Is Sinning on Purpose Willful Sin ?

[Jethro Bodine]

Did his flesh come to destruction?

Yes. He repented. The sin nature, his flesh, was put to death.

"...if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live..." (Romans 8:13 NIV)

 

[gr8grace3]

Yes. He repented. The sin nature, his flesh, was put to death.

"...if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live..." (Romans 8:13 NIV)

Just amazing my friend. So, ultimately it is Satan who saves us. Satan puts the flesh(sin nature) to death/destruction.

New American Standard Bible
I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Ah, I see. Another 'it doesn't really mean what it says' interpretation.

"...deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB)

So, OSAS says he ISN'T being turned over to satan so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, even though that's what it plainly says?

Just amazing my friend. So, ultimately it is Satan who saves us.Satan puts the flesh(sin nature) to death/destruction.

 

[FreeGrace]

Then why is it necessary for the disobedient man in the Corinthian church to be handed over to satan so the flesh can be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of Christ if, as you insist, he's already irretrievably save?

"...deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB)

It's pretty obvious that God is very much taking our sin into consideration and not just looking at a certificate of righteousness with our name on it. This man's flesh must come to destruction SO THAT he can be saved, but you say it does not.

Actually, this passage teaches eternal security. The sinful believer was handed over to Satan as divine discipline. And we all know how much Satan knows how to cause suffering. The point is that the man will be saved. And this man hadn't fallen away from believing. He was just obviously sinful.

So your view is that one can lose salvation in 2 ways:
loss of salvation
sin

Yet, eternal life is a gift (Rom 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The sinful fellow in the Corinth church can't be saved unless he is turned over to satan. If he is not turned over to satan for the purpose Paul said to do that, he won't be saved. But in complete contradiction to that OSAS says he is saved regardless of what happens.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Just amazing my friend. So, ultimately it is Satan who saves us. Satan puts the flesh(sin nature) to death/destruction.

Spin it anyway you want to. But your buddy answered it for you:.

The sinful believer was handed over to Satan as divine discipline. And we all know how much Satan knows how to cause suffering.

But, sadly, you both refuse to see that the Corinthian fellow is being turned over to that discipline "SO THAT" he can be saved on the Day of Wrath. If he is not brought to repentance he will NOT be saved on the Day of Wrath. But you are sure Paul is wrong and it is not necessary for him to be brought to repentance (mortify the deeds of the flesh) "SO THAT" he can be saved on the Day of Wrath. That is assuming he's not OSAS and will not falsely believe he can continue in his sexual immorality and think he's still be saved on the Day of Wrath, but rather will repent and be saved.

So your view is that one can lose salvation in 2 ways:
loss of salvation
sin

I'm not sure how 'loss of salvation' is itself a way that you can lose salvation, but as far as 'sin' being a way to lose salvation: Yes, you can sin yourself out of salvation if that sin represents a decision to reject the forgiveness of God.

It's hard to get people to see the difference between sinning because of weakness or ignorance, all the while relying on God's forgiveness, and sinning because you just don't care anymore about God's grace in the forgiveness of your sins. The latter will condemn you on the Day of God's Wrath. The former is, obviously, covered by the blood of Jesus, which is what the OP is all about. Sin covered by the blood, because you confessed it before God, can not condemn you to the fire. Sin that is NOT covered by the blood, because you simply don't care if it is or not covered, will indeed condemn even the one who was once born again to the fire on the Day of Wrath.

Yet, eternal life is a gift (Rom 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

Hopefully, somewhere in your previous posts you have explained how it is that dead, unbelieving Israelites will be grafted back into the tree to prove that you are not misusing Romans 11:29 as a defense for OSAS. Until you do that we will continue to see that Paul is saying the gift and calling are irrevocable for the nation of Israel as a whole who will come to Christ at the end of the age, not to individual Israelites who died in unbelief but who will then be saved despite their rejection of, and unbelief in Christ.

 

[FreeGrace]

The sinful fellow in the Corinth church can't be saved unless he is turned over to satan. If he is not turned over to satan for the purpose Paul said to do that, he won't be saved. But in complete contradiction to that OSAS says he is saved regardless of what happens.

There are NO verses that teach that one can lose their salvation. Just the opposite. We are SECURE in the hand of God, per Jesus, in Jn 10:28. The "no one" means no person. If you are a person, then even you yourself cannot fall from God's hand.

