One result of being in union with Christ

[Jethro Bodine]

Sorry, I just do not see your conclusion as an irrefutable 'this is the only thing that Paul could have meant'.

You wanted to make sure context is considered in our discussion. Why not in this case?:

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

Assuming that you are correct, how does this not make all of the 'assurance' verses ... well, hollow rhetoric?
"I will lose none of those (except the Galatians) and raise (most of the others) on the last day?" [John 6:39 ... just for the record]

I have in mind to visit all the responses you have made to my posts and address your OSAS passages. No (supposed) OSAS passage contradicts non-OSAS doctrine. But the reverse can not be claimed.

The passage above is addressing the competency of Jesus' ministry, not your ability, and your responsibility, to rely on it. Jesus ministry is in stark contrast to the priestly ministry of yutz' like Eli and his sons. Remember, the ministry of the Priests was only as good as the priest performing the required duties.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The way that most people wrongly divide the word is to try to undo Grace and substitute works, regarding the free gift of Salvation.
That is the #1 main issue with most who are stuck in a "works for salvation" theological mess.

Time to pony up, kidron.
Where is the verse that says holding fast the gospel message in a continuing faith is a work of the damnable works gospel?

You must continue to believe to continue to be saved:
"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by 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 bold mine)

why do some christians feel the need to try to find verses that they want to use to try to damn other christians to hell?
why are some like this?
did you ever ask yourself that?
What is their personal motivation to try to inflict this type of harm unto other believers?

Non-OSAS doesn't destroy the church. It warns believers that they can lose their salvation so they can then be careful to hold fast the gospel by which they were saved so they will still be saved on the Day of Wrath. That's doesn't sound like a desire to destroy the church.

Hyper-grace is actually the doctrine that destroys the church. The penalty is very, very severe--worse than a horrible physical death--for leading believers astray into the fiery hell (1 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Peter 2:1-3 NASB, Matthew 18:6-7 NASB). Very, very severe. On the Day of Judgment they will wish physical death was the penalty for falsely encouraging struggling believers that they will still be saved if they quit the fight of faith and go back to their old lives.

"...whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!" (Matthew 18:6-7 NASB bold mine)

 

[Kidron]

The parable of the talents also relates that the gift given can be taken away if the gift is not used to bring increase to our Lord. (See Mat 25:14-30 and Luk 19:24.)

Iakov the fool

Paul says you are wrong.
See this verse for an update.
Romans 11:29.

 

[Kidron]

If you depart from the faith, and turn away from Christ, who is our salvation, then how can a person still hope to receive the salvation that only comes to those who believe, and have faith in Christ Jesus for salvation?


JLB

-
Salvation comes to those who believe, and Sonship and Eternal Life comes from the fact of being Born Again.
Yet.....the Devil believes and is damned, while all born again Christians who believed, have eternal life.
Eternal life is Jesus.......its not a time period.
So, if you have HIM, then as HE is eternal life, then you have Eternal life.
1+1 = 2.
No rocket science necessary.
And once this has been accomplished IN YOU......."Christ in you the HOPE of Glory"....then because He is in you, that is your hope, sustained BY HIM and NOT BY YOU.
So keep your self righteous works away from the free gift of Salvation, and instead Give Glory, Honor, and Praise, to the One who saved you, and keeps you saved.
See, salvation has nothing to do with your effort to keep it, or endure to the end, or keep holding unto your faith as some who are twisted in their theology would rant.
Salvation is of God, is of Christ, and not of you.

 

[JLB]

Eternal life is Jesus.......its not a time period.

 

[JLB]

And once this has been accomplished IN YOU......."Christ in you the HOPE of Glory"....then because He is in you, that is your hope, sustained BY HIM and NOT BY YOU.

I see so He does the believing for you.

Got it.

So you are teaching universal reconciliation.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Paul says you are wrong.
See this verse for an update.
Romans 11:29.

Paul says you are wrong see this verse for an update. Romans 11:22

 

[atpollard]

The passage above is addressing the competency of Jesus' ministry, not your ability, and your responsibility, to rely on it. Jesus ministry is in stark contrast to the priestly ministry of yutz' like Eli and his sons. Remember, the ministry of the Priests was only as good as the priest performing the required duties.

