Can you lose your salvation?

Oldmantook · Nov 18, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Sheep were notorious for wandering off, especially when they were young. When David describes the limbs thou has broken (Psalm 51:8), he is describing what he had to do as a shepherd. A lamb wants to wander off so you break it's leg, then nurse it back to health. The picture of Jesus carrying a lamb on his shoulders didn't accidentally get his leg broke, the shepherd did that so he wouldn't wander off. Everything in salvation is a work of God, from repentance to good works, it's always God's grace.

Of course sheep wander off - and sin. Again, you prefer to ignore verses you don't like mark. The verses of Jn 10:28-29 are contingent on v.27 which specifies sheep who listen and follow. Not all sheep listen and follow do they?

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2018

Oldmantook said:
Really mark? Did you even bother to read the whole passage. If you really did, you would have detected vs. 6,9,11,12 where it plainly states that those men - meaning Judas and the other disciples were given to Jesus by the Father. As you probably know, the Father chooses those whom He elects. Despite being chosen by the Father and given to Jesus and thus being one of the elect, Judas sinned and fell from grace. Shame on you for not even reading this passage more closely.

Being chosen as an Apostle doesn't mean your saved, it's really as simple as that. What you are chosen for is what really matters, and Judas was chosen as a child of perdition to fulfill Scripture and it's right there in the passage.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2018

Oldmantook said:
Of course sheep wander off - and sin. Again, you prefer to ignore verses you don't like mark. The verses of Jn 10:28-29 are contingent on v.27 which specifies sheep who listen and follow. Not all sheep listen and follow do they?

They will listen after the shepherd has broken it's leg. The sheep know his voice, when shepherds have to water their flocks and there are multiple herds, they all drink together. Then when it's time to go the shepherd walks way singing a little song. His sheep know his voice and follow him, it's a literary feature your obviously unaware of. Still, if you want to do an exposition I'm willing to consider it, providing it's an actual exposition which is something you have proven yourself incapable of repeatedly.

ToBeLoved · Nov 18, 2018

Oldmantook said:
Of course sheep wander off - and sin. Again, you prefer to ignore verses you don't like mark. The verses of Jn 10:28-29 are contingent on v.27 which specifies sheep who listen and follow. Not all sheep listen and follow do they?

Doesn’t Jesus Himself say that if one of Hos sheep get lost He leaves the rest to go after the one lost one?

Why would Jesus say He goes after lost sheep if He only cares about the ones who listen and follow?

Oldmantook · Nov 18, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Being chosen as an Apostle doesn't mean your saved, it's really as simple as that. What you are chosen for is what really matters, and Judas was chosen as a child of perdition to fulfill Scripture and it's right there in the passage.

Your (lack of) knowledge of soteriological terms is showing. I suggest you study up. To be elected is to chosen/predestined by the Father. Calvinists are fond of claiming that those who are elected can never perish despite the plain example of Judas in John 17.

Oldmantook · Nov 18, 2018

mark kennedy said:
They will listen after the shepherd has broken it's leg. The sheep know his voice, when shepherds have to water their flocks and there are multiple herds, they all drink together. Then when it's time to go the shepherd walks way singing a little song. His sheep know his voice and follow him, it's a literary feature your obviously unaware of. Still, if you want to do an exposition I'm willing to consider it, providing it's an actual exposition which is something you have proven yourself incapable of repeatedly.

Try again mark. You have failed to show that Jn 10:28-29 is not predicated on the qualifications of v.27. Furthermore, you ignore Jesus' teaching of the lost sheep who wandered away from the flock in Luke 15. Not all sheep stay in the flock which obviously contradicts your false belief system.

aiki · Nov 18, 2018

BNR32FAN said:
I think a better example would be John 15:1-10.

Of what? Losing one's salvation? Not really.

John 15:1-6
1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Verse 2 should read "Every branch in me that does not bear fruit He lifts up..." Vine's Bible Dictionary explains:

Greek Word: αἴρω
Transliteration: airō
Phonetic Pronunciation: ah'ee-ro
Root: a primary root
Part of Speech: v

Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:

take up 32
take away 25
take 25
away with 5
lift up 4
bear 3
miscellaneous translations 8
[Total Count: 102]

a primary verb; to lift; by implication to take up or away; figurative to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); specially to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebrew [compare <H5375> (nasa')] to expiate sin :- away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up).

