OSAS does not survive the "sola scriptura" test. Now what?

[Major1]

Are you one who believes ALL Israel will be saved? If so, I take it you believe Judas was saved then?

Now is that what I said my friend. Did I say that ALL Israel will be saved????

I said in comment #214...………..
SIN!

God has not decided that these people will be lost. But at this point in history, they have rejected Christ, and God let them have their own way. But the blindness will be removed.

Romans 11:1...……
“God has not rejected his people, has he?. “Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.”

Paul was living proof that God has not abandoned his people.

Now from that comment you say that you think that means I said ALL OF ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED.

What kind of thinking is that my dear friend??????

What does the Bible say about your comment?????

Rom. 11:26...………...
"And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”.

STUDY----STUDY-----STUDY my friend!!!!!

Isaiah predicted in Isaiah 62:12...……..
a “remnant” of Israel would one day “be called the Holy People, the Redeemed of the LORD”.

Regardless of Israel’s current state of unbelief, a future remnant will in fact repent and fulfill their calling to establish righteousness by faith which is seen in Romans 10:1-8, 11:5. This conversion will coincide with the fulfillment of Moses’ prediction of Israel’s permanent restoration to the land that is recorded in Deut. 30:1-10.
Will all Israel be saved in the end times?

When Paul says Israel will be “saved” in Rom. 11:26, he refers to their deliverance from sin (verse 27) as they accept the Savior, their Messiah, in the end times.

Moses said in Deut. 30:6...….
“The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live” . Israel’s physical inheritance of the land promised to Abraham will be an integral part of God’s ultimate plan.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm not certain of this view because it's the first time I've heard of it. I've studied some Japanese Buddhism and have attended Buddhist ceremonies and services. One of the things they talk about is the present and consciousness, and through meditation we find there are different and multiple levels of consciousness. The beginning of services starts with the gong of a large bell. One can smell the faint smell of incense in the air. All of this prepares us for service. The beginning of service involves reciting the kalpas (affirmations of basic principles) and chanting. This puts one at a state to receive the sermon. The present is the now and the Shinran once wrote a poem, "Like the cherry blossom, the heart planning on tomorrow is ephemeral indeed --what sudden storm may not arise in the middle of the night." The meaning is if we plan to view the cherry blossoms tomorrow, then it may not be there because the winds may come up during the night.

From applying what I've learned there, OSAS is a state of mind. We let Jesus into our hearts and are born again, so to speak. Once, you become one with God, then there is this profound change. One can think of it as a different level of consciousness. Intellectually, we can think that anyone can end up doing wrong with their free will, but it's not like that when you accept Jesus and he is the one who leads you.

It's not about doing wrong.
We all do wrong although I'm certain it will be "less wrongs and less times done". God's spirit always helps us.

But does our free will allow us to walk away from God if we so want to? No matter how unlikely it may be...is it possible?
Does the N.T. speak to this?

For example:
1 Corinthians 15:2
Hebrews 3:14

What other meaning could these verses possibly have??

 

[aiki]

1. Even you admitted that "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace" is the loss of salvation. You asked that we not read the NASB ..

No, I did not admit any such thing. I said that the NASB's rendering of Galatians 5:4 was unnecessarily extreme in its word choice. But even if "severed from Christ" is the way you want to go, it still doesn't mean one's relationship with Christ is destroyed or that one's second birth has been reversed. I know of two brothers who, it was said, had "severed all ties" with each other. Decades passed without either of them acknowledging the others existence. But, you know, they were still brothers. Nothing they could do would ever change this fact. This is one of the unalterable consequences of being born into a family - both physically and spiritually.

2. I did not write Gal 5:4.

Did I say that you had?

3. I pointed out that your preference for "you get no benefit from Christ" and "you are alienated from Christ" is a "distinction without a difference" when it comes to "severed from Christ" and "Fallen from grace" -- since that is the very problem that the lost have and is never the description of the "saved condition" not even remotely "the gospel promise".

There are kinds and/or degrees of separation. In any case, a lost person cannot be severed from Christ if they have never been joined to him in the first place. And a lost man cannot be said to have "fallen from grace" because he has not - as a lost man - yet laid hold of, and entered into, God's grace. So, the phrases "Christ is become of no effect unto you" and "fallen from grace" are not descriptive of the state of the lost. (Paul was writing to the Galatian Church, after all, not a collection of lost people.)

- you provided not one example of such language used of the "saved".

