to why it says men... it's an analogy using something they would all be familiar with Madeline.

I mean the kingdom of heaven isn't a mustard seed. You aren't a head of wheat. And as you were correct earlier when speaking of this... Jesus ain't a vine and you and I aren't branches sticking out of the vine.

Ok, "mustard seed", "wheat" etc. is not an "analogy", they are all metaphors. A metaphor is a figure of speech, which like all figures of speech are used to enhance a truth. The truth that each metaphor enhances is generally found in the context. The enhanced truth of the vine is that we can do nothing without Christ. In the context of Jn. 15 it refers to the fact that no one could get other followers to "remain:" in the vine apart from Christ's working in and through them. But "men" is not a metaphor and neither is it an analogy. How do we know that? (This is important, so please note.). We must take everything literally unless it is not possible. For example, we know that Christ was a Man, not a vine, therefore we cannot take it literally. But when scripture speaks of a man, that certainly can be taken literally and therefore must be taken as such, i.e. literally. Hope this helps PP :)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Feb 21st 2007, 10:31 PM
Hi PP!:)



Yes, the branch is "in Him". But the branches are followers, but not necessarily believers, in Christ. Therefore, the statement that it is "through believing in Him" is IMO completely incorrect. I think you are confusing this with the olive tree of Rom. 11. In that metaphor of the olive tree the branches were grafted in and represented believers, but the Vine is something different altogether. The branches are followers, which does not automatically mean that they were beleivers, as in the case of Judas.:)Um... you can't make that case from the text Madeline. The only way it can be done is to insert doctrine into the passage.

How can there be a branch in the "true vine" and the branch not be a true branch as well? I am not confusing the two at all however I figure they are similar enough. We can talk about that passage after this.



The problem here again is that the Vine, unlike the olive tree has nothing to do with believers/saved. It has to do with followers. If those followers did not produce fruit that "remains" (i.e. other followers who were true believers) then they were cut off. But again, the branches of the Vine do not reperesent saved, they represent followers. Of course, some followers were saved because they believed, but not all followers of Christ were beleivers in Christ.And again... there is nothing in the text that lends support to anything other than the branches were part of the true vine which is Christ. If they were followers then they aren't IN Christ... not a branch in the vine.


Ok, "mustard seed", "wheat" etc. is not an "analogy", they are all metaphors. A metaphor is a figure of speech, which like all figures of speech are used to enhance a truth. :rolleyes:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
analogy [(uh-nal-uh-jee)]

A comparison of two different things that are alike in some way (see metaphor and simile). An analogy attributed to Samuel Johnson is: “Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.”

Metaphor works... analogy works. The kingdom of heaven is like...... yet we know it isn't a mustard seed or a pearl of great price etc. Simply a comparison folks would understand. A metaphor well would fit the John passage better but the point is the same and that point is that it is making the comparison. Jesus ain't a vine and you and I aren't branches.


The truth that each metaphor enhances is generally found in the context. The enhanced truth of the vine is that we can do nothing without Christ. In the context of Jn. 15 it refers to the fact that no one could get other followers to "remain:" in the vine apart from Christ's working in and through them. But "men" is not a metaphor and neither is it an analogy. How do we know that? (This is important, so please note.). We must take everything literally unless it is not possible. For example, we know that Christ was a Man, not a vine, therefore we cannot take it literally. But when scripture speaks of a man, that certainly can be taken literally and therefore must be taken as such, i.e. literally. Hope this helps PP :)

Love,
MadelineIn making the case for them being gathered and burned... what else could Jesus use other than a man gathering the sticks? It was men that worked the vineyards and that was part of the analogy. If he'd of used a fox it would have made a great fable perhaps... but it would have sounded pretty goofy.

Here Madeline... let's put this to test.

Matthew 13:24 ¶He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 "But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away.
26 "But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.
27 "And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?´
28 "And he said to them, `An enemy has done this!´ And the slaves said to him, `Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?´
29 "But he said, `No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 `Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."´"

Now... everything in this can be taken literal according to your standard. The seed... literal. The landowner... the slaves... and the reaper the field. All can be literal because that describes perfectly a farm and the farm-hands. Yet we know it ain't to be taken as such.

Matthew 13:36 ¶Then He left the multitudes, and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."
37 And He answered and said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
40 "Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.
41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

We could do this all day I figure but hopefully you get the point. ;)

*Madeline*
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:47 PM
Hi PP!:)

I've been thinking long and hard which is why I haven't responded in a while. I prepared a thesis on John 15 and what it means to abide in the vine. I will post it later.:)

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:58 PM
That's cool! When you're ready! Look forward to it.

*Madeline*
Mar 3rd 2007, 12:44 AM
Hi PP!:)

Thanks for taking your time with me and taking time out to respond.


That's cool! When you're ready! Look forward to it.

This is an exegesis of the word "abide" and how it pertains to John 15. So let's see what (meno), "abide," means in context in the NT, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense in John 15, and seeing what it means to abide in Christ. The vine pericope in John 15 is examined at the conclusion of this study, after the 120 uses of meno in the NT have been cataloged and commented upon.

John 15:1-11 exegeted (cf. v. 16's use of meno).

1* ¶ I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
TR egw eimi h ampelov h alhyinh kai o pathr mou o gewrgov estin

The Lord here sets up the comparison He will maintain through the following pericope.

2* Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
TR pan klhma en emoi mh feron karpon airei auto kai pan to karpon feron kayairei auto ina pleiona karpon ferh

