"If you could lose your salvation, you would."

A_Thinker said:

And you don't think that that is what your fellow christian brethren (and sistren) have been honestly striving to do here ?

Though, not really trying to show you where you are wrong ... but, rather, giving you OUR THOUGHTS/CONCLUSIONS on the matter ...

Click to expand...

by not answering the question of what was lacking? How can you be trying to show where I am wrong and show your thoughts and conclusions when you don't even try to answer the question but instead insist on changing the question into a different topic?

Now I am still curious how OSAS can claim that there was nothing lacking in Christ's afflictions when Colossians 1:24 directly says that there was something lacking?

razzelflabben said:

lol oh my...I have stated it many times over...why aren't you listening? reading for comprehension? What was lacking in Christ's afflictions according to the context was someone to receive the gift. IOW's Christ's job so to speak was finished when He gave up the ghost and died on the cross....that was what He had come to do and He finished that task...but there was something still missing and what was missing was someone to receive the benefits of that act....two finishing acts so to speak...1. the actual sacrifice and 2. the salvation that that sacrifice brought.

Click to expand...

I, humbly and honestly, don't think that this is what this text is saying.

Paul is talking, in context, about how HE has suffered for the cause of Christ, ... and how HIS suffering is added to Christ's suffering, to which will be added our own suffering.

How would our acceptance of the gift of salvation ... be filling up what is missing in the AFFLICTIONS of Christ ?

Note that Paul starts the passage saying, "Now I rejoice in MY SUFFERINGS for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ IN MY FLESH for his body's sake ...

This is about PAUL'S SUFFERING, in HIS FLESH ... to fill that part which is lacking in the AFFLICTIONS of CHRIST ...

razzelflabben said:

How can you be trying to show where I am wrong and show your thoughts and conclusions when you don't even try to answer the question but instead insist on changing the question into a different topic?

Click to expand...

Do you realize that it also IS ONLY YOUR OWN VIEWPOINT ... that NOBODY HERE has been trying to honestly answer your question ?

Do you know how presumptious that sounds ?

A_Thinker said:

I, humbly and honestly, don't think that this is what this text is saying.

Paul is talking, in context, about how HE has suffered for the cause of Christ, ... and how HIS suffering is added to Christ's suffering, to which will be added our own suffering.

How would our acceptance of the gift of salvation ... be filling up what is missing in the AFFLICTIONS of Christ ?

Note that Paul starts the passage saying, "Now I rejoice in MY SUFFERINGS for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ IN MY FLESH for his body's sake ...

This is about PAUL'S SUFFERING, in HIS FLESH ... to fill that part which is lacking in the AFFLICTIONS of CHRIST ...

Click to expand...

let's look at the context since you still are trying to turn it into a discussion about suffering not what is lacking.

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I am completing in my flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for His body, that is, the church.

The colored part is the part in question...what is lacking if there is nothing lacking? Please keep the question in mind. Now look at the bold part...the church is what is lacking...but if we are right that the church is what is lacking we should be able to verify that understanding later in the passage...so let's look.

25 I have become its servant, according to God’s administration that was given to me for you, to make God’s message fully known,

a servant of what? God's message, right? This goes back to the accompanying passages I posted but we can circle back to them in a bit.

26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to His saints. 27 God wanted to make known among the Gentiles the glorious wealth of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Now notice that it does not say that the mystery is Christ in you the assurance of glory but rather it says Christ in you the hope of glory...what does scripture tell us about hope? Romans 8:25 (HCSB) But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with patience. Which would mean that our home in glory is not our salvation for we are still hoping for that...what then is our salvation? We are also still looking for confirmation as to what is lacking....

28 We proclaim Him, warning and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29 I labor for this, striving with His strength that works powerfully in me.

See, Christ needed the church for two reasons, one to receive His gift of coming glory and secondly to share the gospel to the world...but notice what it says...we are striving with His strength...together, partnership, companions...we are working together in a symbiotic relationship with Christ. Which takes us back to the other passages I presented about working together with. Now...back to the topic as it applies to this passage. If there is nothing lacking in Christ's afflictions, why does Colossians say that the church was lacking and that we strive together with Him?

