Iron Clad example proving OSAS from John 10:28

[OzSpen]

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.

That means you don't know NT Greek and are unable to conjugate Greek verbs and know their meanings without going to secondary sources. How can you read Greek texts without knowing the Greek alphabet, conjugations of verbals, declensions of nouns, etc, and other Greek grammar?

Second hand sources are dangerous when you are dealing with a language that is foreign to you.

Oz

 

[JLB]

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)

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

 

[chessman]

It is taught in 1 Tim 1:18-20 (ESV) and Heb 6:4-6 (ESV).

I guess if I thought Paul was instructing Timothy that someone's conscious saved them, then rejecting their conscious could un-save them. But that wasn't Paul's instruction in the letter or anywhere else.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 (ESV) This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.​

You still haven't answered my question; What did they reject? But you can simply leave you reasoning weak there.

Hebrews 6:6 (ESV) and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.​

If I thought it was possible to re-crucify Christ, from 'reading' a passage that specifically says what is impossible to do, I guess I could believe Heb 6:6 teaches anti-OSAS. But I don't think it's possible to re-crucify once again the Son of God.

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

And I explained that a "ruined battery" is STILL a GENUINE BATTERY.

It is this kind of faith:

(Maheno, courtesy dreamtime)

Do you understand the irony in this statement of yours?

The picture of a "ruined ship" REMAINS a GENUINE SHIP nonetheless

You've not shown otherwise, in spite of the insinuation that a "ruined ship" is no longer a genuine ship.

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!

There is no conflict is one realizes that one is saved by believing in the AORIST tense. One one believes in a point in time action, they are saved.

It is your misunderstanding of the present tense indicative that is missing.

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'.

• Where did His come from? It is v.9 that answers that question. They "entered through the "gate" to be saved. Entering through the gate is equivalent to believing in Him.

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.

• No, these present tenses are in the indicative mood, which I've shared as to what that means.

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.

2 errors here. The first is that v.27 in no way even suggests that following is a condition for NEVER PERISHING, or receiving eternal life.

Second, eternal life isn't given "continuously". Again, this is just an abuse of the present tense.

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.

This needs much more than a simple opinion. Where does Scripture teach this?

 

[FreeGrace]

That means you don't know NT Greek and are unable to conjugate Greek verbs and know their meanings without going to secondary sources. How can you read Greek texts without knowing the Greek alphabet, conjugations of verbals, declensions of nouns, etc, and other Greek grammar?

Second hand sources are dangerous when you are dealing with a language that is foreign to you.

Oz

Then please explain how what I shared from a Greek tense link says about the present tense, esp in the indicative mood.

I never suggested I was trained in the Greek. But am trained in the Enlish language and am quite able to read Greek grammar texts written in English. Which is how everyone (including you) learns Greek.

How is an intermediate Greek grammar text a "second hand source"??

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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'.)

That's OSAS. So that makes you OSAS. Or, as I've heard it said, ISAS (if saved always saved).

The emphasis in traditional OSAS doctrine (as opposed to hyper/free grace' OSAS) is that the believer who can never fall away and lose salvation is a true believer. In that version of traditional OSAS the 'believers' who fall are 'not really' believers at all. That's why they fall. This belief makes one OSAS, not non-OSAS. So I'm confused why you would call yourself non-OSAS.

The interesting point about this version of OSAS is you never know if you are a true believer, and therefore, eternally secure, because there is always tomorrow's potential failure to show that you never 'really' believed to begin with. And that's supposed to be the doctrine of security? In non-OSAS you know without a doubt that you are saved and are eternally secure in Christ because you are presently believing. As long as you believe, you have the security of Christ's perfect, infalliable ministry to keep you justified before the Father. Stop believing, like the Galatians were in danger of doing, and you lose the effectiveness of justification through Christ:

"2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision (for justification--see context), Christ will be of no benefit to you (toward justification)." (Galatians 5:2 NASB parenthesis mine)

 

[chessman]

If there were no warning passages in Scripture about falling away from the faith, I would be OSAS.