Paul wrote that "nothing in the future" can separate us (children of God by faith in Christ) from the love of God in Rom 8:38.

And, though you disagree, eternal life is an irrevocable gift. Rom 6:23 and Eph 2:8 cf 11:29.

You have not refuted any of these points. {hint: disagreement isn't refutation}

 

[FreeGrace]

But, sadly, you both refuse to see that the Corinthian fellow is being turned over to that discipline "SO THAT" he can be saved on the Day of Wrath.

Let's apply a bit of common sense here. If your understanding is correct, a sinful believer must die physically at the hand of Satan in order to be saved. That isn't rational.

The key to the passage is in the word for "saved", which is 'sozo'. The word has the same semantic range as the English word "save", which basically means to rescue or deliver from…something. In some contexts, that would clearly mean being saved from the LoF. But James used the word 5 times, none of which were in reference to eternal salvation.

Sozo is often used to refer to being healed or being healthy (Matt 9:21-22, Mark 5:23, 28, 34, 6:56, 10:52, Luke 7:50, 8:36, 48, 50, 17:19, 18:42, Acts 4:9, 14:9.)

In fact, one of James' uses was in reference to physical healing; 5:15. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

This is Paul's meaning in 1 Cor 5. Paul's desire isthat this man would respond well to church discipline (and from Satan's ministrations!) so that his spirit would be healthy at the Bema.

I'm not sure how 'loss of salvation' is itself a way that you can lose salvation, but as far as 'sin' being a way to lose salvation: Yes, you can sin yourself out of salvation if that sin represents a decision to reject the forgiveness of God.

Please provide clear evidence from Scripture for this opinion.

Hopefully, somewhere in your previous posts you have explained how it is that dead, unbelieving Israelites will be grafted back into the tree to prove that you are not misusing Romans 11:29 as a defense for OSAS.

I provided that explanation to you recently. The issue in Rom 11 is about being used by God. The metaphor of a root and branch is from their agricultural economy. Branches that were not producing fruit were removed from the tree because they were not useful to the farmer. That was Paul's point.

Your view spiritualizes the metaphor and twists the meaning into something contradictory to other Scripture. Such as the free gift of eternal life is irrevocable. Your view makes eternal life very revocable. And is unbiblical for that reason.

Until you do that we will continue to see that Paul is saying the gift and calling are irrevocable for the nation of Israel as a whole who will come to Christ at the end of the age, not to individual Israelites who died in unbelief but who will then be saved despite their rejection of, and unbelief in Christ.

There is NOTHING in Rom 11 to suggest that Paul was referring ONLY to gifts to Israel. btw, the word is PLURAL in 11:29. It isn't one gift as your comment here says. And Paul previously said that eternal life is a gift.
"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (irrevocable)"

Also, btw, the gift of eternal life is for both Jews and Gentiles, so your view is still wrong.

What you have done to Rom 11:29 is what you accuse others of doing. You are trying to "explain away" a passage that refutes your view.

 

[chessman]

Actually, these forms of the Greek words σωθῇ (sōthē) and ἵνα (hina) has another occurrence. Let’s see how your assessment of what the text supposedly means (should this person “NOT be brought to repentance”, as you hypothesize it means) matches up to the other example of their usage. [Which, by the way, “repentance” is not even mentioned in the text of 1 Cor 5. Why? Umm, because he’s not talking about repentance, that’s why.]

John 3:17 (LEB) For God did not send his Son into the world in order that he should judge the world, but in order that [hina] the world should be saved [sōthē] through him.​

“should be saved” is the English translation/conversion of the one word and its form in the Greek (sōthē). Same word as “may be saved” is within 1 Cor 5:5 NASB

1 Corinthians 5:5 (LEB) I have decided to hand over such a person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.​

Like’s take your logic to its logical conclusion (for what would/should happen to this man, that is he’d lose his salvation if he didn’t repent). By hypothesizing that 1 Cor 5:5 is NOT done to him and apply it (compare it that is) to John 3:17 as follows:

You say:

The sinful fellow in the Corinth church can't be saved unless he is turned over to satan.