The Lord's statement that branches "in me" can be removed is the best attempt in this text to affirm Arminianism. However, these branches are not those who have been regenerated and then fall away from that state—they are those who were never numbered among God's elect. All the elect will bring forth fruit, John 15:16, and, since they have the Holy Ghost in them, they will certainly abide, 1 John 2:27, or, employing two of the synonyms of abide in the New Testament, they will infallible continue or persevere in Christ and in obedience. The fact that the Lord refers to these unregenerate individuals as en emoi, "in me," does not necessitate their genuine regeneration. All the nation of Israel were the seed of Abraham, but the unbelievers were cut off from the nation (Ex. 30:33; Lev. 19:8; 20:17; etc.), so that, whilst nationally "in the Lord," only the believing seed is "in the Lord" in a deeper sense (Isa. 45:17, 24-25). One could compare the interplay between national Israel, the Israel of God, and the Lord Jesus as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 41:8; 44:1, 21; 45:4; 49:3-7; 52:13-53:12) or the Lord Jesus as the elect One and Israel as elect in Him (Isai. 42:1; 45:4; 65:9, 22). The entire nation of Israel constituted the people of God, but in a deeper sense, only the believing Israelites, only the Israel of God, constituted the genuine people of God (Rom. 9:6ff). In the same way, all those who are members of the church are, in a certain sense, associated with the people of God, but they are not all regenerate. The church at Corinth was the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), but some members of the church were unregenerate (1 Cor. 15:12, 34; 2 Cor. 13:5). Since the institution of the local church is the body of Christ, unregenerate church members are part of Christ's body, and thus are, in a certain sense, in Christ. Such, however, are not truly in Him, not truly united to Him, not genuinely en Christo. Contextually in John 15, Judas has just gone into outward apostasy, having left to betray the Lord to His enemies (John 13:26-30). He had been part of the pre-Pentecost church, that first church established by the Lord when He called the first baptized disciples to be with Him (John 1:35ff.); indeed, Judas had been an apostle in the Lord's church (Mark 3:13-19), although he was never chosen to everlasting life (John 6:64, 70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2). The unregenerate "branch" in the Lord cannot bear (pheron, present tense) fruit because it has never had a living connection to Christ (John 15:5). Therefore this branch is "taken away," that is, it is eventually cut off from even its outward connection to the church and people of God, as Judas was, and is cast into hell. In contrast, the Father, the husbandman (v. 1, cf. 1 Cor. 3:9; Isai. 5:1-2; 27:2-3) takes the branch that is vitally connected to the vine, and works in this person's life by "pruning" him so that he will bear even more fruit. The fruit-bearing for the one with genuine spiritual life is certain, as is the fact that the unconverted will not bear fruit and will be cut off. We can see in this verse the perseverance of the saints, by divine grace, and the inability of the unregenerate to persevere (1 John 2:19).

John 13:10 - Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
TR hdh umeiv kayaroi este dia ton logon on lelalhka umin

The Lord had stated in John 13:10 that they were clean, but not all; but now Judas having been separated from the church, all to whom the Lord spoke were now clean. They were all washed (Jn. 13:10, perfect tense) through the agency of the word spoken (here in v. 3, likewise perfect tense), so that they were justified by Christ's righteousness at the point of faith in His promise, with continuing results in their eternal security, so that now the work of progressive sanctification, of having their feet washed, 13:10, was all that remained, since they were clean every whit. Clean here and purge in v. 2 are the noun and verb forms, respectively, of katharos. God the Father continues sanctifying (v.2, purgeth) the one who is clean (v. 3) through justification.

4* Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
TR meinate en emoi kagw en umin kaywv to klhma ou dunatai karpon ferein af eautou ean mh meinh en th ampelw outwv oude umeiv ean mh
en emoi meinhte

The aorist imperative "abide" here indicates the characteristic of the whole life of the saint, not a momentary action, or repeated points of faith-decisions to surrender to Christ; cf. the aorists of meno in Matt. 10:11; 26:38; Jn. 1:32. Commenting on the like form in v. 9, A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures stated that meinate is a "Constative first aorist active imperative of meno, summing up the whole." A similar aorist for keeping Christ's commandments appears in John 14:15. Remaining/continuing/persevering/abiding as a characteristic of the whole life is the mark of the genuine convert, John 8:31, who will do so, for Christ and the Spirit dwell/abide in him, and thus make certain his continued perseverance/abiding, 1 John 2:24, 27. "Abide in me" means to continue in Christ's word and commandments, v. 7,10, to remain united to Him. The true convert, because he is in Christ and Christ is in him, will persevere in unity with the Lord, and one would expect him to remain in unity with His church, which is His body, as well. No spiritual fruit, no good works, are possible without a living union to Christ, without abiding/dwelling in Him, a state brought about by regeneration (cf. also Hos. 14:8; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:11). On its own, "the branch cannot bear fruit of itself," for the unregenerate man cannot in any way please God (Rom. 8:7-8). However, saints can and do bear fruit, for they do abide or dwell in Christ. That Christ commands His saints to abide or endure in Him does not require the possibility that they will fail to do so; rather, as we have seen, their continuing to abide is guaranteed by the Spirit’s dwelling or abiding in them (1 John 2:24, 27). Only those who overcome will enter into life (Rev. 2:7, 10, 17, 26; 3:21), but all believers will overcome (1 Jn. 5:5; 4:4). Their continuing to abide in Christ is as certain as Christ's continuing to abide or dwell in them. Note that Christ was in them; contast Judas, who had Satan in him (6:70; 13:27), and consequently went into open apostasy. Christ is in His saints, and there He controls them and leads them to do righteousness and continue faithful to His Words, so they will not go into apostasy, but will abide in Him. The Lord Jesus does this in part through His sending of the Spirit, the Paraclete who is such a prominent part of the discourse of John 14-16, which surrounds the teaching of John 15:1ff, and the Lord also guarantees their perseverance through His high priestly ministry (John 17) (in the immediately following context of John 15), which guarantees both their perseverance unto eternal life (John
17:24) and their perseverance in obedience (John 17:17).

5* I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
TR egw eimi h ampelov umeiv ta klhmata o menwn en emoi kagw en autw outov ferei karpon polun oti cwriv emou ou dunasye poiein ouden

The believer, who will abide (present tense) or remain faithful to Christ's Word and commandments as a pattern of his life, will bring forth much fruit; good works are the certain consequence of spiritual union with Christ (Jn. 12:24-26; Mk. 8:34-36; Matt. 13:23; Rom. 6:22; Gal. 5:18-24; Eph.s 2:10; Col. 1:6). In contrast, the unregenerate man cannot bear any spiritual fruit or do any good works.