Rendering verse 2 as "lifts up" rather than "takes away" accords far better with what is known of the viticultural practices of Jesus' time and with how the word "airo" (translated "takes away") was commonly used. But this quite changes the import of verse 2 and dissolves the saved-and-lost construction some try to put on it. Instead of threatening a loss of salvation, the verse indicates that God supports, bears up, or lifts up those branches that are not bearing fruit - just as the vine growers of Jesus time would have done with the unfruitful branches of their vines.

"The approach of most exegetes is to see in Jesus’ words a process by which farmers pick off the adventitious sprigs from the fruiting branches (cleanses them) and cut off nonfruiting branches (takes them away). This interpretation of ai[rei, however, contradicts the evidence from Pliny that nonfruiting branches were preserved and nurtured for use the following season. It would be better to see Jesus indicating what actually occurred during the spring, namely, certain nonfruiting branches were tied to the trellises along with the fruiting branches while the side shoots of the fruiting branches were being “cleaned up.” The nonfruiting branches were allowed to grow with full vigor and without the removal of any side growth or leaves, since the more extensive their growth the greater the diameter of their stem where it connected to the vine, giving greater ability to produce more fruit the following season. Removing the nonfruiting branches from the ground and placing them on the trellis would allow the rows of plants to benefit from unhindered aeration, considered an essential element to proper fruit development. To see ai[rei as removal (judgment or discipline) is to contradict the actual practice of the time."

("VITICULTURE AND JOHN 15:1-6" by Gary W. Derickson)

And what of verse six?

6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Isn't this clearly indicating that a person can lose their salvation? No. Not at all, really. Who is a person who is not abiding in Christ? Is such a description referring to a saved person? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Being "in Christ" is a description given in Scripture only to the truly born again. The phrase "in Christ" is used frequently in the NT in description of saved people (Romans 8:1; Romans 8:2; Romans 12:5; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthian 15:2, etc.) In fact, it is only by being placed in Christ that one is saved. It is, then, evident that when Jesus spoke of those not abiding in him, he was referring to unsaved people. And, of course, it is perfectly consistent with all that Jesus taught that such people end up in the flaming torment of eternal hell. Verse 6, is not, therefore, teaching that a saved person can lose their salvation. It is referring to the lost, the yet-to-be saved, not the born-again, in Christ, believer.

For these reasons, I don't see that John 15:1-5 is at all solid ground from which to contend for a saved-and-lost doctrine. The passage only appears to be so when one is looking at it through the lens of the SAL doctrine and thus reading the doctrine into the passage.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2018

Oldmantook said:
Try again mark. You have failed to show that Jn 10:28-29 is not predicated on the qualifications of v.27. Furthermore, you ignore Jesus' teaching of the lost sheep who wandered away from the flock in Luke 15. Not all sheep stay in the flock which obviously contradicts your false belief system.

That's called circular logic, you'll just keep asking in circles and I've been through too many of these discussion to doubt it. The point stands, and you know it, I won't waste time chasing a point in circles you just conceded by failing to offer a counter argument.

Oldmantook · Nov 18, 2018

ToBeLoved said:
Doesn’t Jesus Himself say that if one of Hos sheep get lost He leaves the rest to go after the one lost one?

Why would Jesus say He goes after lost sheep if He only cares about the ones who listen and follow?

Is not obedience required for eternal life according to Heb 5:9? Why do you think believers are referred to as sheep in the NT? I live next to sheep. They are not smart animals and need a shepherd to lead them as they are prone to wandering away and getting into trouble. Read Lk 15:4-7 and tell me what you think.

Oldmantook · Nov 18, 2018

mark kennedy said:
That's called circular logic, you'll just keep asking in circles and I've been through too many of these discussion to doubt it. The point stands, and you know it, I won't waste time chasing a point in circles you just conceded by failing to offer a counter argument.

Your opinion without any scriptural backing is unconvincing to say the least. I ask you AGAIN - was Judas not one of the elect? Yes or no? Simple question. If you evade answering it, don't bother to reply.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2018

Oldmantook said:
Your opinion without any scriptural backing is unconvincing to say the least. I ask you AGAIN - was Judas not one of the elect? Yes or no? Simple question. If you evade answering it, don't bother to reply.

No your tactics without anything remotely Scriptural are poison. I've watched your posts reduce themselves to ad hominem taunts and it's telling me something about why your here. It has nothing to do with Scripture, your just playing a little game, you have nothing but fallacious rhetoric now, game over.

aiki · Nov 18, 2018

Oldmantook said:
This is the very reasoning people on your side ignore John 10:27. You give emphasis to the promises/assurances of vs. 28-29 while totally ignoring the condition set forth in v.27. Not being snatched out of the Father's hand only applies to those sheep who LISTEN and FOLLOW. Those sheep who don't, don't have the assurances of vs. 28-29. Context is key.

