Iron Clad example proving OSAS from John 10:28

[WIP]

The way you all banter back and forth, reading through this thread one gets the impression that Jesus is up for grabs and if one can score the most points by belittling the opposition or somehow bolstering one's own position in the discussion he/she can win the prize. I gave warning at the beginning. If this thread doesn't take on a more polite and Christian tone I will be forced to lock it down. My patience is running thin.

 

[JLB]

I think that it is a reach to apply it to someone having the Spirit ... and leaping from God's hand, negating God's promise and thwarting the will of the Father.

Yes that would be a stretch.


However, Jesus does not teach us about "leaping from the hand", but rather it is God the Father Himself, that removes the unfruitful branches that are "in Christ".

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. John 15:1-2


Please consider the actual words Jesus said.






JLB

 

[atpollard]

Yes that would be a stretch.

However, Jesus does not teach us about "leaping from the hand", but rather it is God the Father Himself, that removes the unfruitful branches that are "in Christ".

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. John 15:1-2

Please consider the actual words Jesus said.
JLB

Are the decedents of Israel the people of the covenant of God made with Moses, recorded in the Torah and which the people violated over and over? Did got not send prophet after prophet with warnings that God was owned the vineyard and the people of the nation of Israel were his vine? Did Jesus not come as the True Vine, the Israel of God, to fulfill the law? Throughout his entire Earthly ministry, did jesus not serve as the cornerstone and stumbling block with which God the Father pruned the people of the nation of Israel into two camps ... those who believed in the Christ and WERE abiding in the TRUE VINE, and those who rejected the Christ and WERE cut off and cast away. With respect to those of the Old Covenant that believed and chose to abide, like the apostles who stated "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69) or Paul [Philippians 3:5-7 "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ."], did God not prune away the law to make them even more fruitful?

I have considered the words Jesus said, and the words God gave to the Prophets before them, and the words the Apostles wrote after them, and the circumstances of the events that unfolded. From all this, I reached the opinion that I articulated in the rest of the post you snipped your quote from.

Please help me to understand how a branch in Jesus can be a saved person and the Father can take them away (as it seems you claim I should believe John 15 states) when John 6 states:

John 6:37-40 [NIV]
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

So which is it? God steadily grafts some and discards some to/from Jesus, or all the Father gives, will come and Jesus will lose none?
I explained how John 15 does not contradict the latter (all the Father gives, will come and Jesus will loose none), which you disagree with. Fair enough. Then how does John 6 not contradict the former (God steadily grafts some and discards some to/from Jesus)?

 

[Jim Parker]

I really do not know how you made that leap but there are different levels of rewaqrd and there is no reason for the inverse not to be true of the Abyss.

Maybe I missed something.
There are no "levels" of rewards in Mat 25:31-46.
The "Sheep" (righteous) inherit the kingdom (v. 34) and eternal life. (v. 46)
The "Goats" (cursed) will be sent to "everlasting fire" (v.41) and "Everlasting punishment. (v. 46)

How do you see "levels of reward" in that?

iakov the fool

 

[th1b.taylor]

Maybe I missed something.
There are no "levels" of rewards in Mat 25:31-46.
The "Sheep" (righteous) inherit the kingdom (v. 34) and eternal life. (v. 46)
The "Goats" (cursed) will be sent to "everlasting fire" (v.41) and "Everlasting punishment. (v. 46)

How do you see "levels of reward" in that?

iakov the fool

This link will explain it best I believe. And this link, coupled with the Wedding Feast Parable explaining the composition of Heaven, Matthew 14, as I recall verses 1-14, and you should be able to see there are both the Bride and the guests in Heaven with God. And they are not equal.

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/crowns-in-heaven/

 

[Jim Parker]

This link will explain it best I believe. And this link, coupled with the Wedding Feast Parable explaining the composition of Heaven, Matthew 14, as I recall verses 1-14, and you should be able to see there are both the Bride and the guests in Heaven with God. And they are not equal.