Now applying this same logic conclusion, of yours, not just to this man but all men (the world) your logic would imply:

The sinful world can't be saved unless the sinful world is turned over to satan. Which of course makes zero sense Biblically speaking as it’s 180 degrees from the truth. Why? Because John 3:17 tells us that it’s Christ that saves the sinful world, not Satan. And because you do not understand what Paul’s phrase meant to them in the first place (or either you do and just don’t care).

If you actually read the context in/around this verse we find out what Paul means by the phrase “hand over such a person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”. And it ain’t repentance or even his death. Paul simply and clearly meant to kick this guy out of their assembly. Think about it. How could that church literally “hand over such a person to Satan”? Kill him or pray to Satan to come get this guy or something? How would they literally hand him over to Satan? It’s obviously a phrase that meant something to them other than its literal meaning. Luckily Paul includes its meaning within the context of this partial verse.

Verse 2 is Paul’s instruction to them to remove this person from their midst when they are assembled. (i.e. church discipline for this adulterer). Just read the context.

So how’s this person saved then? Umm, the same way every other person that is saved, is saved (see John 3:16-17 and ironically 1 Cor 5:4). He is saved “by the power of our Lord Jesus”. See verse 4, which is literally within the same sentence as verse 5. Talk about ignoring context. At least post compete sentences within the Biblical text to show your debatable case(s).

Once again (as you did for 1 Cor 15:1-2 and I notice continue to do to that verse and many, many other passages as well) you rip a phrase out of its context in a rather feeble attempt to ‘prove’ anti-OSAS (since there is no actual verses that teaches anti-OSAS).

Why, because in my opinion, Anti-OSAS is quite literally Anti-“the power of our Lord Jesus” (as taught here and elsewhere, including Hebrews and 1 Cor 15:1-2) since it’s Jesus that saves this man not Satan or even this man.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let's apply a bit of common sense here. If your understanding is correct, a sinful believer must die physically at the hand of Satan in order to be saved. That isn't rational.

I made this abundantly clear. The deeds of the flesh must die.

We know Paul isn't saying his physical life had to end "SO THAT" he may be saved on the Day of Wrath. How do we know that? Because he is alive and well in 2 Corinthians, yet he is free of that which would condemn him on the Day of Wrath. What had to happen "SO THAT" he may be saved on the Day of Wrath is his sinful deeds had to crucified--and they were.

 

[FreeGrace]

I made this abundantly clear. The deeds of the flesh must die.

I'll be just as clear. We do that by stop sinning. That's how we "put to death" the deeds of the flesh. How do you think it's done?

We know Paul isn't saying his physical life had to end "SO THAT" he may be saved on the Day of Wrath.

That's what I thought you believed, from your post.

How do we know that? Because he is alive and well in 2 Corinthians, yet he is free of that which would condemn him on the Day of Wrath. What had to happen "SO THAT" he may be saved on the Day of Wrath is his sinful deeds had to crucified--and they were.

What is your point here? The discussion is primarily about whether one can lose their salvation.

The best way to approach Scripture is from the clear to the more difficult verses/passages. The clearest passages I know are that eternal life is a gift, per Rom 6:23, and that God's giftS are irrevocable, per Rom 11:29.

Because that is so crystal clear and unambiguous, I apply those FACTS to every verse in the Bible that "might" suggest (to some) that salvation can be lost. It can't, because God NEVER revokes His gifts.

Since there are no clearly stated verses that SAY that salvation can be lost, you've come to that conclusion from verses/passages that you think refer to that. You call them clearly or plainly stated, but that exists only in your mind, and you don't really understand what "clearly stated" means.

What is clearly stated in Scripture are warnings of loss. Agreed? You take them to mean salvation, though salvation isn't mentioned in those verses/passages.

And rewards aren't mentioned either. So how do we know what is being referred to as being lost? The context is key. If deeds/sins/etc are the issue, then we know confidently that rewards are in view.

We know this because of the 2 FACTS I've given you repeatedly. Eternal life is a gift and God doesnt revoke His gifts.

We know that all believers will be judged at the Bema (Judgment Seat of Christ) per 2 Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. NASB

Do you see salvation here? I don't. What is clearly stated is that every believer will be judged for "deeds done in the body", and "whether good or bad". So we know there will be rewards at the Bema. Likewise, it is ridiculous to think that God will reward anyone for bad deeds, right? Of course not. So, as good deeds will be rewarded, bad deeds will result in loss of rewards.

