Not By Works

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,034
13,041
113
58
Why would someone exhort an unbeliever to hold fast to something they have never held fast to to begin with, and worse can't hold on to because God did not create them to hold on to it?
It's not hard to find unbelievers mixed in with believers. Just look at the parable of the wheat and the tares. Giving an exhortation to hold fast does not mean believers will not hold fast. Who is it that fails to hold fast and why?

1 John 2:18 - Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 John 4:15 - Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

*Among the 12 disciples, the only one who failed to abide was Judas Iscariot and it was not because he was saved and lost his salvation, but because he was an unbelieving, unclean devil who betrayed Jesus. (John 6:64-70; 13:10-11)
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,034
13,041
113
58
Here is the literal translation.
Nothing here about always abiding because you are a true believer.

24Ye, then, that which ye heard from the beginning, in you let it remain; if in you may remain that which from the beginning ye did hear, ye also in the Son and in the Father shall remain" - 1 John 2:24

It plainly says the condition for remaining in the Son and the Father is that you let remain in you what you heard in the beginning. Nothing there about it remaining in you because you are a real believer. It really is prescriptive, not descriptive as osas claims it is.
The exhortation and promise here no way negates that genuine believers will abide in Him. To abide in Christ is to remain in Him, which is not a temporary, superficial attachment, but a permanent connection. Such authentic abiding in Jesus characterizes those who “continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Colossians 1:23) because they are truly regenerate, new creatures in Christ who possess eternal life (John 5:24) and are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise until the redemption of the purchased possession. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

The Galatians were true believers, yet they did not continue in Christ.
That is biased and INCONCLUSIVE. A biased mind might also read about the apostle Peter denying Jesus 3 times and it was even mentioned that he (along with the remaining disciples) "fell away" when Jesus was arrested and conclude that Peter, along with the remaining disciples did not continue in Christ, but we know that is not the case. You need to stop jumping to conclusions for the sake of your biased doctrine.

That means 1 John 2:19 does not mean what osas says it means.
You mean 1 John 2:19 does not mean what is plainly means. 1 John 2:19 makes it inescapably clear that those who WENT OUT FROM US WERE NOT OF US and IF they HAD BEEN OF US then they WOULD HAVE continued with us. (y)

And please don't use another 'not really' osas argument and say the Galatians didn't really believe, or that they didn't really fall away. The letter plainly says they really did believe, and that they fell away.

"1 In the freedom, then, with which Christ did make you free" - Galatians 5:1

4 ye were freed from the Christ, ye who in law are declared righteous; from the grace ye fell away" - Galatians 5:4
For the umpteenth time, the present tense of the word "justified" implies that these Galatians were contemplating justification by the law. They were getting side tracked by legalistic teachers. "You who are trying to be justified by the law have fallen away from grace," but had they fully come to that place yet? Galatians 3:3 reads: Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? The middle voice implies "making yourselves perfect" by means of self effort. The present tense indicates that the action is in progress and that there is still time to correct the error.

If these Galatians lost their salvation and it was a done deal, then why didn't Paul simply say you "lost your salvation" and I'm done with you? Instead, in verse 10, he said - I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. The Amplified Bible reads - I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view [contrary to mine on the matter]; but the one who is disturbing you, whoever he is, will have to bear the penalty.

Paul has confidence in these Galatians, but you have no confidence. So once again your broken record argument about the Galatians losing their salvation is INCONCLUSIVE, but you continue to beat your drum regardless, because you have your biased agenda.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
It's not hard to find unbelievers mixed in with believers. Just look at the parable of the wheat and the tares. Giving an exhortation to hold fast does not mean believers will not hold fast. Who is it that fails to hold fast and why?

1 John 2:18 - Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 John 4:15 - Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

*Among the 12 disciples, the only one who failed to abide was Judas Iscariot and it was not because he was saved and lost his salvation, but because he was an unbelieving, unclean devil who betrayed Jesus. (John 6:64-70; 13:10-11)
That 1 John 2 passage should solve the debate, but they can’t hear it,
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,614
3,529
113
Let me see if I'm understanding you right. Jesus returns to earth to sit on the throne of David for 1000 years. Then after the 1000 years, the great tribulation starts. Then Jesus returns for the second coming. Is this how you believe?
Nope. Rapture, trib, 1,000 reign is the second coming, destruction of earth and heaven, GWTJ, new heaven and earth
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,614
3,529
113
I never said anything close to that try again. What does the scripture say?

Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

That verse does not say prayer of faith shall heal the sick., does it ? Maybe another translation ? Why is it written the way it is. Any one have thoughts or ideas on this point ? I am going to do some reading and see what i can find. Every so often when reading His Word something i have read often over the years just reads a bit different to me.
During the tribulation, miracles and signs are back into play helping Israel understand the return of their King. The sick shall be healed as a sign.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,614
3,529
113
But didn't you say the 'faith of Jesus' is for the church, not for the Jews?