If the Galatians believed in Christ once, then were they not drawn by the Father and did they not come to Jesus?
If they turn from the Gospel of Christ and trust in Circumcision, this losing their justification (which is what you claim), then will they raised at the last day as Jesus said?

Don't you see that even if John 6:39 addresses the "competency of Jesus' ministry, not your ability, and your responsibility, to rely on it", then the FACT that the Galatians were drawn, did come and will not be raised up at the last days renders John 6:39 a lie. It makes no difference whose 'fault' it is, God said it would happen (as a statement of fact) and you claim that for the Galatians that fact is untrue. I do not present John 6 to refute your interpretation, but to illustrate the clear implied contradiction between the verses. You keep explaining to me the meaning of Galatians 5, and just skipping over my concerns with the contradiction with other scripture.

Perhaps my communication skills are simply inadequate to explain what it is that I see which bothers me about the apparent contradiction.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If they turn from the Gospel of Christ and trust in Circumcision, this losing their justification (which is what you claim), then will they raised at the last day as Jesus said?

No.
It's impossible to be saved if you are not justified through Christ because you abandoned his justification in favor of another way to be justified, or in favor of nothing at all. Unjustified, formerly believing people are simply not going to be among God's people in the life to come.

Don't you see that even if John 6:39 addresses the "competency of Jesus' ministry, not your ability, and your responsibility, to rely on it", then the FACT that the Galatians were drawn, did come and will not be raised up at the last days renders John 6:39 a lie. It makes no difference whose 'fault' it is, God said it would happen (as a statement of fact) and you claim that for the Galatians that fact is untrue. I do not present John 6 to refute your interpretation, but to illustrate the clear implied contradiction between the verses. You keep explaining to me the meaning of Galatians 5, and just skipping over my concerns with the contradiction with other scripture.

Jesus will never be guilty of failing in his duties as High Priest. He will never be guilty of losing a person the Father has led to him for Him to perform his Priestly duty of sacrifice and intercession perfectly and correctly in order for them to be saved. This boast is explained for us in scripture here:

18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20And inasmuch as it was not without an oath

21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”);

22so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever." (Hebrews 7:18-28 NASB bold mine)

You can see that all of the boast here is about Jesus being able to do his job with perfection and, therefore, absolute effectiveness. It isn't about making it so people who don't want to avail themselves of his perfect ministry (unbelievers), or those who walk away from faith in his perfect ministry (apostate believers), still having the efficacy of his ministry. It shows us he will lose none of those who come to him for salvation because he always lives to do that, and does it perfectly without defect or failure, as opposed to the earthly priests who did lose those who (repeatedly) came to them for salvation. It does not show us that you can end Jesus' ministry on your behalf through a return to unbelief and you will still have that ministry continuing for you in heaven.

Notice that, contrary to popular church teaching, Christ's ministry must continue for the believer for it to be effective (vs.25). John 6:39 NASB is about Jesus never, ever being the one who ends that ministry for the believer because of death or incompetence. John 6:39 NASB is NOT about the believer being able to abandon his faith in Christ's perfect, ongoing ministry in heaven and them still having the efficacy of that ministry to save them. His ministry MUST continue on your behalf for you to be saved (what it doesn't need to be is reapplied over and over again like in the old covenant). He won't end it, for he has promised to lose none, but there are those who will end it through unbelief--just as it was not in effect for them when they had no faith in it prior to being saved.

You have to understand that the boast of Jesus' ministry is to contrast it with the ineffective ministry of weak, incompetent ministers the people of God had under the old covenant. The boast of his ministry does not make it so you can fail in your faith and you will still be saved. It makes it so it will always be there for the person who is relying on it.

Perhaps my communication skills are simply inadequate to explain what it is that I see which bothers me about the apparent contradiction.

No, I understand the argument well. You're doing fine.

Let's use this to illustrate what I'm saying. Even if I had the capacity to understand all things perfectly and without error of understanding, that power is useless and can not be applied to you and be effective for you if you don't talk to me. The failure would not be in my ability to understand you, for I, for the sake of argument, have perfect ability to understand. The failure would be in you not approaching me with what it is that you want me to hear.