When God's word speak, His sheep listen to His voice, right?

What would you says about someone who said the following about the "warning passages" like Heb 6:6, etc?

"God knows what gifts of grace, what warnings, what Scriptural admonitions are necessary in order to ensure the free perseverance of the elect and their ultimate salvation."
​

by the way, it's not 'loosing'; that's what I did with my horse when I set him free/loose).

Yep. I had a horse get loose one time. Snatched the reins right out of my hands.

 

[JLB]

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.

 

[JLB]

The interesting point about this version of OSAS is you never know if you are a true believer, and therefore, eternally secure, because there is always tomorrow's potential failure to show that you never 'really' believed to begin with. And that's supposed to be the doctrine of security?

Sure doesn't sound secure to me.




JLB

 

[OzSpen]

OK, let's take this to an analogy to show how false the statement is.

I have a car battery. I was involved in a wreck because someone ran into the front of my car and ruined the battery. No different than a shipwrecked faith. But, can one honestly say that the ruined battery isn't a genuine battery? No, they cannot honestly say that.

A "shipwrecked faith" (1 Tim 1:19) or a "dead faith" (James 2:17,20,26), which is the same thing, is not producing deeds, but is nevertheless genuine.


Not at all, as just shown. Even a dead battery is STILL a genuine battery. It just needs charging.


What you've been missing is that a dead or ruined battery, while useless, is STILL a GENUINE battery.


No argument from me on that. But that doesn't mean they lost their salvation.

Remember that WHEN one believes, they HAVE eternal life (John 5:24). And those who have been given eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH (Jn 10:28).

No one has proven otherwise.

Your false analogy of 1 Tim 1:18-20 and James 2 is because the shipwrecked faith is not a useless faith (without works) as in James, but in 1 Tim it is a faith where 2 people are 'handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme'.

Sure doesn't sound like a 'ruined the battery' kind of faith hick-up but a faith that is devastated and dominated by Satanic control'.

Oz

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer here

Galatians 4:27 "For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ". This is a scripture that states that believers have put on Christ.
Colossians 3:3 "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." This is a scripture that states that the believers life "hid" with Christ in God.

Why is it necessary for the believers life to be hid with Christ? The answer is, no man can produce the righteousness that God requires. It has to be given unto him.

If man is not capable of producing that God-required righteousness before salvation, what changed so that man can produce that God required righteousness after salvation? Is it safe to say that after salvation, when God looks at man, he sees Christ and his shed blood because our life is Christ and not our own? When God looks upon man does he sees the first Adam still in his sin, or does he see the last Adam a life giving Spirit. When we look the first Adam we see him covered with coats of skin, so does God. When we look at the last Adam we see the life giving Spirit, So does God. What did the first Adam do or have to do to receive and retain those coats skins? Nothing, they were prepare and given by God and lasted unto his physical death. What is it the we have to do to retain the eternal Christ, the life giving Spirit? Is Christ not a gift of eternal life given and not earned. If he is not earned, then why is it that we have to "earn" his righteousness that was also given?

 

[FreeGrace]

That's OSAS. So that makes you OSAS. Or, as I've heard it said, ISAS (if saved always saved).

The emphasis in traditional OSAS doctrine (as opposed to hyper/free grace' OSAS) is that the believer who can never fall away and lose salvation is a true believer.

This so-called traditional OSAS doctrine is Calvinist doctrine and is unbiblical. It is easily refuted.

 

[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.

That's easy! The aorist tense could not indicate 'continued to believe for a while'. The perfect tense could not achieve that meaning. The pluperfect tense doesn't do it. But the Greek present tense is ideal for indicating that someone continued believing for a while.

[edited by staff]

Luke 8:13 uses the present tense for 'believe'. Your a priori commitment to OSAS prevents you from concluding with other than OSAS. You will continually run into difficulties with the Greek NT when you don't know the meaning of grammar.