LOL! But Galatians 5:4 is itself such an example! That's what I've been arguing! Are you actually taking a moment when you read my posts to understand them? It doesn't seem like it...

you say the prodigal is still a biological child while wicked...

No, this is what Jesus indicated in his parable.

but ignore the fact that the wicked are still biologically the creation of God while wicked. And in Matthew 12 Christ specifically denies family connection with the wicked.

But the father in the parable never does. In fact, he waits expectantly for the return of his son, not of a stranger. And when he sees his son afar off, he runs out to meet him with a hug and a kiss! Strange behaviour for someone you want to assert has "denied family connection" with his son.

4. So then You propose a "Christless saved condition" that is purely an effort to rescue OSAS from Gal 5:4. What is more "God was in Christ RECONCILING the World to Himself" the very act needed for those who are alienated and who get no benefit from Christ.

Do you know what Strawman arguing is? Your remark above is an example of it. I have not, in fact, proposed a "Christless saved condition." I don't think that being estranged from Christ means one has lost their second birth any more than being estranged from my family would mean I was no longer born into it. I have already explained why. So far, you have not actually directly refuted my view but have erected a Strawman version of it to knock down.

Very obviously, the way a son is alienated from his father is different from the way an unrelated antagonistic neighbor is alienated from him. You appear to ignore this fact entirely so that you might force a saved-and-lost construction upon Galatians 5:4.

5. Your "unborn" suggestion is like arguing that Adam "made in the image of God" and called the "son of God" in the Gospels -- had to first "uncreate himself" -- had to "unborn himself" to become lost and in need of the Gospel. That is total nonsense and we both would admit it yet you try it out to rescue OSAS.

It is ridiculous, I agree, to suggest that a birth can be reversed. And yet, here you are arguing for such an idea.

Actually you "pointed out" your preference for NOT reading the NASB and admit that the "severed from Christ" and "Fallen from Grace" language is just as we all see it -- the loss of salvation.

I pointed out that many English translations of the Bible do not use the term "severed" in Galatians 5:4. And then I said that this indicates that "severed" is not a term that must be used. No where, though, did I ever say that the phrases used in the NASB version of the verse indicate what you say they do: a loss of salvation. I said "severed" may help to strengthen such an interpretation (which is doubtless why you chose the version that you did) but it by no means secures it.

You speculated that "alienated from Christ" and "Christ is of no benefit to you" is a saved "Christless" condition where one is saved without any benefit at all from Christ.

Strawman. You might consider Paul's words in answer to your criticism:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Here Paul describes at least one benefit of having a relationship with Christ even though one may not have any fellowship with him. It is possible to have all that one brings to the Final Judgment burned up and yet still be saved. In any event, I have never contended for the Strawman position you've erected.

You in fact never show a "you are my disciples when you are alienated from Me - separated from Me, and get no benefit from anything I have done" statement by Christ in all of scripture. For that idea you "quote you". There is no Christless Gospel - and yet you make the case as if we should "assume it". you cannot "assume" the salient point of your own argument and expect it to survive as a sort of 'substantive proof' of it.

Again, this all deflection. You go after what I didn't say rather than what I did. This is avoiding my points rather than engaging them. And then you argue against your Strawman version of my view rather than the view I have actually presented. As I said: deflection.

Instead teaching "prodigal son saved even while wicked"

But, you see, I don't think the story of the Prodigal has anything directly to do with the matter of salvation. It's teaching is concerned primarily with the nature of God, with His loving, faithful, patient and gracious character (illustrated in the conduct and attitude of the Prodigal's father), not with whether or not one can lose one's salvation.

God is the creator of all mankind - that does not change when a person is wicked. But that wicked person derives no benefit from God as his creator

Come now, you don't believe this, surely! Have you never heard of God's common grace?

Matthew 5:44-45
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Who sustains the life of the wicked moment-by-moment? God. Who provides for them the environment within which they live? God. Clearly, the idea that the wicked derives no benefit from God is patently false.

The notion of the "wicked saved" is not presented in the Bible at all.

You are arguing against your own Strawman here.

There is no indication at all that some blessing was being experienced by the prodigal while separated

Except the inheritance that made his wicked living possible.

You appear to be saying "saved while alienated from Christ ... and getting no benefit at all from Christ - is not "saved apart from Christ" -- a distinction without a difference.

As you can see from my responses above, this is not what I am saying.

Which is not "you are alienated from Christ... you get no benefit at all from Christ" your argument that "babes in Christ" means "alienated from Christ ... getting no benefit from Christ" is not something we find in the actual Bible -- you have to "quote you" for that idea.