Please feel free to show in context as I have since context is important to rightly dividing the word as is the totality of scripture which I also provided for you.

A_Thinker said:

Do you realize that it also IS ONLY YOUR OWN VIEWPOINT ... that NOBODY HERE has been trying to honestly answer your question ?

Do you know how presumptious that sounds ?

Click to expand...

I'm just looking at the evidence....prove me wrong. Since I have been begging you to I would think that if you are being real you would take me up on being the teacher and convincing me that it says something else.

razzelflabben said:

let's look at the context since you still are trying to turn it into a discussion about suffering not what is lacking.

I am completing in my flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions ...

Click to expand...

What are afflictions ?

A_Thinker said:

What are afflictions ?

Click to expand...

strong's online says this..

1. a pressing, pressing together, pressure
   
   
2. metaph. oppression, affliction, tribulation, distress, straits
   

Websters says this...
: a cause of persistent pain or distress

• a mysterious affliction

2: great suffering

• felt empathy with their affliction

3: the state of being afflicted by something that causes suffering

• her affliction with polio

A_Thinker said: What are afflictions ?

razzelflabben said:

strong's online says this..

1. a pressing, pressing together, pressure
   
   
2. metaph. oppression, affliction, tribulation, distress, straits

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

Websters says this...
: a cause of persistent pain or distress

• a mysterious affliction

2: great suffering

• felt empathy with their affliction

3: the state of being afflicted by something that causes suffering

• her affliction with polio

Click to expand...

Exactly ...

A_Thinker said:

A_Thinker said: What are afflictions ?



Exactly ...

Click to expand...

and your point is what? The OSAS crowd claims there was nothing lacking in Christ's many afflictions yet Colossians 1:24 says there was something lacking...which is it? If something was lacking, what was it? I personally take scripture over man's wisdom every single time, so I am going with Colossians 1:24, something was lacking.

I have been asking the OSAS crowd to explain the discrepancy between what they claim and what Colossians says.

so let me see if I get this right A_thinker...according to you, what was missing in Christ's afflictions was suffering? How much more suffering could He do for there not to be anything lacking?

razzelflabben said:

and your point is what? The OSAS crowd claims there was nothing lacking in Christ's many afflictions yet Colossians 1:24 says there was something lacking...which is it?

Click to expand...

OSAS does not claim that there was nothing lacking in Christ's afflictions.

OSAS claims that there is nothing lacking in Christ's sacrifice for sins.

A_Thinker said:

OSAS does not claim that there was nothing lacking in Christ's afflictions.

OSAS claims that there is nothing lacking in Christ's sacrifice for sins.

Click to expand...

So His sacrifice was not part of His suffering/afflictions? What was it then?

razzelflabben said:

so let me see if I get this right A_thinker...according to you, what was missing in Christ's afflictions was suffering? How much more suffering could He do for there not to be anything lacking?

Click to expand...

The text clearly tells us that this is so.

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;

Paul references his own suffering in the flesh ... which will FILL UP his part of the lack of the afflictions of Christ.

This is Paul's way of saying that ... as participants in Christ, we all participate in suffering for the kingdom. In other words, ... we don't just get the GOOD, ... we get some of the BAD too.

We also participate in the WORK of the kingdom, per John 14:12

But we don't participate in the sacrifice for sin ... this is ALL of Christ.

Hebrews 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

A_Thinker said:

The text clearly tells us that this is so.

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;

Paul references his own suffering in the flesh ... which will FILL UP his part of the lack of the afflictions of Christ.

Click to expand...

so according to your understanding of the passage, Christ's afflictions weren't enough, Paul also had to suffer to make Christ's afflictions enough? The God I know didn't need anyone else to suffer than Christ in order to secure my salvation.

This is Paul's way of saying that ... as participants in Christ, we all participate in suffering for the kingdom. In other words, ... we don't just get the GOOD, ... we get some of the BAD too.

