Loss of salvation???

[rogerg]

You didn't accept the rest of the Word of God that proves He had provided a way for ALL to be saved?

No, God did not say that He provided a way for "all" to be saved. The "all" the Father wants saved are the "all" that He gives to Christ - which is what that "all" means, but does not include everyone, otherwise, everyone would be given to Christ by the Father, but they aren't.
Guess, it is you who didn't accept the rest of the word of God.

[Rom 9:21 KJV] 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[Jhn 17:1,2 KJV]
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may
glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
[Jhn 6:37-39 KJV]
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

 

[TruthDefender]

GOT YOU LAST!!!!!!

You sound as bully-ish as your pic looks! Not a good look, but at least it matches.

 

[Mem]

So:

• Why does John not just repeat what Jesus said?
  • Jesus said the man who hears and believes has eternal life
  • John says the man who doesn't love remains in death

This looks like a detailing the tails of the salvation coin. Jesus coins the detail in terms of faith, here, and John does so in terms of love.
So, the coin's appearance is faith on the heads side and no faith on the tails side, love on the heads side and indifference on the tails side, life on the heads side and death on the tails side, and so for with all the equivalents. This is simple enough of an explanation except the problem presents itself in the use two-headed coins, of which no one can trust the results and that coin only comes in useful if you're up for a game of quarters.

However, if it could be determined which side of the coin were law and which side were grace, well then, we might then let the coin rest if it comes heads up.

 

[TruthDefender]

GOT YOU LAST!!!!!!

What is that saying……? He who laughs first laughs last! Arrogance is not a good look!

 

[Toknow]

Certainly a student of the Greek because I'm a student of the Word as it was written.

Actually the past few days have been interesting for me. Because some here have and are being taught by teachers who ultimately go back to being trained at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), I looked back through the history of what's taken place with their Greek and Theology departments and why the change in dealing with Greek verbs.

It was enlightening because I was taught Greek by men who had DTS in their background and who knew what was going on there. Part of the basis for the foundation of the small seminary I attended to learn Greek is that they were preserving the training in languages that DTS apparently was getting away from. I can now better understand what was going on at the time and why I was taught from the more updated scholarship.

What I find is that DTS as well as others faced the fact that they had been teaching Greek based upon an understanding that had been proven wrong. Interestingly, it may well go along with what you say about older teachings. Not long ago Greek scholarship had decided they knew something different about the language and instituted this into Greek training - albeit not without controversy.

In the 1980's through 1990's updated scholarship determined that change to be wrong and turned it back to what as I understand is the more historical view.

So, here we are in a time where some of the remnants of that wrong scholarship are still prominent. They used it to wrongly shore up OSAS. Many have been unwinding it but not OSAS itself - just some of the supposed proof they were using to support OSAS. OSAS theology simply lost one of the legs it had made for itself to stand on.

You said:

just some of the supposed proof they were using to support OSAS. OSAS theology simply lost one of the legs it had made for itself to stand on.

You've properly stated the problem without even realizing it (I think).

The OSAS had to build for itself a theology because it most certainly did not come from scripture or the early church.

I trust the Apostles and those that they taught.
THEY knew what Jesus taught.
THEY lived with Him and learned from Him so that they could carry on the work Jesus had begun....
Not the work of atonement (of course!)
but the work of salvation which Jesus had spent years teaching them.

And which they, in turn, taught to to others,,,,
and so forth till the 1800's when someone, forget who, easy to find out, proposed that PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS.
a Calvinist doctrine,,,should be taught to all christians.

And, interestingly, THIS P of TULIP was accepted by some,,,
even though they vehemently were opposed to the T U L and I.

Happily, most of Protestantism does not agree with easy believism and has held true to biblical teaching.
The biblical teaching is that we are saved as long as we remain in Christ.

 

[studier]

This looks like a detailing the tails of the salvation coin. Jesus coins the detail in terms of faith, here, and John does so in terms of love.
So, the coin's appearance is faith on the heads side and no faith on the tails side, love on the heads side and indifference on the tails side, life on the heads side and death on the tails side, and so for with all the equivalents. This is simple enough of an explanation except the problem presents itself in the use two-headed coins, of which no one can trust the results and that coin only comes in useful if you're up for a game of quarters.