Paul doesn't just call them "babes in Christ" but "carnal" and unable to digest the strong meat of deeper spiritual teaching. He accuses them of being divisive, and envious, and in conflict with each other. This sounds like people alienated from their Saviour, to me. Certainly, they were not living in obedient fellowship with Christ. And yet, they had not lost their place in God's family.

 

[Major1]

I'm not certain of this view because it's the first time I've heard of it. I've studied some Japanese Buddhism and have attended Buddhist ceremonies and services. One of the things they talk about is the present and consciousness, and through meditation we find there are different and multiple levels of consciousness. The beginning of services starts with the gong of a large bell. One can smell the faint smell of incense in the air. All of this prepares us for service. The beginning of service involves reciting the kalpas (affirmations of basic principles) and chanting. This puts one at a state to receive the sermon. The present is the now and the Shinran once wrote a poem, "Like the cherry blossom, the heart planning on tomorrow is ephemeral indeed --what sudden storm may not arise in the middle of the night." The meaning is if we plan to view the cherry blossoms tomorrow, then it may not be there because the winds may come up during the night.

From applying what I've learned there, OSAS is a state of mind. We let Jesus into our hearts and are born again, so to speak. Once, you become one with God, then there is this profound change. One can think of it as a different level of consciousness. Intellectually, we can think that anyone can end up doing wrong with their free will, but it's not like that when you accept Jesus and he is the one who leads you.

Actually, isn't salvation itself a "state of mind"?

ALL human beings have ETERNAL LIFE. The Scriptures tell us that there is a REAL place called Heaven and a REAL place called Hell. We will spent eternity in one of those two places.

Now where we spent eternity is our choice based on who we believe Jesus is and what He did. That is called FAITH and it is a STATE OF MIND.

Some call this our "HEART" but it is actually the MIND.

 

[Major1]

You're opinion is wrong.
Sorry but I'm writing for others too.

The above post is writing about being under the law.
We cannot be saved by being under the law of Moses or by trying to keep all the commandments perfectly.

But even in the O.T. persons were saved by faith. Did they keep the commandments perfectly. No. They were saved by faith FIRST and THEN they kept the commandments.

Those who tried to be saved by keeping them and being perfect WITHOUT FAITH are those that were not pleasing to God.

It's the same today. First we get saved...THEN we still have to obey God. Those such as yourself would lead some to believe that God has changed His mind and we no longer have to obey Him.

Are we supposed to obey God or not?
Jesus said many things we're to do.
God doesn't make requests...He requires us to follow Him.
Mathew 7:23
Mathew 7:24
John 14:15
James 1:22

and many others...

If I have an Opinion I will always state that. So that nullifies your comment.

My posts are Biblical based and therefore your position is in opposition to the Word of God and not me personally.

You said...………
"We cannot be saved by being under the law of Moses or by trying to keep all the commandments perfectly".

That is completely correct and it is exactly what I said so I do not know why you needed to say it.

God's Law never saved one single person as it was not given so that man could be saved. Salvation is completely by FAITH.

Romans 3:28 …………
"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. "

Galatians 3:2...………..
"So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith."

Ephesians 2:8–………..
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."


Then you said...………..
"But even in the O.T. persons were saved by faith. Did they keep the commandments perfectly. No. They were saved by faith FIRST and THEN they kept the commandments."

Almost correct! YES, ALL Old Test. believers were saved by FAITH.

Romans 4:1-2...…...
"What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, tour forefather according to the flesh? not before God. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

However...…...they did not obey the commandments! There are 613 Laws and God does not separate them as we do. To God, they are all ONE unit. Now then, does anyone think that the Old Test. believers kept ALL the Law????????

NO!. Just like today, they tried but no one can keep the law and really it does not matter as the Law was not given to save anyone. So your argument that they were saved 1st and then they kept the Law simply does not apply.

Are we supposed to Obey God???????

That really does not need to be answered but of course the answer is YES.
But that is really not your question is it????

The question is...….
Do we have to keep the Commandments in order to be saved/stay saved"

Lets use some COMMON SENSE!

FIRST of all, the commandments of Moses were given to the People who came out of Egypt which was the nation of Israel. Are you one of the Jews of the nation of Israel????

SECOND, the Law was never given in order to save anyone. So then, how can keeping them then keep you saved IF they were never given for salvation to begin with?

THIRD, just as an example. Do you keep the Sabbath?
Exodus 20:8...……
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates".

The Sabbath is Saturday. Do you do that? It does not matter what Paul said about Sunday, the LAW said Sabbath and if we have to keep the Law to be saved then you must keep the Sabbath.