"1My brethren, hold not, in respect of persons, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ " - James 2:1
Nope. The faith of Christ was not available until after the resurrection.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,614
3,529
113
This losable salvation or self sustained faith that is peddled on this site is not of God.......
Self faith comes in with th the versions. They have the phrase “faith in Christ” instead “faith of Christ.” Whose faith justifies? Man’s or Christ’s? It is Christ who justifies.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,034
13,041
113
58
Self faith comes in with th the versions. They have the phrase “faith in Christ” instead “faith of Christ.” Whose faith justifies? Man’s or Christ’s? It is Christ who justifies.
1 Peter 1:9 (KJV) - Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Should we change that to "Christ's faith?" :unsure:
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
There remains other events pertaining to Messiah that have to be accomplished before all is fulfilled. The second coming is but one such event.
Certainly true. But whatever events had to happen in order for the law to change have happened. We know that by the simple fact that the law did indeed change. And it changed because there's a new High Priest in town. Which is probably what he was alluding to: The law won't/can't change until He dies, is resurrected, and assumes His role as High Priest, necessitating a change in law, just as Hebrews points out.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
John 3:18 has only two camps. Those who believe in Him and are not condemned and those who do not believe and are condemned already. There is no third camp here of those who stopped believing and are once again condemned.
Here's the literal translation:

18he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 YLT

There is a change in tense in this verse. "Hath" and "believed" in "hath not believed' are in the Perfect tense. The person who Jesus says 'hath not believed" does not have the completed action of believing with continuing results. That's the definition of the Perfect tense. He did not use it in the aorist tense which would mean that person simply had no completed action of believing as you are trying to insist he said.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
Did you mean John 3:18?
I did, lol.

- Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Okay, good.
This shows they were being honest.
They didn't change the indicative mood to subjunctive.
Just as they didn't change the subjunctive to indicative in vs. 16.
They left it as it is actually written.
(Honestly, I'm surprised.)

What happened to the Catholic version translating it with 2 mights in that verse? :unsure:
What happened is there is no two 'maybe' verb phrases in that verse as there are in vs. 16.
So we see they were honest in their interpretation of vs. 18 just as they were in vs. 16.
I'm no fan of the Catholics, trust me on that, but they got it right in both verses. Honest.

So how can someone who (truly) believes in Him might or might not be condemned and will not be condemned at the same time? Start dancing.
Just explained it in this post: https://christianchat.com/threads/not-by-works.146296/post-4161307

If you don't agree with that explanation then please tell us how you resolve the (apparent) contradiction between vs. 16 and 18, without changing the subjunctive mood in vs. 16 to match the indicative mood in vs. 18.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,034
13,041
113
58
Here's the literal translation:

18he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 YLT

There is a change in tense in this verse. "Hath" and "believed" in "hath not believed' are in the Perfect tense. The person who Jesus says 'hath not believed" does not have the completed action of believing with continuing results. That's the definition of the Perfect tense. He did not use it in the aorist tense which would mean that person simply had no completed action of believing as you are trying to insist he said.
Keep dancing. :sneaky:

Commentaries:
Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)​

John 3:18

Is not judged (ou krinetai). Present passive indicative. Trust in Christ prevents condemnation, for he takes our place and pays the penalty for sin for all who put their case in his hands (Romans 8:32 f.). The believer in Christ as Saviour does not come into judgment (John 5:24).

Hath been judged already (hdh kekritai). Perfect passive indicative of krinw. Judgment has already been passed on the one who refuses to believe in Christ as the Saviour sent by the Father, the man who is not willing to come to Christ for life (John 5:40).

Because he hath not believed (oti mh pepisteuken). Perfect active indicative of pisteuw, has taken a permanent attitude of refusal. Here oti mh states the reason subjectively as the judgment of the Judge in any such case (o mh pisteuwn already mentioned) while in I John 5:10 oti ou pepisteuken gives the reason objectively (ou instead of mh) conceived as an actual case and no longer hypothetical. See John 1:12 for eiv to onoma with pisteuw (believing on the name) and John 1:14 for monogenouv (only begotten) and also John 3:16.

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/26139/eVerseID/26139/RTD/rwpnt
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
has taken a permanent attitude of refusal
That's not what the Perfect tense implies.
He's obviously adding that interpretation.

But on the other hand, his added interpretation is consistent with the fact that the person who stops believing in Christ ultimately can not come back to Christ when God hardens them in that unbelief.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,034
13,041
113
58
What happened is there is no two 'maybe' verb phrases in that verse as there are in vs. 16. So we see they were honest in their interpretation of vs. 18 just as they were in vs. 16. I'm no fan of the Catholics, trust me on that, but they got it right in both verses. Honest.
So they got it right, yet ONLY the NAB (Catholic Bible) translated John 3:16 with "2 mights," but you see no red flag? :cautious:

Just explained it in this post: https://christianchat.com/threads/not-by-works.146296/post-4161307

If you don't agree with that explanation then please tell us how you resolve the (apparent) contradiction between vs. 16 and 18, without changing the subjunctive mood in vs. 16 to match the indicative mood in vs. 18.
I already explained why and it comes down to our disagreement over what the condition is in regards to the subjunctive mood. I believe the condition is believe or not believe, but you believe the condition is believe or stop believing. It falls back on osas vs. nosas.