However, if it could be determined which side of the coin were law and which side were grace, well then, we might then let the coin rest if it comes heads up.

At first it looks like you treat the idiom in its sense of unity and inseparability, and then switch the idiom to its sense of contrasts.

I think John is looking first at a unity that's found not just in the words, but in the verb tenses, which translations very often do not deal with sufficiently, as is the case here.

Then the contrast comes in with his statement about 'remain[ing]' which he deals with quite a bit in this brief letter to make sure we understand it, to once again provide commentary to what Jesus says in GJohn, and which once again takes us into verb tenses.

I'll stop here for now. From what I've seen, you have the ability to think this through, provide thoughts & comments, ask for clarification as may be necessary, and tie it back to what we discussed re: hupostasis. All these things tie together, including the conditional clause re: hupostasis.

 

[studier]

You said:

just some of the supposed proof they were using to support OSAS. OSAS theology simply lost one of the legs it had made for itself to stand on.

You've properly stated the problem without even realizing it (I think).

The OSAS had to build for itself a theology because it most certainly did not come from scripture or the early church.

I trust the Apostles and those that they taught.
THEY knew what Jesus taught.
THEY lived with Him and learned from Him so that they could carry on the work Jesus had begun....
Not the work of atonement (of course!)
but the work of salvation which Jesus had spent years teaching them.

And which they, in turn, taught to to others,,,,
and so forth till the 1800's when someone, forget who, easy to find out, proposed that PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS.
a Calvinist doctrine,,,should be taught to all christians.

And, interestingly, THIS P of TULIP was accepted by some,,,
even though they vehemently were opposed to the T U L and I.

Happily, most of Protestantism does not agree with easy believism and has held true to biblical teaching.
The biblical teaching is that we are saved as long as we remain in Christ.

The question for your thoughts would be if the seeds for this began in about the 5th century and why.

A lot of these concepts seem to come from pushing too hard against another belief one considers error.

 

[Roger316]

What a weak strawman you have created.

Be specific. How is it a strawman?

The argument is simply: "we must wait until the Book of Life is opened to know if we're saved".

That isn't an argument; it's an assertion without an argument. I assume you know the difference.

I invite you to present a scripture that proves your assertion.

 

[HeIsHere]

That's quite a statement since God had His Word written using grammar, etc...

Besides, we're not talking about cessation of security - we're talking about the validity of views about security. Some may be talking about existence of security. but I'm not.

I understand that the grammar of Koine/Commmon Greek has depth that common English may lack, however it was a common language of the time and I think this speaks God's desire to make the message accessible to all.

My point as I have made before, and I standby it......grammar is only a part and the grammar is never going to negate the first principles.

As well, the Bible must be read as a progressive revelation, Jesus framed things a certain way for His audience but once the work of Christ Jesus was complete then the message of the Gospel went forth as a completed act.

1) Salvation is a place of safety, logically if we were in a place where our salvation could be jeopardized by any means. then it is not a safe place.

2) As well justification is a judicial act of God based upon the completed work of Christ Jesus, His unfaltering life, therefore once we receive the gift we are secure because of Jesus to say this gift can be removed or forsaken is essentially asserting Jesus himself forsook his role as Saviour.
Once declared innocent a person cannot be found guilty.

3) In Scripture, salvation is compared to a birthing by seed (“born again,” “incorruptible seed,” etc.).

As a father remains the father of his child by virtue of the permanent effect of his seed upon the egg, so God’s fatherhood is permanent by the effect of His grace upon the believer who once believes in Christ as his Savior.
Therefore, the conversion experience, like conception, is an irreversible process.


I could go on and on.


There is no argument, discussion, debate here. None, zero, zilch.

To make it topic of discussion we have people who are actually assaulting the veracity of the GOOD NEWS itself.

 

[Mem]

All these things tie together, including the conditional clause re: hupostasis.