6* If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
TR ean mh tiv meinh en emoi eblhyh exw wv to klhma kai exhranyh kai sunagousin auta kai eiv pur ballousin kai kaietai

The one who does not, as a summary of his life, abide (aorist tense) or continue faithful to Christ is, as a branch without genuine connection to the Lord, and one consequently with only an outward profession of Christianity, cast into hell fire, where he will be continually burned (present tense) for all eternity. The present tense of ballo, in "cast" them into the fire, to refer to the unconverted being cast into eternal torment, in association with a similar plant and fruit-bearing image as here, is found in Matt. 3:10; 7:19; Lk. 3:9. These unregenerate, apostate, "withered" and fruitless branches (cf. Jude 12; Job 8:11-13; James 1:11), of which Judas is the contextual example, are often "cast forth" (also ballo, here aorist, as in Mk. 9:45, 47; Rev. 20:15, etc.) in a certain sense in this life, through outward apostasy from the church, to which they had been outwardly united, whether voluntarily or through church discipline, but their ultimate rejection and separation from the elect will take place at the day of judgment. At that time the wheat and chaff, the branches truly united to Christ and those only professedly so, will be "gathered" (sunago, cf. Matt. 3:12; 13:30; 25:32; Lk. 3:17) to their respective destinies of eternal joy and torment. The branches without union to Christ will glorify God's justice in their miserable damnation; they will not glorify them here by good works, but they will glorify Him in their burning (Ezek. 15:2-5; Rom. 9:22). Christ in this verse says "if a man" abide not, rather than "if ye abide not," for, Judas having been separated from them, the remaining disciples were all genuine believers.

7* If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
TR ean meinhte en emoi kai ta rhmata mou en umin meinh o ean yelhte aithsesye kai genhsetai umin

This verse helps us to understand the character of abiding in Christ; it is related to Christ’s words abiding in one. Christ’s own receive His words (John 17:8). Here again the aorists represent the characteristic of a whole life. The promise, "ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done," shows that the Lord will answer the prayer of His children. Amen!

8* Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
TR en toutw edoxasyh o pathr mou ina karpon polun ferhte kai genhsesye emoi mayhtai

They already were His disciples, having become such at the moment of their conversion, but their bearing much fruit would evidence this. It is not an uncertain event; by bearing fruit, they "shall" certainly be His disciples in the future, as they certainly were at that tiem. The Father is certain to receive such glory from them, because the ones He has chosen unto life He has also chosen unto fruitfulness, v. 16. For this purpose of fruitbearing the Father prunes them, v. 2. Since they were good trees, with living connection to Christ, they would bear good fruit as evidence thereof (Luke 6:43-45).

9* ¶ As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
TR kaywv hgaphsen me o pathr kagw hgaphsa umav meinate en th agaph th emh

They were to abide or continue faithful, continue to love Christ, for "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha" (1 Cor. 16:22). That the aorist of meno in this pericope represents a characteristic of what is true in general and at all times, rather than the simple action of a particular point in time, is evidences in this verse. The Father's love for His Son is certainly something true always, not something restricted to a particular moment, but it receives an aorist in this verse, as does Christ's love for His elect, which is likewise unrestricted temporally; so we would expect the same sort of aorist for "continue/abide" here in relation to the action of the disciples.

10* If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
TR ean tav entolav mou thrhshte meneite en th agaph mou kaywv egw tav entolav tou patrov mou tethrhka kai menw autou en th agaph

Genuine converts will keep His commandments, and thus evidence their continuing love for Christ, as He continues to love them, John 14:21, 23. Christ's obedience manifested His love for the Father (cf. 14:31) and His Father's love for Him as the sinless Messiah and Mediator, and His eternal Son. The Savior showed He loved the Father by persevering or abiding obedience; so do the saints show their love.

11* These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
TR tauta lelalhka umin ina h cara h emh en umin meinh kai h cara umwn plhrwyh

This symbol of the vine was revealed by the Lord so that His joy might remain/continue/abide in His saints, and they might have full joy. Both things are certain for the saint as a characteristic of life, for the aorist verbs are of the same sort as those earlier in the passage. cf. John 17:13; 16:24. Their abiding obedience and fellowship with their Lord, which would take place through the Comforter Christ would send upon leaving them, and as the Spirit would abide in them, He would bring them joy (Acts 13:52; Gal. 5:22). Hope this helps!:) :hug:

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Mar 3rd 2007, 04:39 PM
Hi PP!:)

Thanks for taking your time with me and taking time out to respond.



This is an exegesis of the word "abide" and how it pertains to John 15. So let's see what (meno), "abide," means in context in the NT, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense in John 15, and seeing what it means to abide in Christ. The vine pericope in John 15 is examined at the conclusion of this study, after the 120 uses of meno in the NT have been cataloged and commented upon.

John 15:1-11 exegeted (cf. v. 16's use of meno).

1* ¶ I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
TR egw eimi h ampelov h alhyinh kai o pathr mou o gewrgov estin

The Lord here sets up the comparison He will maintain through the following pericope.

2* Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
TR pan klhma en emoi mh feron karpon airei auto kai pan to karpon feron kayairei auto ina pleiona karpon ferh

The Lord's statement that branches "in me" can be removed is the best attempt in this text to affirm Arminianism. However, these branches are not those who have been regenerated and then fall away from that state—they are those who were never numbered among God's elect. All the elect will bring forth fruit, John 15:16, and, since they have the Holy Ghost in them, they will certainly abide, 1 John 2:27, or, employing two of the synonyms of abide in the New Testament, they will infallible continue or persevere in Christ and in obedience. The fact that the Lord refers to these unregenerate individuals as en emoi, "in me," does not necessitate their genuine regeneration. All the nation of Israel were the seed of Abraham, but the unbelievers were cut off from the nation (Ex. 30:33; Lev. 19:8; 20:17; etc.), so that, whilst nationally "in the Lord," only the believing seed is "in the Lord" in a deeper sense (Isa. 45:17, 24-25). One could compare the interplay between national Israel, the Israel of God, and the Lord Jesus as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 41:8; 44:1, 21; 45:4; 49:3-7; 52:13-53:12) or the Lord Jesus as the elect One and Israel as elect in Him (Isai. 42:1; 45:4; 65:9, 22). The entire nation of Israel constituted the people of God, but in a deeper sense, only the believing Israelites, only the Israel of God, constituted the genuine people of God (Rom. 9:6ff). In the same way, all those who are members of the church are, in a certain sense, associated with the people of God, but they are not all regenerate. The church at Corinth was the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), but some members of the church were unregenerate (1 Cor. 15:12, 34; 2 Cor. 13:5). Since the institution of the local church is the body of Christ, unregenerate church members are part of Christ's body, and thus are, in a certain sense, in Christ. Such, however, are not truly in Him, not truly united to Him, not genuinely en Christo. Contextually in John 15, Judas has just gone into outward apostasy, having left to betray the Lord to His enemies (John 13:26-30). He had been part of the pre-Pentecost church, that first church established by the Lord when He called the first baptized disciples to be with Him (John 1:35ff.); indeed, Judas had been an apostle in the Lord's church (Mark 3:13-19), although he was never chosen to everlasting life (John 6:64, 70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2). The unregenerate "branch" in the Lord cannot bear (pheron, present tense) fruit because it has never had a living connection to Christ (John 15:5). Therefore this branch is "taken away," that is, it is eventually cut off from even its outward connection to the church and people of God, as Judas was, and is cast into hell. In contrast, the Father, the husbandman (v. 1, cf. 1 Cor. 3:9; Isai. 5:1-2; 27:2-3) takes the branch that is vitally connected to the vine, and works in this person's life by "pruning" him so that he will bear even more fruit. The fruit-bearing for the one with genuine spiritual life is certain, as is the fact that the unconverted will not bear fruit and will be cut off. We can see in this verse the perseverance of the saints, by divine grace, and the inability of the unregenerate to persevere (1 John 2:19).