Click to expand...

That doesn't address what was lacking in Christ's sufferings unless your claim is that Christ's sufferings weren't enough, we also have to suffer in order to be saved. This understanding would bring up a whole new interesting discussion with the health and wealth crowd....

We also participate in the WORK of the kingdom, per John 14:12

Click to expand...

and so we participate which is what non OSAS teaches....so now I am even more confused. If non OSAS relies on nothing lacking but teaches that our work is lacking what is the disagreement?

But we don't participate in the sacrifice for sin ... this is ALL of Christ.

Click to expand...

again, not the question I am asking.

Hebrews 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Click to expand...

He alone can take away our sins, both sides agree on this...but you just said we participate which is the cornerstone difference between the two sides and yet the OSAS claims we don't participate...look throughout the thread if you don't believe me. So what then is the difference if OSAS believes we participate and non OSAS believes we participate but OSAS believes that we don't participate....it's very confusing which is why I asked in the first place. Honestly, at this point OSAS sounds like double talk to me...I would like you to straighten it out for me since I am a firm believer in understanding anothers pov

razzelflabben said:

So His sacrifice was not part of His suffering/afflictions? What was it then?

Click to expand...

The sacrifice required the "shedding of blood" (i.e. death).

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

razzelflabben said:

so according to your understanding of the passage, Christ's afflictions weren't enough, Paul also had to suffer to make Christ's afflictions enough? The God I know didn't need anyone else to suffer than Christ in order to secure my salvation.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is a strange way for Paul to speak this. I think that he was trying to justify the WHY of his own suffering. And, of course, Paul's suffering was for the kingdom, ... so he finds comfort in his partnership with Christ in suffering for the kingdom.

A_Thinker said:

The sacrifice required the "shedding of blood" (i.e. death).

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Click to expand...

no contest, both sides agree with that...the question has nothing to do with whose blood was needed.

razzelflabben said:

That doesn't address what was lacking in Christ's sufferings unless your claim is that Christ's sufferings weren't enough, we also have to suffer in order to be saved. This understanding would bring up a whole new interesting discussion with the health and wealth crowd....

Click to expand...

My point is that Christ's sufferings did not gain our salvation. He could have suffered an entire lifetime, but without His death, there would be no salvation.

Likewise, we don't suffer to gain our salvation. We suffer (in this world) because we have aligned ourselves with Christ ... and Chrst said that all who follow Him will suffer for His sake.

A_Thinker said:

I agree that it is a strange way for Paul to speak this. I think that he was trying to justify the WHY of his own suffering. And, of course, Paul's suffering was for the kingdom, ... so he finds comfort in his partnership with Christ in suffering for the kingdom.

Click to expand...

and yet other passages (some presented already) support this concept that we are partners with Christ in our "hope for glory"...iow's we are going back to previously posted passages about two things that should clarify what Paul is saying 1. we are in a partnership, companion...even look at John 15:14-16. A friend, a partner, a companion has some say in the whole thing. So do the OSAS crowd deny that Christ is our friend? companion? partner? as scripture clearly states? and 2. scripture says our HOPE is that which is not yet come. Colossians says we hope for glory...isn't glory part of our salvation? Isn't glory the end result of our salvation? And yet we wait for it, iow's it is not yet finished. which takes us back to Philippians 1 but look at verse 11...the prayer is that we would produce fruit of righteousness, a fruit that if it is not there sends us to hell. Why pray for fruits of righteousness if they are a guaranteed part of our salvation? Matthew 7:19

A_Thinker said:

My point is that Christ's sufferings did not gain our salvation. He could have suffered an entire lifetime, but without His death, there would be no salvation.

Click to expand...

when did His sufferings NOT include His death? You do know about the suffering of crucifixion don't you?

Likewise, we don't suffer to gain our salvation. We suffer (in this world) because we have aligned ourselves with Christ ... and Chrst said that all who follow Him will suffer for His sake.

Click to expand...

we aren't talking about suffering and the reasons for it at this point...only what was lacking in Christ's afflictions.