If I ask someone for a gift, did I earn it, or work for it when I got it handed to me?

[Cygnus]

Your link to 'places them into the Father and Jesus' hands' (John 10:28)
is dependent on the correct exegesis of John 5:24 (ESV). Please provide the exegesis of that verse so that we get an accurate understanding of the meaning of John 10:28 (ESV).

Oz

I think it's up to you to show me where my interpretation of that verse is incorrect. Replying by asking for more "exegesis" of the verse is not an adequate response.

Perhaps you can provide an exegesis as to just what snatching someone from Jesus' hands is.

 

[smaller]

That is a flaming comment. This is what I asked: 'Try a correct exegesis of John 5:24 (ESV). Please tell us what this verse means'.

You mean "try the correct exegesis" that you demand to suit sectarian sights, rather than the plain statements.

I'm waiting for you to exegete John 5:24 and tell me the meaning.

Oz

1 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.

 

[smaller]

Do you know what a red herring logical fallacy is? It is when you do not answer what I wrote but insert the agenda you want to speak about. That's what you did here. What was my comment to which you replied?

It is the red herring that demands the terms be changed to suit the sights.

 

[Cygnus]

Other passages indicate they can fall away from the faith or have faith shipwrecked. I'm thinking of passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV) and 1 Tim 1:19 (ESV). In the case of Heb 6:4-6 (ESV), for those who fall away, 'It is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance'.

John 5:24 (ESV) and John 10:28 (ESV) cannot be taken in isolation from these verses in Heb 6 and 1 Tim 1.

Oz

Who says Hebrews 6 is refering to people who were saved? There are many unsaved people in the "church" today who are not saved and easily fit into that catagory.

 

[OzSpen]

You mean "try the correct exegesis" that you demand to suit sectarian sights, rather than the plain statements.

No, I do not mean 'try the correct exegesis'. I asked you to provide the exegesis of John 5:24 (ESV). Is my language not clear enough for you. Don't you know how to exegete this text to tell us exactly what it means. What you call 'plain statements' does not provide an exegesis of the text.

Your language, 'that you demand to suit sectarian sights', is inflammatory and is goading me.

Oz

 

[Cygnus]

Other passages indicate they can fall away from the faith or have faith shipwrecked. I'm thinking of passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV) and 1 Tim 1:19 (ESV). In the case of Heb 6:4-6 (ESV), for those who fall away, 'It is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance'.

John 5:24 (ESV) and John 10:28 (ESV) cannot be taken in isolation from these verses in Heb 6 and 1 Tim 1.

Oz

1 Tim 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,

Shipwrecking thier faith doesn't mean they lost their salvation.

 

[OzSpen]

It is the red herring that demands the terms be changed to suit the sights.

This demonstrates that you don't understand what you are doing when you use a red herring logical fallacy. Your comment here is another red herring. Would you please quit this kind of fallacious reasoning?

 

[smaller]

No, I do not mean 'try the correct exegesis'. I asked you to provide the exegesis of John 5:24 (ESV). Is my language not clear enough for you. Don't you know how to exegete this text to tell us exactly what it means. What you call 'plain statements' does not provide an exegesis of the text.

Your language, 'that you demand to suit sectarian sights', is inflammatory and is goading me.

Oz

You demand that the statements be changed based on "your personally desired" eisegesis.

Jesus said that man will LIVE by Every Word of God. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4. You demand DEATH be inserted instead. Sorry. Won't work.

 

[Cygnus]

No, I do not mean 'try the correct exegesis'. I asked you to provide the exegesis of John 5:24 (ESV). Is my language not clear enough for you. Don't you know how to exegete this text to tell us exactly what it means. What you call 'plain statements' does not provide an exegesis of the text.

Your language, 'that you demand to suit sectarian sights', is inflammatory and is goading me.

Oz

Oz, perhaps you can provide an exegesis of John 5:24 (ESV). Here it is...
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

 

[smaller]

This demonstrates that you don't understand what you are doing when you use a red herring logical fallacy. Your comment here is another red herring. Would you please quit this kind of fallacious reasoning?

Please CHANGE this statement to your desired outcome, so we know what YOU think should be written. I find no basis to change it.

John 5:
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[OzSpen]

Who says Hebrews 6 is refering to people who were saved? There are many unsaved people in the "church" today who are not saved and easily fit into that catagory.

That's simple, the paragraph containing Heb 6:4-6 (ESV) begins with Heb 6:1 (ESV), 'Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity....' It is most definitely dealing with those who are Christians and are going on to maturity, BUT there is a hick-up. Some,

• 'have once been enlightened' (6:4);
• 'have tasted the heavenly gift' (6:4);
• 'have shared in the Holy Spirit' (6:4);
• 'have tasted the goodness of the word of God' (6:5);
• 'have tasted ... the powers of the age to come' (6:5).

Then, they 'have fallen away' (6:6) and 'it is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance' (6:4, 6).

It makes no sense to be talking about restoring to repentance (6:6) if there was no point of restoration. If they had not at one point experienced repentance, the language is misleading to speak of restoration to repentance. If your line of reasoning is correct, the statement should have read, 'It is impossible ... to cause you to reach repentance, which you never ever had previously'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You demand that the statements be changed based on "your personally desired" eisegesis.

Jesus said that man will LIVE by Every Word of God. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4. You demand DEATH be inserted instead. Sorry. Won't work.

Another red herring.

 

[smaller]

Another red herring.

Just waiting for YOU to change the statement to your desired outcome. Let's see how much it can be twisted.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, perhaps you can provide an exegesis of John 5:24 (ESV). Here it is...
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Why can't you do it?