John 13:10 - Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
TR hdh umeiv kayaroi este dia ton logon on lelalhka umin

The Lord had stated in John 13:10 that they were clean, but not all; but now Judas having been separated from the church, all to whom the Lord spoke were now clean. They were all washed (Jn. 13:10, perfect tense) through the agency of the word spoken (here in v. 3, likewise perfect tense), so that they were justified by Christ's righteousness at the point of faith in His promise, with continuing results in their eternal security, so that now the work of progressive sanctification, of having their feet washed, 13:10, was all that remained, since they were clean every whit. Clean here and purge in v. 2 are the noun and verb forms, respectively, of katharos. God the Father continues sanctifying (v.2, purgeth) the one who is clean (v. 3) through justification.

4* Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
TR meinate en emoi kagw en umin kaywv to klhma ou dunatai karpon ferein af eautou ean mh meinh en th ampelw outwv oude umeiv ean mh
en emoi meinhte

The aorist imperative "abide" here indicates the characteristic of the whole life of the saint, not a momentary action, or repeated points of faith-decisions to surrender to Christ; cf. the aorists of meno in Matt. 10:11; 26:38; Jn. 1:32. Commenting on the like form in v. 9, A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures stated that meinate is a "Constative first aorist active imperative of meno, summing up the whole." A similar aorist for keeping Christ's commandments appears in John 14:15. Remaining/continuing/persevering/abiding as a characteristic of the whole life is the mark of the genuine convert, John 8:31, who will do so, for Christ and the Spirit dwell/abide in him, and thus make certain his continued perseverance/abiding, 1 John 2:24, 27. "Abide in me" means to continue in Christ's word and commandments, v. 7,10, to remain united to Him. The true convert, because he is in Christ and Christ is in him, will persevere in unity with the Lord, and one would expect him to remain in unity with His church, which is His body, as well. No spiritual fruit, no good works, are possible without a living union to Christ, without abiding/dwelling in Him, a state brought about by regeneration (cf. also Hos. 14:8; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:11). On its own, "the branch cannot bear fruit of itself," for the unregenerate man cannot in any way please God (Rom. 8:7-8). However, saints can and do bear fruit, for they do abide or dwell in Christ. That Christ commands His saints to abide or endure in Him does not require the possibility that they will fail to do so; rather, as we have seen, their continuing to abide is guaranteed by the Spirit’s dwelling or abiding in them (1 John 2:24, 27). Only those who overcome will enter into life (Rev. 2:7, 10, 17, 26; 3:21), but all believers will overcome (1 Jn. 5:5; 4:4). Their continuing to abide in Christ is as certain as Christ's continuing to abide or dwell in them. Note that Christ was in them; contast Judas, who had Satan in him (6:70; 13:27), and consequently went into open apostasy. Christ is in His saints, and there He controls them and leads them to do righteousness and continue faithful to His Words, so they will not go into apostasy, but will abide in Him. The Lord Jesus does this in part through His sending of the Spirit, the Paraclete who is such a prominent part of the discourse of John 14-16, which surrounds the teaching of John 15:1ff, and the Lord also guarantees their perseverance through His high priestly ministry (John 17) (in the immediately following context of John 15), which guarantees both their perseverance unto eternal life (John
17:24) and their perseverance in obedience (John 17:17).

5* I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
TR egw eimi h ampelov umeiv ta klhmata o menwn en emoi kagw en autw outov ferei karpon polun oti cwriv emou ou dunasye poiein ouden

The believer, who will abide (present tense) or remain faithful to Christ's Word and commandments as a pattern of his life, will bring forth much fruit; good works are the certain consequence of spiritual union with Christ (Jn. 12:24-26; Mk. 8:34-36; Matt. 13:23; Rom. 6:22; Gal. 5:18-24; Eph.s 2:10; Col. 1:6). In contrast, the unregenerate man cannot bear any spiritual fruit or do any good works.

6* If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
TR ean mh tiv meinh en emoi eblhyh exw wv to klhma kai exhranyh kai sunagousin auta kai eiv pur ballousin kai kaietai

The one who does not, as a summary of his life, abide (aorist tense) or continue faithful to Christ is, as a branch without genuine connection to the Lord, and one consequently with only an outward profession of Christianity, cast into hell fire, where he will be continually burned (present tense) for all eternity. The present tense of ballo, in "cast" them into the fire, to refer to the unconverted being cast into eternal torment, in association with a similar plant and fruit-bearing image as here, is found in Matt. 3:10; 7:19; Lk. 3:9. These unregenerate, apostate, "withered" and fruitless branches (cf. Jude 12; Job 8:11-13; James 1:11), of which Judas is the contextual example, are often "cast forth" (also ballo, here aorist, as in Mk. 9:45, 47; Rev. 20:15, etc.) in a certain sense in this life, through outward apostasy from the church, to which they had been outwardly united, whether voluntarily or through church discipline, but their ultimate rejection and separation from the elect will take place at the day of judgment. At that time the wheat and chaff, the branches truly united to Christ and those only professedly so, will be "gathered" (sunago, cf. Matt. 3:12; 13:30; 25:32; Lk. 3:17) to their respective destinies of eternal joy and torment. The branches without union to Christ will glorify God's justice in their miserable damnation; they will not glorify them here by good works, but they will glorify Him in their burning (Ezek. 15:2-5; Rom. 9:22). Christ in this verse says "if a man" abide not, rather than "if ye abide not," for, Judas having been separated from them, the remaining disciples were all genuine believers.

7* If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
TR ean meinhte en emoi kai ta rhmata mou en umin meinh o ean yelhte aithsesye kai genhsetai umin

This verse helps us to understand the character of abiding in Christ; it is related to Christ’s words abiding in one. Christ’s own receive His words (John 17:8). Here again the aorists represent the characteristic of a whole life. The promise, "ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done," shows that the Lord will answer the prayer of His children. Amen!

8* Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
TR en toutw edoxasyh o pathr mou ina karpon polun ferhte kai genhsesye emoi mayhtai

They already were His disciples, having become such at the moment of their conversion, but their bearing much fruit would evidence this. It is not an uncertain event; by bearing fruit, they "shall" certainly be His disciples in the future, as they certainly were at that tiem. The Father is certain to receive such glory from them, because the ones He has chosen unto life He has also chosen unto fruitfulness, v. 16. For this purpose of fruitbearing the Father prunes them, v. 2. Since they were good trees, with living connection to Christ, they would bear good fruit as evidence thereof (Luke 6:43-45).

9* ¶ As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
TR kaywv hgaphsen me o pathr kagw hgaphsa umav meinate en th agaph th emh

They were to abide or continue faithful, continue to love Christ, for "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha" (1 Cor. 16:22). That the aorist of meno in this pericope represents a characteristic of what is true in general and at all times, rather than the simple action of a particular point in time, is evidences in this verse. The Father's love for His Son is certainly something true always, not something restricted to a particular moment, but it receives an aorist in this verse, as does Christ's love for His elect, which is likewise unrestricted temporally; so we would expect the same sort of aorist for "continue/abide" here in relation to the action of the disciples.

10* If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
TR ean tav entolav mou thrhshte meneite en th agaph mou kaywv egw tav entolav tou patrov mou tethrhka kai menw autou en th agaph

Genuine converts will keep His commandments, and thus evidence their continuing love for Christ, as He continues to love them, John 14:21, 23. Christ's obedience manifested His love for the Father (cf. 14:31) and His Father's love for Him as the sinless Messiah and Mediator, and His eternal Son. The Savior showed He loved the Father by persevering or abiding obedience; so do the saints show their love.

11* These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
TR tauta lelalhka umin ina h cara h emh en umin meinh kai h cara umwn plhrwyh

This symbol of the vine was revealed by the Lord so that His joy might remain/continue/abide in His saints, and they might have full joy. Both things are certain for the saint as a characteristic of life, for the aorist verbs are of the same sort as those earlier in the passage. cf. John 17:13; 16:24. Their abiding obedience and fellowship with their Lord, which would take place through the Comforter Christ would send upon leaving them, and as the Spirit would abide in them, He would bring them joy (Acts 13:52; Gal. 5:22). Hope this helps!:) :hug:

Love,
MadelineAnd again we still have a problem even in how you pitch this.

You agree that the 11 left were saved... true branches in the true vine. You say that the other branches in the "true vine" aren't true branches and you use Judas as your example.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you.
8 "By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14 "You are My friends, if you do what I command you.

Why is Jesus telling this to the true branches? Why the conditions if as true branches... those washed clean now... if it was automatic that they would abide in Him? Jesus is giving these guys direction... a command. Abide in me and I in you. If you do... anything you ask I will give it to you. If you do not... you'll be cut off just like the branch that I spoke of just a few seconds ago.

I can't help but to see what the clear text says. If we don't insert anything else in there... if we want to understand the simple text as written... that's where it takes us.

*Madeline*
Mar 9th 2007, 11:52 PM
Hi PP!:spin:


And again we still have a problem even in how you pitch this.

You agree that the 11 left were saved... true branches in the true vine. You say that the other branches in the "true vine" aren't true branches and you use Judas as your example.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you.
8 "By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14 "You are My friends, if you do what I command you.

Why is Jesus telling this to the true branches? Why the conditions if as true branches... those washed clean now... if it was automatic that they would abide in Him? Jesus is giving these guys direction... a command. Abide in me and I in you. If you do... anything you ask I will give it to you. If you do not... you'll be cut off just like the branch that I spoke of just a few seconds ago.

I can't help but to see what the clear text says. If we don't insert anything else in there... if we want to understand the simple text as written... that's where it takes us.

Either those "in Christ" (fruitless branches) are cast into hell as believers or they're not saved at all. Since you won't accept that that they are unbelievers, let's see if your argument actually fits within the context.

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

God doesn't cast these believers aside--men do. It doesn't say they are burned in Hell. What this passage could be teaching--and it IS referring to those "In Christ" - is that the only way we can produce fruit that will remain and glorify God is if we abide in Christ. If we tell others we are Christians, and we are not abiding in Christ, then men will cast us aside as useless, cast aside our testimony as vain and useless. So does men casting these branches into the fire represent believers being cast into hell? Men don't cast people into hell, God does.

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Mar 12th 2007, 12:09 AM
Hi PP!:spin:



Either those "in Christ" (fruitless branches) are cast into hell as believers or they're not saved at all. Since you won't accept that that they are unbelievers, let's see if your argument actually fits within the context.

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

God doesn't cast these believers aside--men do. It doesn't say they are burned in Hell. What this passage could be teaching--and it IS referring to those "In Christ" - is that the only way we can produce fruit that will remain and glorify God is if we abide in Christ. If we tell others we are Christians, and we are not abiding in Christ, then men will cast us aside as useless, cast aside our testimony as vain and useless. So does men casting these branches into the fire represent believers being cast into hell? Men don't cast people into hell, God does.

Love,
Madeline

Um... and Jesus ain't a vine and you and I aren't a branch Madeline. We've already been down this road a time or two eh?

You wanna take a stab at those Hebrew passages maybe?

*Madeline*
Mar 12th 2007, 03:45 AM
Hi again PP!:)


Um... and Jesus ain't a vine and you and I aren't a branch Madeline. We've already been down this road a time or two eh?

You wanna take a stab at those Hebrew passages maybe?

Biblical passages are to be interpreted literally, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. The context clearly show us who the branches were - true believers in Christ. Why shouldn't the "men" in verse 6 not be literal? hmmm... If they aren't men, how else would you determine the conext of that passage? by guessing?;) I think anyone with common sense can see for themself that men here refers to literal men in this context. So how can men cast believers into hell?;)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Mar 12th 2007, 01:36 PM
Madeline.... It was a parable about a vineyard. It would have been sort of retarded to say that the branches cut themselves off, laid their dried up and then jumped in the fire. Vineyards don't work like that and the parable wouldn't have made much sense to anyone eh?

Again I gave you another parable as an example before... Jesus already shot down your rule of thinking here.