You can not go to the store and buy food.
You can not drive a car to take your child to the emergency room if they are sick.
You can not have a job that requires you to work on Saturday.
You can not go to church.
THINK!!!!

Now consider James 2:10...…………….
"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."

That means in logical, common sense that if your child breaks his leg and you drive the car to the hospital to get him treated, YOU have broken ALL the commandments and you then are not saved!

Now for a personal OPINION.

Now if you are comfortable with that then I encourage you to keep right on espousing your understanding that a man must keep the law to stay saved.

However, I am not going to do that.

 

[Major1]

Cut off from what?

Study brother...."study to show thyself appoved of God, a workman".

The Jewish people did not believe Jesus. So for a time they are "put aside" --"cut off" like a branch from a tree.

The Jews would be "cut off" from the Gentile church.

Consider John 15:2.

 

[amariselle]

Isn't the OT the full counsel of God? I don't have anything against the NT.

The Old Testament contains the promises fulfilled in the New Testament. They go together and together they are the full counsel of God. All of the Scriptures point to Christ.

You say they were saved by faith, but didn't prove that from OT passages. Were do you find they 'looked forward' to the hope of salvation in Christ. I was hoping you could provide OT passages to back up what you say, but you didn't.

Consider this:

1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. - Genesis 15:1-6

So, what does this mean? What is the extent of this promise God gave Abraham and which Abraham believed? It is explained to us in the New Testament (and I truly hope you don't refuse to acknowledge it, just because it isn't OT Scripture):

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:1-5

Abraham believed God's promise. This is important. It was not due to anything Abraham did or earned, but by his faith in what God had told him would come to pass that he was declared righteous. And this was long before the Law was given through Moses. (Through which Law "no flesh" is justified in the sight of God)

Righteousness imputed by faith (without works) in the promise of God:

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. - Romans 4:6-25

Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes of this also in Galatians 3:

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

(Yes, the "Gospel" was preached unto Abraham, and he received it by faith and it was imputed to him for righteousness) So, you see, long before the Law, Abraham received the "Gospel" the promise, and he believed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Notice here, Scripture clearly tells us that the "promise" of the "covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ", cannot be "dis-annulled" or cancelled, or "made of no effect" by the Law, which was given 430 years later. The Gospel came first, and Abraham believed God.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The Law was given because of our "transgressions". Sin is "transgression of the Law." But, we see that the Law was never given to save, and only to "stop our mouths" and bring us to Christ.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We are the "seed", the children of "faithful Abraham" by faith. We are "heirs according to the promise" which has been fulfilled in Christ. It was never about the Law. No one has ever been saved by the Law, only by faith in the promise, the Gospel. (The Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.)

I have asked the other person over 20 times to provide OT passages which show how they received life, and he couldn't. It looks like you can't either.

See above. Salvation was, is and always will be by faith in the promise, in the Gospel, which was preached to Abraham and fulfilled in Christ.

Yes, you are correct, the OT was the Word of God, and as such represented Jesus, Who is the Word. Now show us how OT saints received life with passages to confirm their salvation.

See above. Also, read Hebrews 11. It's a wonderful passage that explains how all of the Old Testament "saints" always lived by faith.

How is that? It doesn't say he believed in Jesus. It doesn't say anything about a cross, blood, nor a sacrifice.

He would most definitely have known the Scriptures (our OT). So, yes, he would have understood the promise made to Abraham, which came long before the Law, and was fulfilled in Christ. In Christ is the only hope of salvation. Period.

 

[amariselle]

Why do you think I take credit for obeying Him and doing works of charity?

It's about what one is trusting in for salvation. If one trusts their obedience and "works of charity", to be saved or stay saved, then one is really trusting in themselves and not entirely in Christ.

You don't believe in taking up your own cross?

When did I say one word against being Christ's disciple? I said the opposite. Discipleship comes after one is saved, born again, made a new creation in Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Then we learn from Him and grow in His grace. It seems it is possible to follow Jesus teachings and not believe (Judas Iscariot). Jesus had much to say about cleaning the outside of the cup and not realizing that the inside was still filthy. Only God can make us a new creation. This is a supernatural act and not accomplished by "human passion or plan."

Why do you need to take up your own cross if you died with Christ on His cross?

Because it is our "reasonable service". Who would not want to serve our wonderful Saviour? Who would want to be ashamed at His coming, knowing we did nothing with so great a salvation?

Matthew 16:24

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Jesus is talking about true discipleship, which all Christians should desire. He is not telling people how to be saved or stay saved.