[edited by staff]

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I guess if I thought Paul was instructing Timothy that someone's conscious saved them, then rejecting their conscious could un-save them. But that wasn't Paul's instruction in the letter or anywhere else.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 (ESV) This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.​

You still haven't answered my question; What did they reject? But you can simply leave you reasoning weak there.

Hebrews 6:6 (ESV) and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.​

If I thought it was possible to re-crucify Christ, from 'reading' a passage that specifically says what is impossible to do, I guess I could believe Heb 6:6 teaches anti-OSAS. But I don't think it's possible to re-crucify once again the Son of God.

What on earth does this language of yours mean: 'someone's conscious saved them, then rejecting their conscious could un-save them'? I do wish you would write with meaning. That statement is meaningless when you write about 'conscious' in this way.

Oz

 

[JLB]

That should enable you to know why Luke 8:13 uses the present tense for 'believe'. Your a priori commitment to OSAS prevents you from concluding with other than OSAS. You will continually run into difficulties with the Greek NT when you don't know the meaning of grammar.

 

[FreeGrace]

Your false analogy of 1 Tim 1:18-20 and James 2 is because the shipwrecked faith is not a useless faith (without works) as in James, but in 1 Tim it is a faith where 2 people are 'handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme'.

One is free to call my analogy what ever they want, but the point is still true. And James 2 DOES use the word "barren" from the Greek 'argon', which also means useless. How about another analogy: a barren field is a useless field to the farmer.

btw, what is the purpose for "handing over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme"?? The SAME REASON Paul said this about the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5:5 - hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Do you know what Paul meant by "destruction of the flesh"? It meant to physically kill the person. And Satan, like the Roman soldiers, knows perfectly well how to make that death as painful as possible.

And turning one over to Satan has as its purpose to "learn not to blaspheme". iow, it's a teaching moment for the one turned over to Satan.

If Paul only meant by "turning over to Satan" loss of salvation, what would be the point of learning anything? There would be none.

Sure doesn't sound like a 'ruined the battery' kind of faith hick-up but a faith that is devastated and dominated by Satanic control'.
Oz

Where would one get this kind of conclusion from the verse? Paul said nothing about one's faith being "devastated and dominated by Satanic control". Not even close.

The WHOLE POINT of turning such a man over to Satan was for a teaching moment: to learn something.

If by some behavior or activity one ends up in hell, what would be the point of learning not to blaspheme? What would it matter for those in hell whether they blasphemed or not?

Your conclusions make no sense to me.

God's whole point for His divine discipline, which includes "illness, weakness, and physical death - 1 Cor 11:30), or being turned over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5, 1 Tim 1:18-20) is to LEARN something.

Consider Heb 12 -
8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.
9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live!
10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness.
11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

So, to summarize:
1. God's discipline is PAINFUL
2. God disciplines us for OUR GOOD
3. The purpose of God's discipline is THAT WE MAY SHARE IN HIS HOLINESS
4. For those who are TRAINED by God's discipline, it produces a HARVEST OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

All this applies to both 1 Cor 5:5 and 1 Tim 1:18-20 and God's discipline. That's WHY Paul would turn over people to Satan. It is a form of God's discipline.

And those who teach eternal security MUST understand the doctrine of God's discipline and how painful it can be.

I'm tired of the conditional security folk always claiming that OSAS teaches that there are no consequences for bad/evil behaviors for the believer. There SURE ARE consequences. And serious ones.

 

[OzSpen]

That's OSAS. So that makes you OSAS. Or, as I've heard it said, ISAS (if saved always saved).

The emphasis in traditional OSAS doctrine (as opposed to hyper/free grace' OSAS) is that the believer who can never fall away and lose salvation is a true believer. In that version of traditional OSAS the 'believers' who fall are 'not really' believers at all. That's why they fall. This belief makes one OSAS, not non-OSAS. So I'm confused why you would call yourself non-OSAS.

