Eternal security or conditional security?

[chessman]

You use Moses as an example of one who has been cut off to show it doesn't mean losing one's salvation, citing his not being able to enter into the Promised Land, yet you insist you're not saying being cut means being cut off from the Land.

I clarified, just now, that what I disagreed with was that it doesn't just simply mean the land. But yes, it includes being cutoff from the land. And I can provide more evidence for that claim if you'd like to see it.

 

[FreeGrace]

No, the believer doesn't just become a servant in the kingdom if you deny Christ in this life. They suffer the second death--the lake of fire:

5‘He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (Revelation 3:5 NASB)
"He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.’" (Revelation 2:11 NASB bold mine)

Rev 2:11 is called "litotes". Litotes is a figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite. from: http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/litotesterm.htm

From "The Grace New Testament Commentary", page 1262, "So when Jesus says, "He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death", He is making an understatement. He is saying that the faithful Christian will be more than amply repaid for whatever sacrifice he may make for Christ's sake, and that his eternal experience will be so far beyond the reach of the second death that it cannot be imagined. The suffering believers in Smyrna could rest in this glorious promise given to them from the Lord Himself."

In no way was Jesus saying that one must must overcome to avoid the lake of fire. We know this clearly by what the Bible says about WHO will be cast into the lake of fire:
"And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Rev 20:15

 

[FreeGrace]

How does a branch stay alive, as OSAS insists, when it is cut away from the tree?

Since the phrase is found in an farming metaphor and has nothing to do with loss of salvation, the point is that God cannot use a believer for His service just as a farmer can't use a non-producing branch. There is no reason to assume that to "cast away" means loss of salvation. The issue is fruit production, not keeping oneself saved through fruit production, which would be a works-salvation system, which the Bible clearly refutes and rejects.

OSAS insists that the dried up branches out on the burn pile in my backyard still have the life of the tree they came from in them.

No, OSAS just doesn't care a bit about the branches. Branches are either useful or unuseful to a farmer. Same for believers; they are either useful for God, or unuseful.

Everyone in that economy in the first Century understood unuseful branches. They were simply discarded. For the farmer, they were burned. So what? The many verses in the OP prove eternal security. No one has yet to explain what those verses do teach, if not ES.

They're using the wrong analogy if they're trying to prove that believers cut out of Christ still have eternal life in them.

I never use John 15 to prove ES. I have used the verses in the first 5 points of the OP to prove ES.

Since eternal life is a gift of God, and God's gifts are irrevocable, AND, Paul never excluded the specific gift of eternal life when he wrote 11:29 that God's gifts are irrevocable, it is very clear that eternal life is irrevocable.

So, John 15 cannot teach LOS. That is impossible.

 

[chessman]

Just cut to the chase: How is an analogy about dead branches being cut out of a tree useful for illustrating--let alone proving--an OSAS argument that dead branches disconnected from God and Christ are still alive?

I never said John 15 proves OSAS. I am simply pointing out that it doesn't prove anti-OSAS.

Only if you think God requires us to produce yearly fruit to maintain our salvation could one come to an anti-OSAS conclusion from that passage. Which I'm pretty sure I cut to that initially. Been chasing it ever since.

 

[JLB]

No, OSAS just doesn't care a bit about the branches. Branches are either useful or unuseful to a farmer. Same for believers; they are either useful for God, or unuseful.

Yes, we see that OSAS doesn't care about the branches or the people in this teaching, because it represents that the OSAS doctrine is not founded upon scripture, but is from man.

People who are in Christ, that are un-fruitful, end up cast into the fire and burned.

Jesus is explaining His parabolic reference to the branches and Vine.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

They are burned, refers to unfruitful people.


JLB

 

[JLB]

"And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Rev 20:15

If He were to blot anyone's name from the book of Life, then their name would no longer be found in it, thus they would be thrown into the lake of fire.

7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things,and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:7-8


JLB

 

[Eugene]

The believer doesn't just become a servant in the kingdom if you deny Christ in this life. They suffer the second death--the lake of fire:

I think you're wrong on 2 Tim 2:12 Jethro; the context is certainly about reigning, but maybe you can show where it's not.