What is so bizarre about taking up your own cross? If Jesus' cross was totally sufficient, why do we need to take up a cross?

The "bizarre" comment was in reference to "crucifying ourselves." Christ's cross was totally sufficient to save, (I'm sorry if you don't believe that). Taking up our cross is our "reasonable service" and something we as Christians should most definitely do. Not to be saved, but because we are saved. Saved unto good works, not by them.

We take up our cross to be a disciple, right? How about these?

John 8:31
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.

John 13:35
By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

John 15:8
By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

This is how we become disciples, not by taking up our cross. So now, why do we need to take up our cross?

What exactly do you believe "taking up our cross" refers to?

 

[Major1]

It's about what one is trusting in for salvation. If one trusts their obedience and "works of charity", to be saved or stay saved, then one is really trusting in themselves and not entirely in Christ.



When did I say one word against being Christ's disciple? I said the opposite. Discipleship comes after one is saved, born again, made a new creation in Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Then we learn from Him and grow in His grace. It seems it is possible to follow Jesus teachings and not believe (Judas Iscariot). Jesus had much to say about cleaning the outside of the cup and not realizing that the inside was still filthy. Only God can make us a new creation. This is a supernatural act and not accomplished by "human passion or plan."



Because it is our "reasonable service". Who would not want to serve our wonderful Saviour? Who would want to be ashamed at His coming, knowing we did nothing with so great a salvation?


Jesus is talking about true discipleship, which all Christians should desire. He is not telling people how to be saved or stay saved.



The "bizarre" comment was in reference to "crucifying ourselves." Christ's cross was totally sufficient to save, (I'm sorry if you don't believe that). Taking up our cross is our "reasonable service" and something we as Christians should most definitely do. Not to be saved, but because we are saved. Saved unto good works, not by them.



What exactly do you believe "taking up our cross" refers to?

I do not know about you, but I for one am always amazed on these forums at how those who do not agree with the Scriptures always "Put words in the mouths" of those who actually believe what the Scriptures do say.

 

[amariselle]

I do not know about you, but I for one am always amazed on these forums at how those who do not agree with the Scriptures always "Put words in the mouths" of those who actually believe what the Scriptures do say.

Agreed. Be encouraged Major1.

 

[Major1]

Agreed. Be encouraged Major1.

Thank you but actually I am not discouraged. I was only stating an observation.

 

[aiki]

Of course it's all over the N.T. AND the O.T.
Some just don't want to see it for whatever reason.
In the O.T. it took faith to be saved.
In the N.T. it took faith to be saved.
No faith, no salvation.

Is faith a work? Does a man earn the cheque for a million dollars he has inherited from his recently-deceased rich uncle? No. He simply believes the money is his and receives it. This is true of the gift of salvation one may receive from God, too.

And from where does faith to believe come? God. (Romans 12:3) Our salvation is ultimately God's doing, not ours; it depends upon His work, not ours (John 6:44).

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you,provided you REMAIN in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?

Here's the verse you quoted with a bit of surrounding context:

Romans 11:19-23
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Since, as I've explained in earlier posts, Scripture makes it very clear that a genuinely born-again person cannot lose their salvation, I must interpret what Paul is saying here in the light of these other verses. What, then, does "cut off" mean for the genuinely born-again Gentile believer? Well, if I've purchased medication at the behest of my doctor for the treatment of, say, pneumonia and I come to believe that the medication won't help and refuse to take it, does the medication cease to be mine? No. I am cut off by my unbelief from its medicinal benefit, but the medicine is still mine. In the same way, salvation may be emptied of most of its spiritual benefit and the believer made useless to God by the believer's unbelief, but they may still be in possession of their membership in God's family.

Is Israel, the nation of God's Chosen People, utterly forsaken by God in its unbelief? No. As Paul indicates in Roman 11, God is still acting toward His Chosen People in a special way. He has not abandoned them as His People but will, in the end, save the nation. Why would God do this? Why, since there is a New Covenant for all people in Christ, has He not dissolved all relationship with the nation with which He had made the Old Covenant? Because God is faithful; He finishes what He starts. And this is as true for His children adopted in Christ, as it is for the Jews. God is faithful even when we are not. He does not abandon us when we drift from Him.

Philippians 1:6
6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.

In light of these things, whatever "cutting off" my unbelief may cause, it does not, I believe, extend to my salvation.

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation.