In Rev 22:12 Jesus said "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My REWARD is with Me". Was He speaking of salvation? Of course not. Why? Because in John 5:24 He said that those who have believed HAVE eternal life. That is salvation. They have it WHEN they believe. God doesn't hold out til the end before He gives it.

I know you're thinking of Matt 18 and "endure to the end to be saved". But context shows that this phrase refers ONLY to the Tribulation period, not the whole of mankind throughout the ages. As such, it isn't referring to eternal life, as that would contradict every other verse on how one obtains eternal life.

Until you accept by faith the FACTS that eternal life is a free gift (Rom 6:23) and that God doesn't revoke His gifts (Rom 11:29), I don't think it is possible for you to grasp any other points on the subject.

 

[gr8grace3]

Spin it anyway you want to. But your buddy answered it for you:..

I am not spinning it. That is exactly what it looks like you are saying. Whether you mean it or not,it looks and reads as if you are saying that.

My "buddy?" If you are referring to Freegrace,I would guess if I knew him in person, I would sit under him and learn bible doctrine from him.

You don't realize it, but he should be your "buddy" also. That man has a great understanding of bible doctrine and a great understanding of how you "spin" the truth. He is a true blessing on this site.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Since there are no clearly stated verses that SAY that salvation can be lost, you've come to that conclusion from verses/passages that you think refer to that. You call them clearly or plainly stated, but that exists only in your mind, and you don't really understand what "clearly stated" means.

I want people reading this to know that the Bible does say in clear words that salvation is conditional on you continuing in that which got you saved in the first place:

"1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

From the passage we see the Corinthians are saved. Not maybe saved. Not 'not really' saved. They are saved.

The context shows he's talking about salvation, not the benefits of salvation.

The condition added to that salvation is that they hold fast in the word that was preached.

Playing with the words and suggesting that the 'if' means 'if, as you are surely are' still doesn't remove the requirement to hold fast the word in order to be saved, effectively removing any argument that you can go back to sin and unbelief and still be saved.

And believing in vain, whether you claim it means they never believed in the first place, or that their believing to date is in danger of becoming a vain waste of time because they have now adopted a resurrection-less gospel, does not change the fact that you still have to hold fast the word that was preached to be saved by that word.


So many OSAS arguments defeated in a single passage. Clear and easily understood teaching that fills in the gaps on other less detailed passages of scripture that OSAS uses to defend it's argument that salvation is not conditional on continuing in that which you started out in.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Who said he had a free gift.

The man's debt in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB was forgiven for free.

If he received eternal life, and Matt 18 teaches that it was revoked, then why believe ANY part of the Bible? Are you comfortable with Scripture contradicting itself? Because God's gift of eternal life CANNOT be revoked, your understanding of Matt 18 is wrong. That should be obvious to you.

Uh oh, you're committing the famous OSAS sin of circular reasoning again. You're saying God's gift of eternal life can not be revoked (the argument we're trying to settle) to answer the argument of whether God's gift of eternal life can be revoked.

Salvation is through the forgiveness of sin, not by being able to pay off your own debt owed the Father. The reason Jesus is even bringing up the parable is because the disciples were asking him a question about forgiveness of sin. In the parable the servant gets forgiven his debt. That correlates directly to the forgiveness of sin that he and the disciples are discussing. This servant LOST that forgiveness through his own careless contempt and lack of appreciation for the free gift. His sinful, unbelieving behavior is the evidence of that contempt and lack of appreciation.

And if that isn't enough to convince somebody that Jesus is talking about forgiveness of sin in salvation he says this is how it is in the kingdom and that his Father will treat any of us the same way the servant was treated if we do what he did.

First, there isn't anything there that teaches that this servant goes to hell. You just imagine that. You keep putting your non-OSAS bias into every verse that you can, when none of them teach what is CONTRADICTORY to Scripture.

How does this change the fact that his debt was reinstated? OSAS insists that you can not lose the free gift of righteousness through the forgiveness of sins.

 

[FreeGrace]

I want people reading this to know that the Bible does say in clear words that salvation is conditional on you continuing in that which got you saved in the first place:

"1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

From the passage we see the Corinthians are saved. Not maybe saved. Not 'not really' saved. They are saved.