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/crowns-in-heaven/

yeah.
Sorry, but I am not impressed with the source. They make much more out of the word "crown" than scripture does and pervert the meaning of Mat 25:31-46 in doing so.

Mat. 25:31-46 has absolutely nothing to do with crowns. Crowns are not mentioned, suggested, or hinted at.
According to the passage, there are exactly two possible verdicts of Jesus' judgment; heaven and hell.
Trying to force "levels of rewards" into that passage completely distorts and negates its meaning. It takes Jesus' words and attempts to make them say something He did not at all say rather than allowing the words to mean exactly and only what they, in fact, actually mean. That is a perversion of scripture and is to be rejected as false.

And that's how I see it.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

I am only pointing out what He said.

What YOU THINK He said.

please exegete the verse to prove that my understanding is wrong.

I just did.

 

[Jim Parker]

Paul addresses this point directly in his teaching about the vine:

"you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. " (Romans 11:20-22 NASB)

The 'branch' had faith, and was standing by that faith, then it did not have faith (and so no longer belonged to the vine) and will be removed from the vine.

Yes, that is precisely what Jesus was talking about at John 15.

The teaching is clear. Eternal life is indeed eternal. HAVING it is not necessarily so. It can be lost.

 

[JLB]

Please help me to understand how a branch in Jesus can be a saved person and the Father can take them away

Ok, let's review the actual words that Jesus taught us, line upon line.

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. John 15:1-2

The branches are "in Him".

In your understanding, does being "in Christ" refer to a believer, or an unbeliever ?


1. "In Him" refers to an unbeliever.
2. "In Him" refers to a believer.





JLB

 

[OzSpen]

I have found that is a common feature of OSAS.

Jethro,

I agree that it is a common feature of OSAS but it also can be a common feature of the non-OSAS to engage in circular reasoning.

The way to avoid this kind of logical fallacy is to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Start with the Scriptures and exegete them with care.

If there were no warning passages in Scripture about falling away from the faith, I would be OSAS. However, there are passages that warn about losing salvation or shipwrecking faith, e.g. Heb 6:4-6 (ESV) and 1 Tim 1:18-20 (ESV). That's enough to tell me the pro-OSAS is not a water tight argument, no matter how much one wants to emphasise the 'iron clad ... John 10:28'.

However, I do endorse the teaching of perseverance of the saints. Those who are truly saints of God will persevere until the end (e.g. Matt 24:13 ESV, 'But the one who endures to the end will be saved'.)

Oz

 

[th1b.taylor]

yeah.
Sorry, but I am not impressed with the source. They make much more out of the word "crown" than scripture does and pervert the meaning of Mat 25:31-46 in doing so.

Mat. 25:31-46 has absolutely nothing to do with crowns. Crowns are not mentioned, suggested, or hinted at.
According to the passage, there are exactly two possible verdicts of Jesus' judgment; heaven and hell.
Trying to force "levels of rewards" into that passage completely distorts and negates its meaning. It takes Jesus' words and attempts to make them say something He did not at all say rather than allowing the words to mean exactly and only what they, in fact, actually mean. That is a perversion of scripture and is to be rejected as false Biblicist because you are devaluing some of scripture as though it were not a part of the record God promised to keep pure.

I find that tempting God is foolish and I'll agree to disagree and leave this there.

 

[Jim Parker]

Please help me to understand how a branch in Jesus can be a saved person and the Father can take them away

You seem to have a problem with what Jesus said.
Being saved is having eternal life.
The only way anyone can have eternal life is to be "in Christ" because only God has eternal life by nature.
For man to have eternal life (be saved) he must be connected to God. (In Christ)
If The Father cuts a person off from Christ that should tell you that you can loose your eternal life/salvation by not producing fruit.
That's what we are created to do. (Eph 2:10)
That's the gospel that Paul preached.
Act 26:19-20 (NKJV) Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

 

[OzSpen]

Once again, if there were a verse(s) in the Bible that actually described someone loosing their salvation, I would not hold to a OSAS position. But people claiming they're there and not proving it, doesn't float my boat.