And so it is with Jesus' ministry. The problem is not that he can't do his job perfectly and forever and not lose any. The problem is with people staying away from his ministry that can do that for them through a failure of faith. He can't keep and not lose somebody who won't continue to rely on his power to keep them and not lose them.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You keep explaining to me the meaning of Galatians 5, and just skipping over my concerns with the contradiction with other scripture.

What do you want me to address that I did not address in my posts? I showed how Paul is indeed talking to saved Galatians, not psuedo saved, 'not really' believers. I showed you the context was 'justification', not rewards, or physical death. And perhaps some other things.

I have nothing to hide, and there is nothing that I know of that I can't answer concerning the OSAS argument. I'm not evading or ignoring anything.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"However, Rom 11:29 isn't about whether one 'accepts or not" the gifts of God or His call."

No. Ro 11:29 is not about accepting or rejecting; it's about the gift and calling.

I believe that I was quite clear about that exactly.

However, it is a fact that one can reject the gift and ignore the calling.

Those who reject the gift don't have the gift. So 11:29 is not relevant to them. 11:29 is relevant ONLY to those who have received the gift.

The irrevocable gift and calling was in reference to God's choice of Israel as His people.

This opinion has not been shown from Scripture.

So is Rom 10:21 "But concerning Israel he says, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.' ” and
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Mat 23:37) reiterates the fact that the gift can be rejected and the calling ignored.

What "gift" is mentioned here? Paul never specified any gift to Israel. So your claim seems made up.

I agree.
But there is another side to the interchange; the "RSVP".
The invitation and calling stands forever but no one is forced to accept either.

Not at issue.

Again. I agree to a point.
The gift is never revoked, but it can be discarded.

Please show from Scripture where anyone has ever "discarded" the gift of eternal life. Otherwise, just another opinion.

And John 15:2 specifically states that the Father will cut off someone who is in Christ but who does not bear fruit. "In Christ" is an term which describes the sate of being "saved."

The term "cut off" is used frequently in the OT to mean physical death. Please prove it means that one has discarded the gift of eternal life.

Rom 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
The word "walk" refers to the person's habitual behavior ot the works that he does whether they are of the flesh or of the Spirit.
The Gospel is not only "believe" but also that the believer "...should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance." (Acts 26:20) "works befitting repentance" is another way of saying "bear fruit."

Please show EXACTLY where in this verse where the gift of eternal life can be discarded. I'm not seeing it.

Mat 3:7-10 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Being cut down and thrown into the fire is the same metaphor used by Jesus at John 15. The father will cut you off from the source of eternal life (Jesus) if you do not bear fruit just as the tree that does not bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (hell). (Also see Luke 13:6-7)

Ditto here.

The parable of the talents also relates that the gift given can be taken away if the gift is not used to bring increase to our Lord. (See Mat 25:14-30 and Luk 19:24.)
Iakov the fool

I didn't read anything about the talents being described as gifts. Please direct me to where they were. Otherwise, this is irrelevant to Rom 11:29 and God's gifts, which Paul SPECIFICALLY described:
spiritual gifts in 1:11
justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
eternal life in 6:23

There is no way one can legitimately remove these gifts from what Paul meant in Rom 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

Is there agreement with ALL of what was posted?

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul says you are wrong see this verse for an update. Romans 11:22

Actually, Paul says that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23.
And Paul says that the gifts of God are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

Therefore, eternal life is irrefutably irrevocable.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Actually, Paul says that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23.
And Paul says that the gifts of God are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

Therefore, eternal life is irrefutably irrevocable.

You are beyond honest discussion.
I'm looking for honest, scholarly discussion.

Hopefully, atpollard , will not be shrinking down into hardened dogma so the discussion can continue .

 

[FreeGrace]

You are beyond honest discussion.

That is a mere opinion.

Since Romans says that eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable, meaning eternal life is irrevocable, it's totally dishonest to claim that eternal life can be removed, lost, revoked, given away, etc.

I'm looking for honest, scholarly discussion.

As am I.

 

[atpollard]

You are beyond honest discussion.
I'm looking for honest, scholarly discussion.

Hopefully, atpollard , will not be shrinking down into hardened dogma so the discussion can continue .

Nope, your post quoting Hebrews was amazing, I would have given a 'like' if I could. Now I need to think about it, read the context in John to see if that explanation fits, and figure out how to communicate my response (including any questions that the study might turn up).

