Loss of salvation???

[studier]

Jesus is being descriptive, not prescriptive, in that passage. He isn't saying "I will give eternal life to anyone who hears my word and keeps it." That construction is prescriptive. Rather, Jesus is being descriptive, saying, "among all those who hear my word, some of them will believe it and have eternal life."

Just dropping a comment; In my experience this descriptive vs. prescriptive is often theological system-driven. 'Descriptive only' tends to be favored under deterministic monergism, which I'm not desiring to trail off into. Maybe others would like to.

 

[TrustandObey]

Your rule would mean no Christian today can claim any biblical promise unless their personal name appears in the verse. That's not how language works.

Poppycock, I made no such statement.

Anyone can "claim" anything in the Bible but the claim is meaningless unless the claim can be proven which in this case (knowing that our name will be in the opening of the Book of Life) simply cannot. IOW, we do not know our individual fate.

The "rules of pronouns" are simple, they are used to represent a person, place or thing.

Pronouns are not used to prove personal affiliation with a person, place or thing.

And this is what you and the rest of your ilk do not understand.

When Jesus says ""My sheep... I give them eternal life... they shall never perish,"" He is speaking of every individual who belongs to Him. Pronouns apply to persons within the category, not to a faceless abstraction. If ""sheep"" is a category, then every person in that category receives the promise & appealing to Mormon misuse of John 10:16 doesn't change the grammar of John 10:27–28.

Again, this does not prove you are a "sheep", can you not see this.

Are you really not able to grasp this?

Mormons claim affiliation to the same pronouns that you are claiming, they go one step beyond and claim to know the affiliation of the "other sheep" as well.

The Mormons are no more misusing these passages then you are.

 

[NightTwister]

Poppycock, I made no such statement.

Anyone can "claim" anything in the Bible but the claim is meaningless unless the claim can be proven which in this case (knowing that our name will be in the opening of the Book of Life) simply cannot. IOW, we do not know our individual fate.

The "rules of pronouns" are simple, they are used to represent a person, place or thing.

Pronouns are not used to prove personal affiliation with a person, place or thing.

And this is what you and the rest of your ilk do not understand.

Again, this does not prove you are a "sheep", can you not see this.

Are you really not able to grasp this?

Mormons claim affiliation to the same pronouns that you are claiming, they go one step beyond and claim to know the affiliation of the "other sheep" as well.

The Mormons are no more misusing these passages then you are.

I find it interesting the lengths people will go to avoid the clear meaning of scripture to force a different meaning on the text, just as you're doing here.

 

[markss]

So what you have been pointing out is that there is nothing distinct and certain about Christianity.

As long as I "presently" do well at my Job, I will keep my Job. Tomorrow is a new day though.

Christianity is not distinct in its nature, it operates as the world operates. Do Good and you might succeed.

And, if you should succeed as a Christian, you would have something of which to boast, and you would receive what God owed you for your self-controlled life.

Much love!

 

[FlyingDove]

Poppycock, I made no such statement.

Anyone can "claim" anything in the Bible but the claim is meaningless unless the claim can be proven which in this case (knowing that our name will be in the opening of the Book of Life) simply cannot. IOW, we do not know our individual fate.

The "rules of pronouns" are simple, they are used to represent a person, place or thing.

Pronouns are not used to prove personal affiliation with a person, place or thing.

And this is what you and the rest of your ilk do not understand.

Again, this does not prove you are a "sheep", can you not see this.

Are you really not able to grasp this?

Mormons claim affiliation to the same pronouns that you are claiming, they go one step beyond and claim to know the affiliation of the "other sheep" as well.

The Mormons are no more misusing these passages then you are.

You keep avoiding the actual text. John 10:3 alone destroys your entire ""group‑only, non‑personal pronoun"" argument: He calls His own sheep BY NAME & leads them out.

That is as individual as language gets. Jesus doesn't call a category by name. He calls people by name. The pronouns in Vs.27–28 refer back to the same individually known sheep of Vs.3. Your attempt to turn Jesus' personal promises into vague collective statements collapses the moment you deal with the grammar of the chapter.

You're shifting categories. I'm talking about what the pronouns refer to in John 10. You keep trying to change the subject to how someone knows they personally belong to the group. Those are 2 different issues. Pronoun reference is a grammar question. Personal assurance is a pastoral question. You're mixing the 2 because the grammar destroys your position.

Jesus' language is not corporate or abstract: My sheep hear My voice, I know them, They follow Me, I give them eternal life, They shall never perish, No one will snatch them out of My hand.

These are individual actions, individual relationships & individual promises. You don't get to erase the personal force of Jesus' words just because it contradicts your theology.

Your RULE about pronouns is self refuting. If pronouns can't apply to individuals within a category, then no Christian can apply any promise in Scripture unless their personal name appears in the verse. That's your logic, not mine. Now that's Poppycock!

Dragging Mormons into this is just a smokescreen. Their misuse of John 10:16 has nothing to do with the grammar of John 10:27–28. Appealing to a cult's bad exegesis because you can't answer the text is not an argument, it's an admission.

And you still haven't touched the real problem: Jesus says people don't believe because they are not His sheep (Jn 10:26).