Matthew 13:24 ¶He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 "But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away.
26 "But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.
27 "And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?´
28 "And he said to them, `An enemy has done this!´ And the slaves said to him, `Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?´
29 "But he said, `No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 `Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."´"

Matthew 13:36 ¶Then He left the multitudes, and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."
37 And He answered and said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
40 "Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.
41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Jesus ain't planting real seed in a field.
You ain't a seed.
The world ain't a garden.
The devil isn't really a gardner either.
And angels aren't reapers in a wheat field.

I am honestly amazed that you would even take this avenue because it just makes no sense but hey... that happens. As I said... we've already been here, done this and not that many post back.

Now... about those Hebrews passages? ;)

*Madeline*
Mar 12th 2007, 01:50 PM
Hi PP! :)

I find it fascinating that you're amazed. If "men" does not mean men in the Vine and the branches which BTW, I don't believe to be a parable for several reasons (a certain man...etc)--then what does men here indicate? The bible is to be interpreted literally unless "context" states otherwise. Men means men unless by your guesswork you can prove otherwise. So do men cast other men into hell? I am repeating myself because you have yet to respond to this. Sooooo, can I get a vaild response?:)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Mar 12th 2007, 02:24 PM
You have gotten a valid response. It is a parable. Just as the other example I gave was a parable Madeline. You are taking what makes the parable make sense... and trying to take it somewhere odd. And again... we've discussed this passage over and over again... why do you not want to discuss those passages in Hebrews? I mean seriously... you, as did everyone else in this discussion, avoid that like the plaque. Why?

*Madeline*
Mar 12th 2007, 08:48 PM
Hi PP!:D



Jesus ain't planting real seed in a field.
You ain't a seed.
The world ain't a garden.
The devil isn't really a gardner either.
And angels aren't reapers in a wheat field.



Hmmmmm...........No, I am not a seed, however the "angels" who are reapers are in fact "angels." Context determines the proper interpretation. See for yourself.

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Matthew 13:38-41 - The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Are the angels angels or are they something else? And who is the Son of Man? Angels are angels, The Son of Man is the Son of Man, context rules. Men are men in the "Vine and the Branches." If they're not men, then what are they?

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Mar 12th 2007, 09:00 PM
Just as the reapers are the angels... men would fill the same bill. The passage goes with many such as that where they are gathered Madeline. Had Jesus not explained that parable... shouldn't need to explain the one in John... you'd have to take that same approach as literal. That is my point and if you want to read that as a literal man then again... up to you.

The Hebrews passages?

Faithwalker
Mar 16th 2007, 04:09 PM
That was some interesting and amusing reading, especially the "Jesus ain't a vine and you and I aren't branches sticking out of the vine."

Sorry for intruding on your serious discussion...its just that ...well you do have a way with words Peter! :lol:


The Spirits exegesis of "abide" does`nt require an exegesis. :saint:

The Spirit said, “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Hebrews 3:14).

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 06:00 PM
Faithwalker


The Spirit said, “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Hebrews 3:14).

17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?

Partaking of Christ; is to enter his rest;

This is not a referance to salvation rather a postision of rest and blessing that a faithful believer may enter into.

The doctrine of the "Rest of Christ" and blessing that go with that; is missed if one shoves salvation into where it is not the subject.

ProjectPeter
Mar 16th 2007, 06:31 PM
Faithwalker


17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?

Partaking of Christ; is to enter his rest;

This is not a referance to salvation rather a postision of rest and blessing that a faithful believer may enter into.

The doctrine of the "Rest of Christ" and blessing that go with that; is missed if one shoves salvation into where it is not the subject.
Post 158-161... wanna discuss Hebrews? ;)

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 10:11 PM
ProjectPeter


Post 158-161... wanna discuss Hebrews? Want to discuss doctrine :)?

You have *Madeline* for line upon line plowing.

I wish to see the connecting doctrines and promises of a certain viewpoint..
This you have failed to show in any form.

Like;

How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit the Good shepherd?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit imputation of Righteousness?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit the second birth?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit grace, and much more grace?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit salvation being the work of Christ the starter and completer of our faith.

*Madeline*
Jun 21st 2007, 08:44 PM
I'm back PP!:):):)

I want to focus on this one verse and take it one step at a time without jumping all over the place.;)

1 John 5:18 - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Are you familar with the progressive tense? It is when we say for example, "he is sinning" implying that he continues in sin. That is what 1 Jn. 5:18 state In other words John is saying here. So according to 1 Jn. 3:6 and 9 and 5:18, born again persons do not continue to live in sin.

Btw, the believer does not live in continuous sin, therefore those who do live in continuous sin are not believers. And we can't use the argument of "how long does the believer not continue to live in sin?" Where God does not put a time limit, we should not add to the Word of God.

So, how do you get the possiblility of a born again person losing their salvation if that verse suggests that believers do not sin continuously? Remember, I want to take this one verse at a time.;):)

Love,
Madeline

ProjectPeter
Jun 21st 2007, 11:53 PM
ProjectPeter

Want to discuss doctrine :)?

You have *Madeline* for line upon line plowing.

I wish to see the connecting doctrines and promises of a certain viewpoint..
This you have failed to show in any form.

Like;

How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit the Good shepherd?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit imputation of Righteousness?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit the second birth?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit grace, and much more grace?
How does the doctrine of NOSAS fit salvation being the work of Christ the starter and completer of our faith.
Just now saw this... and nah. Not interested in talking about man made doctrine. If it ain't in the book then reject it. That is the best advice I can give you and anyone else who might actually still be reading along.

ProjectPeter
Jun 22nd 2007, 12:03 AM
I'm back PP!:):):)

I want to focus on this one verse and take it one step at a time without jumping all over the place.;)

1 John 5:18 - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Are you familar with the progressive tense? It is when we say for example, "he is sinning" implying that he continues in sin. That is what 1 Jn. 5:18 state In other words John is saying here. So according to 1 Jn. 3:6 and 9 and 5:18, born again persons do not continue to live in sin.

Btw, the believer does not live in continuous sin, therefore those who do live in continuous sin are not believers. And we can't use the argument of "how long does the believer not continue to live in sin?" Where God does not put a time limit, we should not add to the Word of God.