There are, but you don't seem to accept them as rejection of salvation. It is taught in 1 Tim 1:18-20 (ESV) and Heb 6:4-6 (ESV). However, a begging the question fallacy will prevent one seeing the losing salvation that is taught in these passages.

Enough has been said about these 2 sections of Scripture to demonstrate that those who have 'once been enlightened', 'have tasted the heavenly gift', and 'have shared in the Holy Spirit', can fall away and they cannot be restored to repentance (Heb 6:4-6 ESV). They have shipwrecked their faith, which means that they are 'handed over to Satan' to learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:18-20).

These are severe warning passages about the possibility of losing salvation (by the way, it's not 'loosing'; that's what I did with my horse when I set him free/loose).

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

However, I do endorse the teaching of perseverance of the saints. Those who are truly saints of God will persevere until the end

Right.

Matt 24:13 ESV, 'But the one who endures to the end will be saved'.

And, logically, even though not stated in so many words, we may infer from that statement that the one who does NOT endure to the end will not be saved. (Otherwise, why mention enduring to the end.)

 

[Jim Parker]

No content showed up.

 

[OzSpen]

If I'm so wrong, then please just explain how the present tense is so different from what I explained. And please explain why Jesus used the present tense in Luke 8:13 for believing when the 2nd soil only "believed for a while". Hardly continuous belief.

You are not answering my question: Do you know NT Greek and know the grammar of Greek?

I've explained to you the difference between the Greek present tense and the English present tense. Go back to #67 where I did that.

Greek present tense can mean continuous action (___________________________) or continual/repeated action (- - - - - - - - - - - - -). The kind of action is the primary emphasis and not the time of action. The English present tense deals with what is happening in the present time. Thus, the Greek and English present tenses are significantly different in what they emphasise.

Now tell me: Do you read NT Greek and know the intricacies of Greek grammar?

Oz

 

[atpollard]

Ok, let's review the actual words that Jesus taught us, line upon line.

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. John 15:1-2

The branches are "in Him".

In your understanding, does being "in Christ" refer to a believer, or an unbeliever ?

1. "In Him" refers to an unbeliever.
2. "In Him" refers to a believer.

JLB

"Believe" what? That Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, yes. That is exactly what the Jews hearing the words of a pre crucified Jesus believed.

So it may have nothing to do with the salvific beliefs of a post-Resurrection Christian.
You seem to have missed all of the other words that I wrote and answered the one question that I was NOT asking.
I guess my actual question ...

So which is it? God steadily grafts some and discards some to/from Jesus, or all the Father gives, will come and Jesus will lose none?
I explained how John 15 does not contradict the latter (all the Father gives, will come and Jesus will lose none), which you disagree with. Fair enough. Then how does John 6 not contradict the former (God steadily grafts some and discards some to/from Jesus)?

... is something you can't or won't answer.

Then our conversation is over, I have no more time to waste on it.

 

[atpollard]

Redacted to avoid foolish arguments.

 

[FreeGrace]

You are not answering my question: Do you know NT Greek and know the grammar of Greek?

I've taken no classes. I know what I know from the SAME SOURCE as anyone learns Greek. From Greek texts. And I have 2 of them. Along with a number of Greek lexicons.

I've explained to you the difference between the Greek present tense and the English present tense. Go back to #67 where I did that.

Greek present tense can mean continuous action (___________________________) or continual/repeated action (- - - - - - - - - - - - -). The kind of action is the primary emphasis and not the time of action. The English present tense deals with what is happening in the present time. Thus, the Greek and English present tenses are significantly different in what they emphasise.

Now tell me: Do you read NT Greek and know the intricacies of Greek grammar?