5‘He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (Revelation 3:5 NASB)
"He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.’" (Revelation 2:11 NASB bold mine)

Are you in some manner trying to tell me there's a way of overcoming the world other than believing on Jesus Christ?

And then those who do become born of God (Overcomers of the world) will never be erased from the book of life.
Doesn't this in some way sound an awful lot like Jesus in Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (For any reason?)

1 Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1 Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

 

[JLB]

Only if you think God requires us to produce yearly fruit to maintain our salvation could one come to an anti-OSAS conclusion

The Life of the Spirit of Christ within a believer, empowers the person to do good, God inspired deeds.

The person must employ their will and effort, in co-operation with the Spirit within, to accomplish these Spirit led works.

Is it possible for a person refuse to do what the Spirit inspires them to do, from within?

I would like to hear what you believe.


JLB

 

[chessman]

Is it possible for a person refuse to do what the Spirit inspires them to do, from within?

Acts 16:6-7 (LEB) And they traveled through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in Asia. And when they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them. ​

I believe it was possible for Paul and Timothy to have refused the Holy Spirit and gone into Bithynia, yes. It would have been contrary to The Holy Spirit's purpose(s) for them. But I don't think it would have de-saved them.

 

[JLB]

Acts 16:6-7 (LEB) And they traveled through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in Asia. And when they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them. ​

I believe it was possible for Paul and Timothy to have refused the Holy Spirit and gone to into Bithynia, yes. It would have been contrary to The Holy Spirit's purpose(s) for them. But I don't think it would have de-saved them.

Since these were led by the Spirit, and the Spirit prevented them from speaking the message in Asia, and they obeyed, it really doesn't help your position, which seems to be based upon your opinion...

But I don't think it would have de-saved them.

and again

Only if you think God requires us to produce yearly fruit to maintain our salvation could one come to an anti-OSAS conclusion from that passage.


We are discussing people who are in Christ, and because of un-fruitiness are removed from Him and cast into the fire.

Do you believe this is possible?



JLB

 

[chessman]

Since these were led by the Spirit, and the Spirit prevented them from speaking the message in Asia, and they obeyed, it really doesn't help your position, which seems to be based upon your opinion...

You asked for what I believed about your question and I gave my answer to what I believed. I also gave a clarifying example to base it on. It's your turn to answer a question:

Do you believe that if Paul and Timothy had gone into Bithynia, they would have become de-saved?

I understand it's a hypothetical question, as was yours. But boy, your answer sure would be clarifying toward what you believe and why you believe it. So please answer the question (yes/no). If you want to support it via Scripture, fine. But your yes/no answer is requested.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes, we see that OSAS doesn't care about the branches or the people in this teaching, because it represents that the OSAS doctrine is not founded upon scripture, but is from man.

There is no factual basis for such a comment. The metaphor makes a point; that God cannot use those children of His who don't produce fruit.

People who are in Christ, that are un-fruitful, end up cast into the fire and burned.

This view very clearly teaches that one is saved by their works. The Bible refutes that soundly.
Eph 2:8,9 - 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 

[FreeGrace]

If He were to blot anyone's name from the book of Life, then their name would no longer be found in it, thus they would be thrown into the lake of fire.

In the context of Rev 2-3, an overcomer is a fruitful, faithful believer, not just a believer. And the Bible teaches that one is saved by grace, through faith, NOT BY WORKS, lest any one should boast. Eph 2:8,9.

So, the ONLY conclusion is that Rev 2:11 is a "litotes", which I explained and provided my source.

 

[FreeGrace]

We are discussing people who are in Christ, and because of un-fruitiness are removed from Him and cast into the fire.

Do you believe this is possible?

No, that's not possible. Because John 15:6 isn't about people who are in Christ and then removed from Him for any reason. You've confused a metaphor with reality.

But, from your own words, you are teaching that though one is saved by faith in Christ, they will be de-saved by lack of works. All from a metaphor that doesn't teach such an idea.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I never said John 15 proves OSAS. I am simply pointing out that it doesn't prove anti-OSAS.