Receiving a knowledge of the truth does not equate to salvation. I know of many people who have received a knowledge of the Gospel and who readily acknowledge God exists but who have done so only on an intellectual level. Their knowledge and agreement with these things has not reached their heart and so, despite what they may know, they are not actually saved.

Matt. 5:13 Jesus said
You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Christ's words here speak to the uselessness of those who have lost their "saltiness." He does not indicate that he means the "un-salty" are saved folk who have become unsaved. This you have read into his words.

It's very clear to those who are willing to read and understand with an open mind.

No, it is clear to those with the presupposition of a saved-and-lost doctrine. And an open mind has nothing to do with it. You have a very closed mind to my perspective. How, then, are you able to see what you do if an open mind is so necessary?

What did it gain the son to be the father's son if he lived with the pigs had he never gone back home?

Very little - except that he could always claim to be a son to his father.

Even born again persons get a lot from being born again...
but that is ALL they will get --- nothing at the end. Just like the Prodigal son.

??? The Prodigal Son got a party at the end of the parable! And even those believers whose works are entirely burned up will still enter heaven "though as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:14)

Did the son die physically?
No.
So apparently the parable is speaking about SPIRITUAL death--which is what JESUS was concerned with.

This is something you're reading into the parable. The parable is really focused, not on the Prodigal, but upon the father. To those hearing the parable for the first time, the father would have stuck out like a sore thumb. His conduct toward his son would have been thought scandalous to Christ's first-century audience. The parable, then, isn't aimed at teaching about salvation, primarily, but about the faithful, gracious, patient, and forgiving character of God (demonstrated in the attitude and behaviour of the Prodigal's father).

It seems to me that when you use the word "apparently," what you really mean is "apparently to those who are seeing the parable through a saved-and-lost doctrinal filter." As I've already explained in other posts, the son was dead to his father in terms of their fellowship with each other. This is plainly evident in the parable itself.

If the son had never gone home, his FELLOWSHIP with the father was over, finished. When had they ever spoken?? Never.
If there is no fellowship with God, there is also NO SALVATION.

I disagree. See my posts in this thread.

Very good.
1. Every verse you posted is in the present tense. One must BELIEVE in Jesus at the moment of death and not have been cut off from Him.
Mathew 7:19

No where in the passage from John 3 does it say what you have here. And your added qualification makes your salvation entirely dependent upon you. Essentially, you are promoting works-salvation which Scripture explicitly contradicts. (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Romans 9:11, etc.)

 

[GodsGrace101]

If I have an Opinion I will always state that. So that nullifies your comment.

My posts are Biblical based and therefore your position is in opposition to the Word of God and not me personally.

You said...………
"We cannot be saved by being under the law of Moses or by trying to keep all the commandments perfectly".

That is completely correct and it is exactly what I said so I do not know why you needed to say it.

God's Law never saved one single person as it was not given so that man could be saved. Salvation is completely by FAITH.

Romans 3:28 …………
"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. "

Galatians 3:2...………..
"So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith."

Ephesians 2:8–………..
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."


Then you said...………..
"But even in the O.T. persons were saved by faith. Did they keep the commandments perfectly. No. They were saved by faith FIRST and THEN they kept the commandments."

Almost correct! YES, ALL Old Test. believers were saved by FAITH.

Romans 4:1-2...…...
"What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, tour forefather according to the flesh? not before God. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

However...…...they did not obey the commandments! There are 613 Laws and God does not separate them as we do. To God, they are all ONE unit. Now then, does anyone think that the Old Test. believers kept ALL the Law????????

NO!. Just like today, they tried but no one can keep the law and really it does not matter as the Law was not given to save anyone. So your argument that they were saved 1st and then they kept the Law simply does not apply.

Are we supposed to Obey God???????

That really does not need to be answered but of course the answer is YES.
But that is really not your question is it????

The question is...….
Do we have to keep the Commandments in order to be saved/stay saved"

Lets use some COMMON SENSE!

FIRST of all, the commandments of Moses were given to the People who came out of Egypt which was the nation of Israel. Are you one of the Jews of the nation of Israel????

SECOND, the Law was never given in order to save anyone. So then, how can keeping them then keep you saved IF they were never given for salvation to begin with?

THIRD, just as an example. Do you keep the Sabbath?
Exodus 20:8...……
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates".

The Sabbath is Saturday. Do you do that? It does not matter what Paul said about Sunday, the LAW said Sabbath and if we have to keep the Law to be saved then you must keep the Sabbath.

You can not go to the store and buy food.
You can not drive a car to take your child to the emergency room if they are sick.
You can not have a job that requires you to work on Saturday.
You can not go to church.
THINK!!!!