Here's a link that may expand your understanding of the Greek present tense:
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm

And here is the explanation of the present tense from that link:
"For action happening at the present time, only the 'present tense' is available. Whether the writer is wishing in any particular instance to emphasis the progressive aspect of the verb or just indicate a simple occurrence at the present time, there is only one choice of tense to use. Therefore, one must consider the context and the basic meaning of the verb to determine whether the emphasis is on the continuous aspect of the action or merely on the present time element. It may be that no real emphasis on progressive action is intended but, for a statement requiring the element of present time, there is no choice but to use the 'present tense'. (Of course outside the indicative mood the emphasis almost certainly will be on the progressive element of the verb, since the aorist tense could readily be employed)."

Sounds to me that there are 2 ideas with the "present tense", and you've ignored one of them; the "simple occurrence at the present time".

As I understand the explanation, it seems the "indicative mood" means "simple occurrence at the present time", and NOT progressive action.

Guess what! The word "believe" in Luke 8:13 is present indicative. And the word "follow" in John 10:27 is present indicative.

I hope this helps.

 

[OzSpen]

James made the same point about a useless faith. It is barren, fruitless.

But where in all this is one justified to make the HUGE leap from a useless faith (meaning fruitless) to loss of salvation?

No one seems able to provide any explanation for that.

You know I'm no Calvinist, as proven by our being shouder (sic) to shoulder against their doctrine of limited atonement some years ago.

I fully understand that believers can abandon their faith, cease to believe. Jesus even made that exact point in the 2nd soil.

But where is the justification that such action results in loss of salvation. If it did, then what Jesus said in John 10:28 is untrue.

Since you noted you teach NT Greek, please provide your expanded translation of what Jesus said in that verse.

I'm not going to go over and over the same material. I've shown you from 1 Tim 1:18-20 (ESV) that a shipwrecked faith is one that used to be functional but is now a useless faith - it has been ruined, abandoned, given up, torn down.

It is this kind of faith:

(Maheno, courtesy dreamtime)

Do you understand the irony in this statement of yours?

I fully understand that believers can abandon their faith, cease to believe. Jesus even made that exact point in the 2nd soil.

But where is the justification that such action results in loss of salvation. If it did, then what Jesus said in John 10:28 is untrue.​

You state that believers 'can abandon their faith, cease to believe' and then you ask, 'where is the justification that such action results in loss of salvation?' Your doctrine creates the conflict that you stated so well here: 'cease to believe' = no 'loss of salvation'. That's an oxymoron!

You asked about the meaning of John 10:28.

The context of John 10:28 gives the answer to your question:

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him (John 10:25-31 ESV).​

Who is Jesus talking about in v 28? Verse 27 gives the answer, 'My sheep'. What do his sheep do?

• They 'hear my voice';
• 'I know them';
• 'They follow me'.

Let's exegete these statements:

• 'Hear' is present tense, i.e. they continuously hear Jesus' voice.
  
• 'Know' is present tense, i.e. Jesus continuously knows them.
  
• 'Follow' is present tense, i.e. they continuously follow Jesus.

THEREFORE, what is the result? 'I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand' (John 10:28 ESV). By the way, 'give' in this verse is present tense in Greek, so it means Jesus 'continuously gives' eternal life.

I give 100% support to the content of John 10:28 (ESV) because John 10:27 (ESV) in the Greek text makes it crystal clear that those who continuously enjoy eternal life, will never perish and nobody will snatch them out of Jesus' hands are those who: Continuously hear, continuously know, and continuously follow Jesus.

John 10:28 does not apply to those who once believed or believed for a short or slightly longer period of time, and then stopped believing.

John 10:28 (ESV) is a dynamic verse that supports perseverance of the saints and not OSAS.

I hope that lays to rest the whole idea that John 10:28 (ESV) is an 'iron clad' verse in support of OSAS. It is not. The Greek grammar refutes such a view.

Oz