I have already explained the Greek word translated "hold fast". It means to possess. iow, once a person believes in a point in time (without regard to duration = aorist tense), they HAVE eternal life. Such life is eternal, meaning is cannot die. Therefore, those who have believed HAVE eternal life and cannot exist in the second death.

Your view creates an impossibility. You have to ignore these FACTS to "hold fast" to your own view.

The context shows he's talking about salvation, not the benefits of salvation.

Yes sir. He is. And those who have been given ETERNAL life continue to HAVE eternal life. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary. Where in the Bible are we warned in plain language that we can lose eternal life? No where.

If eternal life can be revoked, then it shouldn't be called "eternal". It should be called "conditional". Your view cannot be supported from Scripture.

The condition added to that salvation is that they hold fast in the word that was preached.

Yeah, in your mind it means "to sqeeze tightly onto your faith in order to stay saved", or something like that. But the word refutes your view of the verse.

Those who have been given eternal life POSSESS eternal life.

What Paul is meaning here is that those who have believed HAVE eternal life, and are therefore saved. And there aren't any verses that tell us that eternal life can be taken away.

And believing in vain, whether you claim it means they never believed in the first place, or that their believing to date is in danger of becoming a vain waste of time because they have now adopted a resurrection-less gospel, does not change the fact that you still have to hold fast the word that was preached to be saved by that word.

And I explained that word to you previously. The word means "without purpose". Do you undestand what that signifies? Saving faith has 2 components: object and purpose. The object of saving faith is Jesus Christ. Acts 4:12. The purpose of saving faith is eternal life. 12 Pet 1:9 - for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. NIV

To believe "in vain" means to lack the specific purpose of trusting Christ FOR eternal life.

So many OSAS arguments defeated in a single passage.

On the contrary, I've just refuted your arguments against OSAS and have clearly explained the verse, which doesn't support your view.

Clear and easily understood teaching that fills in the gaps on other less detailed passages of scripture that OSAS uses to defend it's argument that salvation is not conditional on continuing in that which you started out in.

Why do you reject the fact that eternal life is a gift from God and that God's gifts are irrevocable? You've never addressed these verses from Paul.

 

[FreeGrace]

Uh oh, you're committing the famous OSAS sin of circular reasoning again. You're saying God's gift of eternal life can not be revoked (the argument we're trying to settle) to answer the argument of whether God's gift of eternal life can be revoked.

Are you serious? I've given the PROOF of this fact from Scripture. Rom 6:23 says that eternal life is a gift. And Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

Your argument is with Scripture, which you have to reject in order to "hold fast" to your own opinion.

Salvation is through the forgiveness of sin, not by being able to pay off your own debt owed the Father. The reason Jesus is even bringing up the parable is because the disciples were asking him a question about forgiveness of sin. In the parable the servant gets forgiven his debt. That correlates directly to the forgiveness of sin that he and the disciples are discussing. This servant LOST that forgiveness through his own careless contempt and lack of appreciation for the free gift. His sinful, unbelieving behavior is the evidence of that contempt and lack of appreciation.

I've already explained this passage to you, but you've chosen to ignore it. Fine.

How does this change the fact that his debt was reinstated? OSAS insists that you can not lose the free gift of righteousness through the forgiveness of sins.

Please re-read your second sentence here, and slowly for comprehension. Of course the free gift of righteousness cannot be lost "through the forgiveness of sins". In fact, that HOW one HAS the free gift; "through the forgiveness of sins".

iow, they go together. When one believes, they are forgiven per Acts 10:39. When one believes they HAVE eternal life per John 5:24. They are inseparable.

Your second sentence makes no sense. Maybe you left out a word or two.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have already explained the Greek word translated "hold fast". It means to possess. iow, once a person believes in a point in time (without regard to duration = aorist tense), they HAVE eternal life. Such life is eternal, meaning is cannot die. Therefore, those who have believed HAVE eternal life and cannot exist in the second death.

Your view creates an impossibility. You have to ignore these FACTS to "hold fast" to your own view.


Yes sir. He is. And those who have been given ETERNAL life continue to HAVE eternal life. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary. Where in the Bible are we warned in plain language that we can lose eternal life? No where.