Well, one is using John 15 to prove OSAS when they say the burning of dead (not alive) branches is not the lake of fire. And worse, saying it isn't the lake of fire because OSAS is true (that common circular argument of OSAS).

 

[chessman]

Well, one is using John 15 to prove OSAS when they say the burning of dead (not alive) branches is not the lake of fire.

If you find it a proof for OSAS because it doesn't say The Lake of Fire, then that's on you. I don't. I prefer to look at the more direct teaching of OSAS. Especially in passages that actually speak about one's salvation gift and Eternal Life.

And worse, saying it isn't the lake of fire because OSAS is true (that common circular argument of OSAS).

saying anti-OSAS is true by adding "The Lake of Fire" to what Jesus said in John 15 is worstest.

I don't say it isn't the Lake of Fire mentioned by Jesus in John 15 because OSAS is true.

I say it because it is true that Jesus didn't say The Lake of Fire in John 15.

 

[Cygnus]

If the Father has given me to Jesus...who is able to snatch me from Jesus hands?

 

[FreeGrace]

Well, one is using John 15 to prove OSAS when they say the burning of dead (not alive) branches is not the lake of fire.

No, that is not trying to prove OSAS from John 15. It's just that the burning of branches doesn't represent the lake of fire.

For proof of ES (OSAS), one only needs to look at the OP, where all the verses teach ES.

If they don't teach ES, I wonder what they teach. No one has answered that question, and ALL Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, per 2 Tim 3:16.

Do you have any ideas about what all the verses in the OP are teaching? Or what other category they are profitable for?

They all mean something, if not teaching ES.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you find it a proof for OSAS because it doesn't say The Lake of Fire, then that's on you. I don't. I prefer to look at the more direct teaching of OSAS. Especially in passages that actually speak about one's salvation gift and Eternal Life.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB all by itself nullifies any OSAS one might try to squeeze out of a passage of scripture.

If the Father has given me to Jesus...who is able to snatch me from Jesus hands?

No one. But the question is, are you going to hold fast the word by which you are saved? That's the condition for salvation that OSAS can't see even when it looks right at those plain words in scripture. Ear tickling doctrines are very stubborn things to overcome once they get set up in a person's mind.

saying anti-OSAS is true by adding "The Lake of Fire" to what Jesus said in John 15 is worstest.

I don't say it isn't the Lake of Fire mentioned by Jesus in John 15 because OSAS is true.

I say it because it is true that Jesus didn't say The Lake of Fire in John 15.

It exactly parallels Jesus' own teaching of fruitless people and the lake of fire, and the author of Hebrews (Paul's) teaching of what happens to people that don't produce a harvest.

For proof of ES (OSAS), one only needs to look at the OP, where all the verses teach ES.

For the plain proof of non-OSAS all one needs to do is look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB and see for themselves that the condition to be saved is if you hold fast to the gospel that you were saved by, or not.

If they don't teach ES, I wonder what they teach. No one has answered that question

I did, but OSAS won't listen....or OSAS can't hear. I don't know for sure which one is the case. [edited]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you believe that if Paul and Timothy had gone into Bithynia, they would have become de-saved?

It would depend on why they disobeyed. If their disobedience was the result of abandoning Christ altogether in a denial of the gospel they would definitely be on their way to losing their salvation because they would not be holding fast to the gospel message, the condition for salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB).

What we do is how saving faith is measured. Abraham obeyed because he had faith, his works showing his faith in the promises of God (James 2:18 NASB). His lack of obedience, if that had occurred, would signify he did not have faith in what God promised. That's why dead faith--the 'faith' that does not obey--can not save. It signifies that a person does not have the faith that justifies all on it's own apart from the work it produces. John explains this in his gospel, too. And even Paul said the faith that justifies is the faith that loves, Galatians 5:6 NASB (IOW, obeys God's command). And Jesus himself explains how the woman who washed his feet was saved by her faith (not the work she did for him) Luke 7:50 NASB, her love being the evidence of the forgiveness of God she had received (Luke 7:47 NASB).