The interesting point about this version of OSAS is you never know if you are a true believer, and therefore, eternally secure, because there is always tomorrow's potential failure to show that you never 'really' believed to begin with. And that's supposed to be the doctrine of security? In non-OSAS you know without a doubt that you are saved and are eternally secure in Christ because you are presently believing. As long as you believe, you have the security of Christ's perfect, infalliable ministry to keep you justified before the Father. Stop believing, like the Galatians were in danger of doing, and you lose the effectiveness of justification through Christ:

"2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision (for justification--see context), Christ will be of no benefit to you (toward justification)." (Galatians 5:2 NASB parenthesis mine)

I am not supporting OSAS because I'm a supporter of perseverance of the saints. Perseverance of the saints is the biblical doctrine. That's why I support this biblical position: Continue in the faith to guarantee eternal life.

That is not OSAS.

Oz

 

[FreeGrace]

That's easy! The aorist tense could not indicate 'continued to believe for a while'. The perfect tense could not achieve that meaning. The pluperfect tense doesn't do it. But the Greek present tense is ideal for indicating that someone continued believing for a while.

The aorist tense generally means "a point in time action" with no thought to any time element. And the aorist tense is used by both Jesus and Paul for believing for salvation. Luke 8:12 phrased in the negative: "lest they believe (aorist) and are saved".

iow, one is saved by a point in time action of faith in Christ. Not by continuously to the end of one's life. The Bible simply does not teach that.

This is what happens when you don't understand NT Greek language. I suggest you do what I needed to do. Go get a BA or BTh in Biblical Literature, an MA, MDiv or MTh in NT Greek and pursue this through to a PhD or ThD in NT and you should get a handle on the parsing and grammar of the Greek NT.

Why didn't you address the indicative mood of the present tense?

That should enable you to know why Luke 8:13 uses the present tense for 'believe'. Your a priori commitment to OSAS prevents you from concluding with other than OSAS. You will continually run into difficulties with the Greek NT when you don't know the meaning of grammar.

My commitment to eternal security comes from Romans. Paul described 3 specific gifts that are from God; spiritual gifts in 1:11, justification in 3:24 and 5;15,16,17 and eternal life in 6:23. Then there is NO MENTION of any kind of gifts until we get to 11:29, which says that God's gifts are irrevocable. Whatever Paul had in mind regarding God's gifts, one MUST INCLUDE the 3 specifically described gifts that Paul noted before 11:29. It is irrational to argue otherwise.

Second, Rom 8:38 tells us that even the future (things to come) will not separate us from the love of Christ. Some Arminians have the irrational view that one who has been saved but ends up in hell because of lifestyle are STILL in the love of Christ, while spending eternity in the "second death".

Beyond these 2 points, I have found the teaching of eternal security in many other passages. But these 2 are irrefutable.

[edited]

I believe eternal security is as plainly taught as the doctrine of unlimited atonement.

I apply the SAME PRINCIPLES when arguing for unlimited atonement as I do with eternal security.

 

[FreeGrace]

I am not supporting OSAS because I'm a supporter of perseverance of the saints. Perseverance of the saints is the biblical doctrine. That's why I support this biblical position: Continue in the faith to guarantee eternal life.

That is not OSAS.

Oz

The problem with your claim is that it is not supported by the Bible. It is Jesus Christ, and His work alone which guarantees eternal life to the believer.

Regardless of all the faulty claims from John 10:27, v.28 is clear about the SOLE CONDITION for NEVER PERISHING.

The sole condition for NEVER PERISHING is to receive eternal life. Which agrees with the FACT that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable. Rom 6:23 and 11:29.

 

[JLB]

The problem with your claim is that it is not supported by the Bible. It is Jesus Christ, and His work alone which guarantees eternal life to the believer.

How does one access this work of Jesus Christ, which gives us eternal life?


JLB