If eternal life can be revoked, then it shouldn't be called "eternal". It should be called "conditional". Your view cannot be supported from Scripture.


Yeah, in your mind it means "to sqeeze tightly onto your faith in order to stay saved", or something like that. But the word refutes your view of the verse.

Those who have been given eternal life POSSESS eternal life.

What Paul is meaning here is that those who have believed HAVE eternal life, and are therefore saved. And there aren't any verses that tell us that eternal life can be taken away.


And I explained that word to you previously. The word means "without purpose". Do you undestand what that signifies? Saving faith has 2 components: object and purpose. The object of saving faith is Jesus Christ. Acts 4:12. The purpose of saving faith is eternal life. 12 Pet 1:9 - for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. NIV

To believe "in vain" means to lack the specific purpose of trusting Christ FOR eternal life.


On the contrary, I've just refuted your arguments against OSAS and have clearly explained the verse, which doesn't support your view.


Why do you reject the fact that eternal life is a gift from God and that God's gifts are irrevocable? You've never addressed these verses from Paul.

Thank you once again for showing us that it is OSAS that needs detailed explanations and interpretations not able to be discerned in the Bible itself to make what is plainly written in the Bible not really mean what it so plainly says. Perhaps OSAS can do like some denominations do and publish a necessary companion book to supply the information that the Bible itself does not have in it in order to understand what the Bible is really saying.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Are you serious? I've given the PROOF of this fact from Scripture. Rom 6:23 says that eternal life is a gift. And Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

When you can show me that Paul is saying dead, unbelieving Israelites will be grafted back into the tree despite their rejection of the Christ while alive, then you will have proven your point. Until then we shall go with the context of the passage and understand that it is a future generation of Israelites who will one day receive Christ and thus be grafted back into the tree by their faith.

 

[Nintentacle]

By the literal meaning of those two things, not really. If you don't want to sin (If you have conviction), I don't think that should be considered willful sin, just messing up.

I would just remember that you are bound to sin again (If not that, then very likely to sin) as long as you are in your Earthly body, because the lust of the flesh will still be there. What you should focus on is building the muscles of your spirit over the muscles of your flesh (See Galatians 5:17). In other words, feed your spirit by the Word of God, and deprive your flesh over its lust (Fasting, and outright avoiding and resisting sinful temptation should help).

 

[FreeGrace]

Thank you once again for showing us that it is OSAS that needs detailed explanations and interpretations not able to be discerned in the Bible itself to make what is plainly written in the Bible not really mean what it so plainly says. Perhaps OSAS can do like some denominations do and publish a necessary companion book to supply the information that the Bible itself does not have in it in order to understand what the Bible is really saying.

Since when is relying on the ORIGINAL language a problem? The problem is your lack of objectivity and bias in your views. Those who are of the KJB ONLY ilk may balk at the ORIGINAL language, since it wasn't the language of King James, but I guess there's no help for that group.

And I'm sorry that my "detailed explanations" are a problem for you. But they do answer your charge. Maybe that's the real problem here.

No serious scholar or student of the Word would rely ONLY on any English or any other language translation, as you seem to do. It is only in the original language that we really understand what is being communicated.

I've given you what the Greek says, and this is all you can do to deflect the truth. But at least you've laid your cards on the table for all to see. You aren't interested in what the authors of Scripture ACTUALLY wrote, and what that means in their own language.

Thank you for the transparency.

 

[FreeGrace]

When you can show me that Paul is saying dead, unbelieving Israelites will be grafted back into the tree despite their rejection of the Christ while alive, then you will have proven your point.

You are seriously mistaken. I've never suggested such a thing, so of course I would never try to prove such nonsense.

Paul used agricultural metaphors when he wrote of the branch and olive root to help his audience understand the principle he was explaining. But I know from your previous post that you aren't interested in "explanations".

In fact, WHEN any unbelieving Jew does believe while on earth, they ARE grafted back in. Rom 11:23-24. So your understanding is in error.

Until then we shall go with the context of the passage and understand that it is a future generation of Israelites who will one day receive Christ and thus be grafted back into the tree by their faith.

Any Jew who believes in Christ will be immediately grafted back into the tree and therefore be usable to God. Paul's point.

btw, eternal life is a gift and God's gifts are irrevocable. Refuting your opinion.