 

[smaller]

That's simple, the paragraph containing Heb 6:4-6 (ESV) begins with Heb 6:1 (ESV), 'Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity....' It is most definitely dealing with those who are Christians and are going on to maturity, BUT there is a hick-up. Some,

• 'have once been enlightened' (6:4);
• 'have tasted the heavenly gift' (6:4);
• 'have shared in the Holy Spirit' (6:4);
• 'have tasted the goodness of the word of God' (6:5);
• 'have tasted ... the powers of the age to come' (6:5).

Then, they 'have fallen away' (6:6) and 'it is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance' (6:4, 6).

It makes no sense to be talking about restoring to repentance (6:6) if there was no point of restoration. If they had not at one point experienced repentance, the language is misleading to speak of restoration to repentance. If your line of reasoning is correct, the statement should have read, 'It is impossible ... to cause you to reach repentance, which you never ever had previously'.

Oz

None of the above has anything to do with John 5:24. Nice try though!

 

[OzSpen]

None of the above has anything to do with John 5:24. Nice try though!

I was not replying to you. I was replying to Cygnus and the issue he had raised, so your comment here is irrelevant and intrusive to the interaction I was having with Cygnus.

 

[Mike]

I'd say everyone who's posted over the last 5 pages needs to tone down the personal comments and focus their responses on scripture. If we need to shut this down, even temporarily, then we'll do that. But please do your part to ensure this discussion doesn't have to be paused or ended all together. This is it. This is the friendly warning to keep you content on topic and not on another member.

Thank you.

 

[Cygnus]

That's simple, the paragraph containing Heb 6:4-6 (ESV) begins with Heb 6:1 (ESV), 'Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity....' It is most definitely dealing with those who are Christians and are going on to maturity, BUT there is a hick-up. Some,

• 'have once been enlightened' (6:4);
• 'have tasted the heavenly gift' (6:4);
• 'have shared in the Holy Spirit' (6:4);
• 'have tasted the goodness of the word of God' (6:5);
• 'have tasted ... the powers of the age to come' (6:5).

Then, they 'have fallen away' (6:6) and 'it is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance' (6:4, 6).

It makes no sense to be talking about restoring to repentance (6:6) if there was no point of restoration. If they had not at one point experienced repentance, the language is misleading to speak of restoration to repentance. If your line of reasoning is correct, the statement should have read, 'It is impossible ... to cause you to reach repentance, which you never ever had previously'.

Oz

All of the above bullets you posted could easily refer to a person attending church on a regular basics yet not being saved.

The verse is about being led to maturity. Only those people who hold up Christ, who are true believers can be repentant and thus led on to maturity. One view is that repentance is this instance refers to part of the process of sanctification. As Christians we should be repenting of our sins as we live our lives. You seem to be equating repentance with salvation. This is not what this verse is talking about.
If an individual has fallen away from those things mentioned in the bullets...denied the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross, how would one expect them to continue in their repentance?

 

[FreeGrace]

Too bad for your "doctrine" that you have admitted that believer's can in fact stop believeing.

Yes, it is too bad that some believers stop believing. But the GOOD NEWS is that those to whom Jesus has given eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH. It seems you don't believe what He said in John 10:28.

And, that once a believer no longer believes, then by default, and your admission, he is no longer a believer.

All that I've posted stands. And you've failed to prove anything close to your view; that one who has been given eternal life can end up in the second death. Totally impossible.

Eternal life cannot exist in the state of the second death. They are mutually exclusive. [Stick to the facts. WIP]

So we are all waiting for you to show us the scriptures that say... "un-believers" are afforded the same eternal life life as believers.

What I will show you again is what Jesus said about those to whom He has given eternal life: THEY WILL NEVER PERISH. Jn 10:28.

as to your comment about once a son, always a son...

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5


Peter hard-links these angels to the days of Noah, in which it is these sons of God, sinned in the days of Noah, and were cast down to hell.

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:1-4

Jesus calls angels sons of God, as well.

You know the drill. I'm talking about those who have been BORN AGAIN, and have BECOME sons through the NEW BIRTH.

If you can show how any angel can claim sonship through being born again or the new birth, you would have a point to make. As it is, you don't have any point to make.

[Not necessarily. WIP]

A believer who no longer believes, has become an un-believer. JLB

[Trolling. WIP]

But don't forget what Jesus said about those to whom He gives eternal life: THEY WILL NEVER PERISH. Jn 10:28

That's a promise to believe, not reject.

Whoever has been given eternal life, WILL NEVER PERISH.

God's gift of eternal life (Rom 6:23) is irrevocable (Rom 11:29). So we know that God will NOT take eternal life away from those He has given it to. So what's left? The one who has it must somehow (?) be able to either:
give it away [off topic]
lose it [off topic]

So, where does Scripture teach that one who has eternal life even has the ability to do either of these?

Certainly, God is not involved in removing eternal life from anyone, or the Bible would actually say so.

So, where do you find the teaching that people themselves have this so-called ability to get rid of eternal life?????

 

[FreeGrace]

smaller,

I'm talking about somebody with a fixation on OSAS, based on John 5:24 (ESV) and John 10:28 (ESV) and that person has not correctly exegeted John 5:24 (SBL Greek text). Reading it from the English text does not correctly communicate the meaning of John 5:24 (ESV) from the Greek.

Here is John 5:24 in the Mounce transliterated Interlinear translation. When we understand the meaning of the root verbs, pisteuō and echō, we will be able to understand how these 2 verbs relate to perseverance of the saints (in my view, a better phrase than OSAS).

Oz

Interesting, Oz. I looked at your Mounce link and didn't find anything different than what I have explained.

So, what's so significant with what Mounce translated that refutes anything I've said?