Now consider James 2:10...…………….
"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."

That means in logical, common sense that if your child breaks his leg and you drive the car to the hospital to get him treated, YOU have broken ALL the commandments and you then are not saved!

Now for a personal OPINION.

Now if you are comfortable with that then I encourage you to keep right on espousing your understanding that a man must keep the law to stay saved.

However, I am not going to do that.

You don't have to do anything you don't want to. That's the way it is in churches these days. Take what you like, leave what you don't like.

We are no longer under the law, but we must still keep the commandments of God. Sorry if I didn't repeat the word "commandments" enough. I mean the 10 commandments and all that Jesus commanded us to do... For instance,
Mathew 5:3-10
Mathew 25:34-46

Jesus said it, not me. It' in the bible so it must be biblical.

And as far as keeping the commandments to stay saved---yes, I do believe this is also biblical and repeated by Jesus.

Would you care to explain the verses I posted?
They were:

Mathew 7:23
Mathew 7:24
John 14:15
James 1:22

As far as the ones you posted, I agree with them because, as you know very well, they all have to do with being under the law, and we are under grace. Being under grace does not nullify the commandments Jesus left us with.

Jesus did not abolish the law...
Mathew 5:17-20

He made it more difficult...
Mathew 5:27-28
Mathew 5:21-22

The difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant is not that the commandments have been abolished.
God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow --- the difference is that with the New Covenant we are given the Holy Spirit to help us keep them.

I said THE COMMANDMENTS, NOT The Law.

 

[amariselle]

Thank you but actually I am not discouraged. I was only stating an observation.

Well, God bless you in any case! I’m glad you’re not discouraged.

 

[EmSw]

The Old Testament contains the promises fulfilled in the New Testament. They go together and together they are the full counsel of God. All of the Scriptures point to Christ.

See above. Salvation was, is and always will be by faith in the promise, in the Gospel, which was preached to Abraham and fulfilled in Christ.

Yes, I see all the above, and not one passage from the OT on how they received life. Here, let me help you out.

Proverbs 7:2
Keep my commands and live, And my law as the apple of your eye.

Ezekiel 18:19
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.

Ezekiel 33:19
But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it.

Do you see these OT passages? They state how a man would live. Notice, if kept His commands, do what is lawful and right, and turns from wickedness, he will live. This is how OT saints were saved. Not once is it mentioned they should have faith in the Messiah, nor is anything mentioned of Abraham's righteousness.

Surely, you believe, 'he shall surely live' is referring to salvation.

He would most definitely have known the Scriptures (our OT). So, yes, he would have understood the promise made to Abraham, which came long before the Law, and was fulfilled in Christ. In Christ is the only hope of salvation. Period.

Why would Paul not mention the passages I gave on how OT saints received life? These passages go against any 'faith-alone' belief for life. It's faith, turning from wickedness, and doing what is right and lawful, just as Jesus taught.

Matthew 19:17
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Isn't is amazing how much Jesus knew from the OT?

Did you not know Abraham was justified by faith and works?

James 2
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

[BobRyan]

You don't have to do anything you don't want to. That's the way it is in churches these days. Take what you like, leave what you don't like.

We are no longer under the law, but we must still keep the commandments of God. Sorry if I didn't repeat the word "commandments" enough. I mean the 10 commandments and all that Jesus commanded us to do... For instance,
Mathew 5:3-10
Mathew 25:34-46

Jesus said it, not me.

True.

And the reason that we are not "under the law" is because the Gospel pays our debt of sin which the Law says we owe and the gospel also creates "a new heart" -- a "new creation".

But as Romans 3:19-20 points out - those who do not have that Gospel benefit are all still "under the law" -- in fact "under the condemnation of the Law"

 

[BobRyan]

Is faith a work? Does a man earn the cheque for a million dollars he has inherited from his recently-deceased rich uncle? No. He simply believes the money is his and receives it. This is true of the gift of salvation one may receive from God, too.

That is true. The Bible never claims that saved by grace through faith -- is "works based salvation" nor does it claim that we may be saved apart from faith

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding

If they have lost their salvation "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4... then they would no longer be saved.

"4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Gal 5:4 - NASB



BobRyan said: ↑
1. Even you admitted that "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace" is the loss of salvation. You asked that we not read the NASB ..

No, I did not admit any such thing. I said that the NASB's rendering of Galatians 5:4 was unnecessarily extreme in its word choice. But even if "severed from Christ" is the way you want to go, it still doesn't mean one's relationship with Christ is destroyed .