I'm at a disadvantage because the study tool app freezes my computer for whatever reason. Certainly, our salvation isn't a coin flip, and our understanding is as the anchor. If I agreed that those conditional clauses don't offer us sufficient guarantee, I mean, there are those that would assert that my love a coin flip, and thereby judge my faith, after all, then I have to defer to Eph 4:30 which uses the language 'guaranteeing'. Noted, the sealing (unto the day of redemption) is spoken with an aorist indicative passive voice and a perfective aspect (learning grammar as I go) and the surrounding context instruction of how to walk and how not to walk, but there is no suggestion offered in regard to the condition "if" one grieves the Holy Spirit with the result being that He abandons us in any way. None at least that comes to mind, that is. Nonetheless, this is what, very often, is taught.

 

[HeIsHere]

You said:

just some of the supposed proof they were using to support OSAS. OSAS theology simply lost one of the legs it had made for itself to stand on.

You've properly stated the problem without even realizing it (I think).

The OSAS had to build for itself a theology because it most certainly did not come from scripture or the early church.

I trust the Apostles and those that they taught.
THEY knew what Jesus taught.
THEY lived with Him and learned from Him so that they could carry on the work Jesus had begun....
Not the work of atonement (of course!)
but the work of salvation which Jesus had spent years teaching them.

And which they, in turn, taught to to others,,,,
and so forth till the 1800's when someone, forget who, easy to find out, proposed that PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS.
a Calvinist doctrine,,,should be taught to all christians.

And, interestingly, THIS P of TULIP was accepted by some,,,
even though they vehemently were opposed to the T U L and I.

Happily, most of Protestantism does not agree with easy believism and has held true to biblical teaching.
The biblical teaching is that we are saved as long as we remain in Christ.

Salvation was correctly understood and taught by the apostles.

It was the advent of false teachers who questioned the veracity of the Good News , asserting that salvation was maintained started to gain ground .. yes right from the get go there were false teachers seeking to undermine the Good News.

The Good News is always and continually under assault.

But history informs us there were many sects that continued in the tradition of the scripture and the Good News of Christ Jesus .....but they were insular for fear of being burned at the stake.

 

[TruthDefender]

I understand that the grammar of Koine/Commmon Greek has depth that common English may lack, however it was a common language of the time and I think this speaks God's desire to make the message accessible to all.

My point as I have made before, and I standby it......grammar is only a part and the grammar is never going to negate the first principles.

As well, the Bible must be read as a progressive revelation, Jesus framed things a certain way for His audience but once the work of Christ Jesus was complete then the message of the Gospel went forth as a completed act.

1) Salvation is a place of safety, logically if we were in a place where our salvation could be jeopardized by any means. then it is not a safe place.

2) As well justification is a judicial act of God based upon the completed work of Christ Jesus, His unfaltering life, therefore once we receive the gift we are secure because of Jesus to say this gift can be removed or forsaken is essentially asserting Jesus himself forsook his role as Saviour.
Once declared innocent a person cannot be found guilty.

3) In Scripture, salvation is compared to a birthing by seed (“born again,” “incorruptible seed,” etc.).

As a father remains the father of his child by virtue of the permanent effect of his seed upon the egg, so God’s fatherhood is permanent by the effect of His grace upon the believer who once believes in Christ as his Savior.
Therefore, the conversion experience, like conception, is an irreversible process.


I could go on and on.


There is no argument, discussion, debate here. None, zero, zilch.

To make it topic of discussion we have people who are actually assaulting the veracity of the GOOD NEWS itself.

False!

It’s like the OSAS people are incapable of understanding that someone can fall from grace, permanently. This doesn’t come from us, Scripture teaches this!

God gives choices to humans, and also to those who are saved. We were warned to always hold onto our faith in Him and in His Son, and to hold on to our hope for eternal life in heaven.

However, some have left the faith completely, therefore they lose their salvation.

 

[HeIsHere]

False!

It’s like the OSAS people are incapable of understanding that someone can fall from grace, permanently. This doesn’t come from us, Scripture teaches this!

God gives choices to humans, and also to those who are saved. We were warned to always hold onto our faith in Him and in His Son, and to hold on to our hope for eternal life in heaven.

However, some have left the faith completely, therefore they lose their salvation.

The topic is justification, not sanctification.