That, and Saturday is Honey-do-list day. :wink

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Since Romans says that eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable, meaning eternal life is irrevocable, it's totally dishonest to claim that eternal life can be removed, lost, revoked, given away, etc.

It was shown to you that Paul himself plainly says what he means by the gifts and calling being irrevocable (Romans 11:29 NASB). But you have chosen to ignore his plain words and add your own meaning. So be it. Move on. Your dogmatic statements simply don't change the plain words of the passage for those of us who can see those words:

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”

27“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:25-29 NASB)

There is not even a glow or a hint of 'you are still saved even though you stop believing' in the context of this passage. Paul is plainly saying that salvation has not been shut off to Israel even though they as a nation are enemies of the gospel because of their unbelief in Messiah.

 

[atpollard]

Actually, Paul says that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23.
And Paul says that the gifts of God are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

Therefore, eternal life is irrefutably irrevocable.

You really should address Romans 11:22 that he threw at you.
If you just counter with another verse in Romans, then you and he are claiming that Romans is self-contradictory and we should all probably just ignore it.

(JLB should probably do the same with your verses.)

I can't speak for anyone but me, but the scripture pong makes me want to shake off the dust and walk away.
... All smoke and mirrors and no real light or truth.

That said, this was just my opinion. I am nobody and you two are both free to debate any way you want.
God Bless.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Nope, your post quoting Hebrews was amazing, I would have given a 'like' if I could. Now I need to think about it, read the context in John to see if that explanation fits, and figure out how to communicate my response (including any questions that the study might turn up).

That, and Saturday is Honey-do-list day. :wink

Even if you don't embrace what I'm saying, your honesty and cordial style of discussion earns my Christian love and respect for you.

 

[chessman]

Examine the scriptures to see why he got circumcised and you will have your answer.

I know why Timothy (not Titus) got circumcised. I asked you if Titus were to get circumcised there in Galatia; would that de-save him given your view of the passage. So your understanding is the "why" someone were to get circumcised makes all the difference. Good, I previously already agreed with that assessment.

Galatians 5:3 (NASB) And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.​

So you (or me or anyone else) can't rightly just take Gal 5:3 all by itself and apply it to other, out of context, situations/contexts. Not that you have. I'm just saying Gal 5:4 (and every other verse, phrase, snip) should be treated the same way. I think you are taking 5:4's "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ" out of context.

Galatians 5:4, 7-9 (NASB) You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. ​

...

You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. ​

Timothy (a man) got circumcised (his foreskin severed) to justify himself to other Jews in the region while he and Paul preached Christ to those Jews, yet did not keep the whole Law. Was he de-saved because he got circumcised?

Acts 16:1-3 (NASB) Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
​

All you are doing with Gal 5:4 is taking a phrase like "fallen from grace" (which didn't then, nor does it today, mean fallen from salvation) and forcing it into your idea that Paul was even talking about de-salvation in the first place. Not to mention that it doesn't fit the situation of a Christian church member turning atheist, even if it did. He's clearly, throughout the whole letter, talking about Christians (yes many genuine Christians, I'm sure) getting circumcised to 'justify' themselves to the others hindering them. The Text doesn't say or imply that they were doing it for their justification before God. You assume that. That was and is my point.

Heck, if all I knew about the passage was"...severed from Christ...", I would think severed from salvation was what he meant too. The problem is, the context surrounding the phrase indicates (to me) he was not talking about de-salvation. Yes, I realize that sentence will likely generate a reply on the order of "pre-supposition, circular reasoning, etc.). I don't care. I'm just being honest. Based on the context and other statements made by Paul, right there in Gal 5, it seems highly unlikely Paul was talking about de-salvation based on a foreskin or two getting severed. I think he was using hyperbole there just as he was here:

Galatians 5:12 (NASB) I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves. ​

Plus, I find it highly unlikely that the hindering/persuasion coming from others to get circumcised means these people stopped believing in Christ.

I showed you the context was 'justification', not rewards, or physical death.

You showed where justification before fellow Jews persuading them to get circumcised was in context. Not justification (salvation) to God. God doesn't give a hoot (one way or the other) whether Titus or Timothy got circumcised. Neither did Paul.

I'm not evading or ignoring anything.

You evaded answering my simple and direct questions in regard to Titus getting circumcised.