Hold that thought... one moment..

This is "you" not me.

aiki said: ↑
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

This rendering of the verse agrees better, it seems to me, with verse 2 than the NASB version that says "you have been severed from Christ." The Greek primary particle, "apo" (ἀπό), certainly does not demand translation with "you have been severed." Other translations use less extreme (and, I think, more appropriate) terms like "separated," or "alienated," or "estranged" that don't strengthen a lose-your-salvation reading like "severed" does.

1. You just admitted in that quote - that "SEVERED FROM Christ" strengthens the case against OSAS by saying "terms like "separated," or "alienated," or "estranged" don't strengthen a lose-your-salvation reading like "severed" does."
2. You now claim you are fine with "Severed from Christ" in Gal 5:4 since you believe you have a way to rescue OSAS from this text that "strengthens the case against OSAS"

So fine we are back to -- "4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Gal 5:4 - NASB

Which you now claim is not going to be seen as saying someone was actually severed from Christ or fallen from grace and thus Christless -- but rather that salvation can now include the Christless wicked who " have been severed from Christ,.. you have fallen from grace." Gal 5:4 - NASB

No, as I've already pointed out, my comment here does not agree to a saved-and-lost reading

I do not claim that you agree with "saved-then-lost".

I claim you admit to a very specific point when it comes to NASB and Gal 5:4

I can see, for one such as yourself who wants the verse to support a "saved-and-lost" view, how the word "severed" is more appealing

I did not say "it is appealing to me".

You said "Other translations use less extreme (and, I think, more appropriate) terms like "separated," or "alienated," or "estranged" that don't strengthen a lose-your-salvation reading like "severed" does"


You did not say "alienated from Christ and fallen from grace - does not strengthen a lose-your-salvation reading to you... the way that you view "severed from Christ and fallen from grace"

Was I just not supposed to notice?

. Acknowledging this is by no means an agreement to your reading of the verse, however.



I don't like the NASB rendering of the verse, but it doesn't confound my understanding of the verse. And it isn't that the word "severed" strengthens the case against OSAS so much as it strengthens your hope that it does.

"We" are not back to the NASB version of the verse, you are.

Well since you claim it is no problem at all for your POV - I don't feel to bad about bringing up a version that you claim to have no problem with.

See, here's that Strawman again. I have said nothing about salvation including a "Christless wicked" person.

I keep giving you a wide open door to show how "severed from Christ..fallend from Grace" is not "christless" and is not the condition of the lost described as needing to be 'reconciled to God" in 2Cor 5.

You might want to take that opportunity and show your point rather than assuming it.

 

[BobRyan]

However...…...they did not obey the commandments! There are 613 Laws and God does not separate them as we do. To God, they are all ONE unit.

That is not true.

Notice 1 Cor 7:19 "19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

Clearly the ceremonial law was being discounted and the moral law upheld.

Eph 6:2 the 5th commandment "is the first commandment with a promise" in that unit of Law still binding on the saints in the NT. IT is not the first commandment with a promise in the OT.

Hebrews 7 and 10 say the ceremonial laws and the sacrificial system ended - but those texts do not say it is ok for Christians to "take God's name in vain"

==================

613 Commands in the OT
1060 Commands in the NT

Who shall we assign to put a "limit" on God??

 

[BobRyan]

FIRST of all, the commandments of Moses were given to the People who came out of Egypt which was the nation of Israel. Are you one of the Jews of the nation of Israel????

Just like the New Covenant ... Jer 31:31-33 ... directed specifically to the same.

Are you not a New Covenant Christian.???

SECOND, the Law was never given in order to save anyone. So then, how can keeping them then keep you saved IF they were never given for salvation to begin with?

Hint: Romans 2:13

While it is true that the Law does not save -- it is not true that wickedness and rebellion is the path to heaven according to Rom 2:5-13

THIRD, just as an example. Do you keep the Sabbath?
Exodus 20:8...……
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates".

The Sabbath is Saturday. Do you do that? It does not matter what Paul said about Sunday, the LAW said Sabbath and if we have to keep the Law to be saved then you must keep the Sabbath.

You just said "It does not matter what Paul said about Sunday, the LAW said Sabbath"

What are you saying about Paul in that statement???

Did Paul ever say "Sunday is the Lord's Day"??
Did Paul ever say "we meet every Sunday (week-day-1) to worship and celebrate the resurrection of Christ instead of keeping the Sabbath"???

What do you mean by "It does not matter what Paul said about Sunday"??