 

[TruthDefender]

The topic is justification, not sanctification.

The thread is questioning the loss of salvation. You’re an OSAS believer, based on your statements.

You’re deflecting with your terminology.

 

[HeIsHere]

The thread is questioning the loss of salvation.

Justification is a permanent, a non-revocable status.

We cannot choose to undo the decree of the Judge so the free will/ volition argument is moot. (Romans 5)

That works are needed to maintain justification is moot, since no one is declared half innocent.

We are declared innocent by the work of Christ not our own.

We come to God on His terms (that is believing completely that we cannot save ourselves and Jesus did it all). He gives us the gift of salvation.

He then declares us justified;
• It is a righteousness that comes from God
• It is an objective, completed righteousness
• It is a righteousness accomplished outside of and apart from man/woman
• It is a gift
• It is given apart from works
• It is imputed
• It is given to the ungodly
• It is received by faith based on the work of Jesus
• It is the Person (Jesus) and obedience of Christ in His work of atonement
• It is given as a result of union with Christ

 

[studier]

I understand that the grammar of Koine/Commmon Greek has depth that common English may lack, however it was a common language of the time and I think this speaks God's desire to make the message accessible to all.

My point as I have made before, and I standby it......grammar is only a part and the grammar is never going to negate the first principles.

Yes, it means common, there's a bit more to it like it's precision and understandability that Alexander made the language of his empire so everyone would know what was required of them.

We can all stand on whatever we choose for now and we can thus choose what we want to believe are first principles and use those to try to change grammar. In effect, this looks to be what was being done by some sects in the mid-20th century I was writing about. It's called eisegesis.

The problem is if we're not properly drawing our presuppositions from the grammar as a major and foundational part of what makes the Text clear, and rather inserting them into the grammar, which many here are doing, in Alexander's empire that could have meant your being put to death as a potential result of such eisegesis.

If we don't let the Word with its grammar explain its Truth in the Kingdom we're dealing with, then....

 

[studier]

I'm at a disadvantage because the study tool app freezes my computer for whatever reason. Certainly, our salvation isn't a coin flip, and our understanding is as the anchor. If I agreed that those conditional clauses don't offer us sufficient guarantee, I mean, there are those that would assert that my love a coin flip, and thereby judge my faith, after all, then I have to defer to Eph 4:30 which uses the language 'guaranteeing'. Noted, the sealing (unto the day of redemption) is spoken with an aorist indicative passive voice and a perfective aspect (learning grammar as I go) and the surrounding context instruction of how to walk and how not to walk, but there is no suggestion offered in regard to the condition "if" one grieves the Holy Spirit with the result being that He abandons us in any way. None at least that comes to mind, that is. Nonetheless, this is what, very often, is taught.

I'd prefer to remain with GJohn cf. 1John before switching to Eph or anywhere else. If we can't agree with how language works there it's unlikely we'll agree elsewhere. And you're already placing some complexities into Eph4:30 that may or may not be there.

 

[HeIsHere]

Yes, it means common, there's a bit more to it like it's precision and understandability that Alexander made the language of his empire so everyone would know what was required of them.

We can all stand on whatever we choose for now and we can thus choose what we want to believe are first principles and use those to try to change grammar. In effect, this looks to be what was being done by some sects in the mid-20th century I was writing about. It's called eisegesis.

The problem is if we're not properly drawing our presuppositions from the grammar as a major and foundational part of what makes the Text clear, and rather inserting them into the grammar, which many here are doing, in Alexander's empire that could have meant your being put to death as a potential result of such eisegesis.

If we don't let the Word with its grammar explain its Truth in the Kingdom we're dealing with, then....

I have no need to change grammar, the grammar never denies eternal security for those who have received the gift.

 

[studier]

Justification is a permanent, a non-revocable status.

You do realize this is just a presupposition that is not accepted by what I understand is the majority of Christian Theology that you're simply stating and not proving with Scripture, correct?

It's no different than saying OSAS.

 

[studier]

I have no need to change grammar, the grammar never denies eternal security for those who have received the gift.

I don't think you can prove your presuppositions and are simply restating them in different terminology that all means the same thing.

I don't think you know what the grammar states.