So, how do you get the possiblility of a born again person losing their salvation if that verse suggests that believers do not sin continuously? Remember, I want to take this one verse at a time.;):)

Love,
Madeline
Shoot! Better late than never although you sure enough put a new twist on that saying! :lol:

They aren't believers. If one started out as such and turned from God then they are no longer believers. Hence the whole not saved anymore concept. Not sure what you figure you are seeing here. John makes it clear earlier that those who practice sin are of the devil and not God.

diffangle
Jun 22nd 2007, 05:34 PM
1 John 5 starts with the believer's action of keeping His commandments...

1Jo 5:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=2&version=kjv#2)By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.
1Jo 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

There's action involved on the believer's part. The end of the chapter even warns us of the possibility of believer's breaking a command showing that there is action required of us...

1Jo 5:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=21&version=kjv#21)Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.


1 John 5:18 - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The word keepeth here means to attend to carefully, take care of, to guard... that means He requires action on our parts or else we are opening ourselves up to the wicked one, thus risking loss of salvation. :o

*Madeline*
Jun 22nd 2007, 06:04 PM
Hello!:)


1 John 5 starts with the believer's action of keeping His commandments...

1Jo 5:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=2&version=kjv#2)By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.
1Jo 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

There's action involved on the believer's part. The end of the chapter even warns us of the possibility of believer's breaking a command showing that there is action required of us...

1Jo 5:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=21&version=kjv#21)Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.


1 John 5:18 - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The word keepeth here means to attend to carefully, take care of, to guard... that means He requires action on our parts or else we are opening ourselves up to the wicked one, thus risking loss of salvation. :o

"Keepeth" (tereo) himself, how? because he is "born of God.":) And whosoever is born of God "sinneth not" (present active indicative) which is an ongoing tense.:) The one "born of God" is "kept" by the power of God (cf. 1 Pet. 1:5).:) The believer does not overcome sin on his own strength (Phil. 4:13), but through Christ in them.:)

Love,
Madeline:)

*Madeline*
Jun 22nd 2007, 06:49 PM
Shoot! Better late than never although you sure enough put a new twist on that saying! :lol:

They aren't believers. If one started out as such and turned from God then they are no longer believers. Hence the whole not saved anymore concept. Not sure what you figure you are seeing here. John makes it clear earlier that those who practice sin are of the devil and not God.

I'm not ignoring you PP...I just don't think I can strip you of that Heavy duty NOSAS armor you have in the arena not matter how hard I try.:P I think you are pre-committed to your theological position which is why I say this. :)

Love,
Madeline

diffangle
Jun 22nd 2007, 09:58 PM
Hello!:)



"Keepeth" (tereo) himself, how? because he is "born of God.":) And whosoever is born of God "sinneth not" (present active indicative) which is an ongoing tense.:) The one "born of God" is "kept" by the power of God (cf. 1 Pet. 1:5).:) The believer does not overcome sin on his own strength (Phil. 4:13), but through Christ in them.:)

Love,
Madeline:)

Keep= tēreō meaning...

1) to attend to carefully, take care of
a) to guard
b) metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
c) to observe
d) to reserve: to undergo something

1Jo 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments

1Jo 5:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=21&version=kjv#21) Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

There is action on our part. :saint:

Rev 2:26 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Rev&c=2&v=26&version=KJV#26)And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

*Madeline*
Jun 23rd 2007, 12:23 AM
Heeeeelllllo! :spin:

Thanks for being patient with me. Because I do not have the time to post as some of the members here, as my time is restricted.:)


Keep= tēreō meaning...

1) to attend to carefully, take care of
a) to guard
b) metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
c) to observe
d) to reserve: to undergo something

1Jo 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments

1Jo 5:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=21&version=kjv#21) Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

There is action on our part. :saint:

Rev 2:26 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Rev&c=2&v=26&version=KJV#26)And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Let's try this again.:) I understand Greek btw--I have studied it for years. However we must understand Greek in context, otherwise it can lead to distortion of scripture.:) What you do not seem to understand is the verb tenses in the Greek. Why does the born again person persevere? or should we say "keep" himself? because he is "born of God," (1 Jn. 5:18), and whosoever is "born of God" "sinneth not." :) May I remind you that "sinneth not" is a progressive tense, which means that the born again person does not continue in sin.:)

Another example of a progressive tense is found in 1 John 5:4 which reads "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world......." The word "overcometh" as with 1 Jn. 5:18 is a present indicative active (or progressive tense), which means that the person who is "born of God," will continue to overcome the world--not overcome for a season and then lose their salvation.:):hug:

Love,
Madeline

BadDog
Jun 23rd 2007, 12:33 AM
Keep= tēreō meaning...

1) to attend to carefully, take care of
a) to guard
b) metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
c) to observe
d) to reserve: to undergo something

1Jo 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments

1Jo 5:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=21&version=kjv#21) Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

There is action on our part. :saint:

Rev 2:26 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Rev&c=2&v=26&version=KJV#26)And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
diffangle,

Hope you don't mind my making a quick comment here - without following the thread.

Yes, there is action on our part - but nowhere does it say that our security - eternal life - is dependent upon it. "This is the love of God - that you keep His commandments." IOW, how do we love God? By keeping His commandments. John said something very similar in his gospel:

John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

we can say that we love the Lord til we're blue in the face, but unless we demonstrate our love - by doing what He tells us He wants us to do - we do not really love Him.

There are consequences of failing to obey, to love, our Lord. But eternal life is not conditioned upon our faithfulness. Can't be - it's a gift. And if we can lose that eternal life, then they need to change its name. :P

Incidently, it's good to know that brothers and sisters in Christ can differ on some of our understanding about such issues, yet be confident that we each love the Lord, and desire to serve Him. hence, those with whom we disagree are our brothers and sisters - they're our comrades! PTL

BD

diffangle
Jun 23rd 2007, 02:24 PM
diffangle,

Hope you don't mind my making a quick comment here - without following the thread.

Yes, there is action on our part - but nowhere does it say that our security - eternal life - is dependent upon it. "This is the love of God - that you keep His commandments." IOW, how do we love God? By keeping His commandments. John said something very similar in his gospel:

John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

we can say that we love the Lord til we're blue in the face, but unless we demonstrate our love - by doing what He tells us He wants us to do - we do not really love Him.

There are consequences of failing to obey, to love, our Lord. But eternal life is not conditioned upon our faithfulness. Can't be - it's a gift. And if we can lose that eternal life, then they need to change its name. :P


Mat 19:17 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Mat&c=19&v=17&version=KJV#17)And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Jhn 14:15 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=14&v=15&version=KJV#15)If ye love Me, keep My commandments.

Jhn 14:21 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=14&v=21&version=KJV#21)He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him.