That alone destroys your entire system. You're trying to make SHEEP a status people enter by believing, but Jesus says the exact opposite. BELIEF is the evidence of already being His.

Until you deal with that, everything else you’re saying is just noise.

 

[Genez]

We should stick with one verse at a time.

There's no absolute negative in John5:24.

Wouldn't you want to see where security actually is rather than being wrong about where it isn't?

You have placed yourself in a strange place to be.

And, I must say.
You got a rough job to do...

Destroy the faith of those who have sat under good teachers.

That is how you are appearing.

You might want to take a different tack?

 

[Genez]

Neither the aorist nor the perfect tense say in themselves the completed action will last forever.

It's not the completed action that is being argued - it's the lasting state that is being argued.

You keep pushing a trip-up of the facts, that the completed act is able to become incomplete.
Was it completed?
Or wasn't it?

 

[Genez]

Firstly, where are you getting the definition and what precedes it? Please post a link to the reference or identify it and post all context (if there's more) if there's no link.

The "future" and "permanent results" do not come from the perfect tense, but from other instruction in the NC writings.

Jesus is basically saying, 'the job is done' - then we go to other instruction to see what the results are and learn they are everlasting. Also, He in time was yet to be pierced, buried, resurrected, witnessed to, ascended & seated so all was not finished. As Paul argued, apart from the resurrection our faith is empty and useless (1Cor15).

Note a couple things here:

• Is the perfect tense main focus on the past or the present at that moment?
• the passive voice should also tell us something about the mind of our Lord - He does say "I completed the job" - His focus is on the work that is finished.

That's what we do - we buck one another until we've got it right - just like here in this forum even though here most seem to think they have everything right already.

You are determined to destroy.

 

[Genez]

Not to mention the double negative of "shall not come into judgement."

Will not, no not EVER come into judgement. It's an absolute.

This seems to be a possible vendetta to prove something about himself.
It appears as if he were rejected by those whom we admire...

Or simply to see how much power he has to abuse with.

For when he attempts to tear down?
He offers no comforting solutions.

And, besides, he teamed up with a forum legalist at one point...

Something don't smell right.

 

[studier]

You are determined to destroy.

So, no link to what you're quoting from?

 

[Roger316]

Just dropping a comment; In my experience, this descriptive vs. prescriptive is often theological system-driven. 'Descriptive only' tends to be favored under deterministic monergism, which I'm not desiring to trail off into. Maybe others would like to.

I understand and agree with the principle. I present this as an example of a plausible alternate interpretation. Both sides of the argument have plausible interpretations. The question is, which interpretation makes the best sense within the immediate context of the passage and the overall context of Jesus' teaching.

 

[Genez]

So, no link to what you're quoting from?

And, there you go...

You know what you are doing.

 

[studier]

You have placed yourself in a strange place to be.

And, I must say.
You got a rough job to do...

Destroy the faith of those who have sat under good teachers.

That is how you are appearing.

You might want to take a different tack?

You assume I've placed myself and when I say I've been placed we both know where the next immature counter will go.

Why pivot and deflect from discussion of actual Scriptural issues and into personal attack?

Since my tack is looking at Scripture and interpreting it in Christ in Spirit with all the tools that He has made available to us through all people He's had working on things for generations, I'm fine with my tack.

As I responded before, strong back-boned teachers and now 'good teachers' do not mean without error.

After you provide the details of the references I asked for, why don't you look at the 2 Scriptures I asked @Kroogz about and tell me what you see?

 

[studier]

You keep pushing a trip-up of the facts, that the completed act is able to become incomplete.
Was it completed?
Or wasn't it?

Actually, I'm explaining the language and you're tripping it up.

It's not about what was completed becoming incomplete.

It's that in the verbs, completion does not mean permanence.

 

[studier]

You are determined to destroy.

destroy error, yes.

 

[studier]

This seems to be a possible vendetta to prove something about himself.
It appears as if he were rejected by those whom we admire...

Or simply to see how much power he has to abuse with.

For when he attempts to tear down?
He offers no comforting solutions.

And, besides, he teamed up with a forum legalist at one point...

Something don't smell right.

Not much at completing discussion on Scripture nor being open to providing references for what you post?

The offer of solution was to ask your friend and then you to look at those 2 Scriptures and discuss them which could get us to where security really is shown.

That person whom I was agreeing with was also asking you to explain Scripture, mainly conditional clauses and warnings.

 

[Cameron143]

Was only a matter of time before one starts eating their own.

 

[studier]

And, there you go...

You know what you are doing.

As I said, destroying error.

You post something you deem as authoritative proof of something that I see as containing error according to substantial scholarship. You can't back it up and refuse to show where it came from.

What is it you fear? Being wrong?

 

[Roger316]

Actually, I'm explaining the language and you're tripping it up.

It's not about what was completed becoming incomplete.

It's that in the verbs, completion does not mean permanence.

The phrase eternal life denotes permanence.

 

[Lamar]

I find it interesting the lengths people will go to avoid the clear meaning of scripture to force a different meaning on the text, just as you're doing here.

You and others here are making an absurd assertion!

The notion that since Jesus tells us that His followers will follow Him then anyone who claims to follow Him are His followers.

Are you so obtuse that you cannot see the circular reasoning you are employing?