Jhn 15:10 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&v=10&version=KJV#10)If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in His love.

1Jo 2:3 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=2&v=3&version=KJV#3)And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

1Jo 2:4 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=2&v=4&version=KJV#4)He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&version=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.



Incidently, it's good to know that brothers and sisters in Christ can differ on some of our understanding about such issues, yet be confident that we each love the Lord, and desire to serve Him. hence, those with whom we disagree are our brothers and sisters - they're our comrades! PTL

Yes indeed :hug:

diffangle
Jun 23rd 2007, 06:24 PM
All NOSAS folk... I am going to ask that you don't respond in this thread but you can help me out greatly by responding to post in the Peanut Gallery where I won't have much time to read I figure. If a question arises in the peanut gallery that folks would like to see me respond to then they can get with the moderator of the thread and they will make sure that I get the post and I will answer when I have a moment.


Oops, sorry PP, I just now read the OP... my bad :blushsad::blushhap:.

BadDog
Jun 24th 2007, 02:52 AM
Mat 19:17 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Mat&c=19&v=17&version=KJV#17)And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Jhn 14:15 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=14&v=15&version=KJV#15)If ye love Me, keep My commandments.

Jhn 14:21 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=14&v=21&version=KJV#21)He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him.

Jhn 15:10 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&v=10&version=KJV#10)If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in His love.

1Jo 2:3 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=2&v=3&version=KJV#3)And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

1Jo 2:4 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=2&v=4&version=KJV#4)He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&version=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.



Yes indeed :hug:Thx,

Do you think anyone can keep the commandments? that was His point - we cannot, and hence we need Him to die in our place for thissin.

BD

diffangle
Jun 24th 2007, 06:54 PM
Thx,

Do you think anyone can keep the commandments? that was His point - we cannot, and hence we need Him to die in our place for thissin.

BD

If you're asking if I think everyone can keep the commandments perfectly always without ever slipping up, then the answer is no. Since we can't keep them 100% of the time perfectly... does that mean that we should just throw our hands up and think that we shouldn't even try to obey Him and His commands? How does that show love to Him? :confused It is my belief that we're suppossed to take action and try our darndest to obey Him. :D

BadDog
Jun 25th 2007, 05:35 PM
If you're asking if I think everyone can keep the commandments perfectly always without ever slipping up, then the answer is no. Since we can't keep them 100% of the time perfectly... does that mean that we should just throw our hands up and think that we shouldn't even try to obey Him and His commands? How does that show love to Him? :confused It is my belief that we're suppossed to take action and try our darndest to obey Him. :D
Agreed. Believers should love and follow Christ... doesn't mean that we always do or that, as long as we are in this fleshly body, we ever will perfectly.

But our desire or attempt to follow Christ is what Christians do... not how we become Christians.

Thx,

BD

ProjectPeter
Jun 25th 2007, 09:44 PM
Oops, sorry PP, I just now read the OP... my bad :blushsad::blushhap:.
You're fine... the debate was long ago over anyway and I haven't the time right now. You can step in by proxy. ;)

BadDog
Jun 25th 2007, 10:16 PM
You're fine... the debate was long ago over anyway and I haven't the time right now. You can step in by proxy. ;)Wait a minute. Somebody slap me... I'm dreaming. Did Peter just say that he doesn't have the time to debate OSAS??!!

Let's write it down: Monday, June 25th, 02:44 PM, Peter declined to debate OSAS... get this, "didn't have the time!"

OK, who are you, and what have you done with my friend?! :rofl:

BD!

ProjectPeter
Jun 25th 2007, 10:34 PM
:D Time will come again but for now... he's doing great! ;)

diffangle
Jun 26th 2007, 12:36 AM
Agreed. Believers should love and follow Christ... doesn't mean that we always do or that, as long as we are in this fleshly body, we ever will perfectly.

But our desire or attempt to follow Christ is what Christians do... not how we become Christians.

Thx,

BD

Becoming Christians and staying Christians are two different things, as the parable of the seed tells us. I personally know "Christians" who don't follow what Yahushua did or have the desire to do so... their flesh wins... are they saved?



You're fine... the debate was long ago over anyway and I haven't the time right now. You can step in by proxy. ;)


Good to know... I didn't want to derail your thread. :spin:

Friend of I AM
Sep 7th 2007, 11:46 AM
Wow. Quite an interesting thread. I grew up in a Baptist Church where they taught the OSAS doctrine. I must say that I've now come to believe that this doctrine is not in entirety true, however, I must say that is not really entirety false either. If anything I would take the middle ground on this and say that it's "not entirely accurate" and/or in accordance with God's Word.

What I mean by this is that the OSAS doctrine seems to make the assumption that a Christian can never at any point fall from Grace of God after becoming baptised and repenting of their sins. We know this not to be the case with John 15:1-6

John 15


1`I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman;
2every branch in me not bearing fruit, He doth take it away, and every one bearing fruit, He doth cleanse by pruning it, that it may bear more fruit;
3already ye are clean, because of the word that I have spoken to you;
4remain in me, and I in you, as the branch is not able to bear fruit of itself, if it may not remain in the vine, so neither ye, if ye may not remain in me.
5`I am the vine, ye the branches; he who is remaining in me, and I in him, this one doth bear much fruit, because apart from me ye are not able to do anything; 6if any one may not remain in me, he was cast forth without as the branch, and was withered, and they gather them, and cast to fire, and they are burned;

Notice the distinction between verse 2 and verse 6. In Verse 2 He does not use the terminology "remain in me" making me think that this refers to those who are still in Christ(following His word) but are not producing fruit. So it would seem that it is possible to be under God's Grace - and simply to have your earthly life taken away due to the fact that you are no longer producing fruit(possibly because you are not able to). This would mean that the OSAS is partially correct if we apply it to only those who "abide" in Christ despite their ability to/ to not produce fruit will still receive salavation.

But if you look at verse 6 - it then goes on to say that Christ will "take away" those no longer abiding in Him and cast them into the fire. This would refer to any of those who go out on their own - not continuing to receive sustance from the branch that is Christ. This is where the OSAS fails - as those who no longer are fellowshipping with Him(following His Word) have become withered branches - no longer remaining a part of Him or being able to receive the sustenance of His Grace and salvation.

So I guess it's a matter of verse interpretation regarding the doctrine. Sometimes a person/Church will have only part of the big picture. Fortunately - as we grow in grace and understanding, God gradually reveals the entire picture to us.