Just to be clear: you're deflecting here. But, in any case, it is a prominent teaching of Christ that in order to be one of his "sheep" one must hear his "voice," the voice of the Saviour (expressed to us in the Gospel) and follow him. This is the Gospel in a nutshell. What Jesus says in verse 27 is not the conditions for remaining a "sheep" (aka - remaining saved) but the means by which one is saved (or, becomes one of Christ's sheep). And those who become Christ's sheep by hearing and following him are inextricably kept by him. I don't, then, see any ground in John 10:27 for arguing that Christ was teaching a saved-and-lost or works-salvation doctrine.

Der Alte · Nov 18, 2018

aiki said:
Matthew 24:9-13
9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake.
10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.
11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.
12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

aiki said:
I don't think the passage indicates that salvation is dependent upon the endurance of a genuine believer who is under persecution but that the pressures of persecution will reveal the reality of a person's claim to be saved ("many will be offended," "the love of many will grow cold." See also 1 John 2:19). The one who endures to the end is the one who is (and so shall be) saved.

First let me preface my replies with this. I studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level more than 3 decades ago, therefore I do not require any instruction from anonymous persons online what the Greek or Hebrew "really means."
.....Also English is my native language and I have been speaking it more than 7 decades and have studied and written at the graduate level therefore I do not require instruction from anonymous persons online as to what the English "really means."
.....Let us remember that the audience that the NT writers were speaking to did not have a complete NT which they could cross check. Therefore what is written means what it means not what someone centuries later might think it means when read together with other NT texts.
.....With all this in mind what you "think" something does or does not mean does not carry much weight with out clear scriptural support which you have not provided.

aiki said:
begin

I don't see anywhere in this passage where Paul indicates that a genuine believer may lose their salvation. He simply notes the result of saving faith: A faith that perseveres, established and firm in the hope of the Gospel, is a faith that produces a holy life, free from blemish and accusation. A faith that does not persevere is a false faith, the faith of a "tare," that does not hold firm unto the end. If the Colossians claiming to be saved possessed such a faith, they could not expect to remained unmoved from the hope of the Gospel. This is how I understand Paul's words here. And my understanding appears to be reinforced by Paul pointing out that the Colossians had already been reconciled to God; they were not, by dint of their perseverance, securing their reconciliation to God. This certainly seems to coincide well with Paul wrote to the Galatian believers:

end

I don't see the words "genuine believers" anywhere in the NT. So when Paul says someone has been reconciled I must assume that person was a "genuine believer."

Colossians 1:22-23
(22) But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
(23) if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Once again Paul is talking to believers who have been reconciled, but Paul evidently believed that they could fail to continue in their faith, and that they could move from the hope held out in the gospel.
.....The church at Colossae did not have the book of Galatians to help them understand that Paul was not talking to "real believers."

aiki said:
begin

Coming out of the OT, this passage has no bearing that I can see upon the circumstance of a person under the New Covenant established in and through Christ. It is precisely because the "righteous" person in the OT could not achieve perfect righteousness that animal sacrifices had to be made and Christ, finally, had to die at Calvary. (Romans 3:19-23; Romans 5:12)

end

I was anticipating that objection. The OT was the only scriptures that were available at the time Paul wrote his letters.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
(16) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
(17) so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

aiki said:
begin

Was Paul describing believers when he wrote what he did from Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter? Yes, he starts off his letter acknowledging to whom it he is writing, but this doesn't mean that everything he describes in his letter is in direct reference to the Roman believers. This is certainly true in the last part of chapter 1 and it is true also in the passage from chapter 2 you cite above. Neither passage describes the Romans to whom Paul was writing. These descriptions seem, rather, to be set in distinct contrast to them and as examples of what to avoid. In chapter 2, Paul is speaking (throughout the whole chapter, really) particularly to hypocritical teachers:
Romans 2:1
1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
It's worth noting, too, that Paul doesn't use terms here that stipulate he is referring to Roman believers. Instead, he resorts to "O man" and "whoever you are," not "brethren" as he so often does in other places. At the end of the chapter he continues to describe who he means and his language does not give me cause to think he was referring to Roman believers:

end

More spurious objections. While writing to the church at Rome would Paul suddenly be talking to unsaved sinners? And would those unsaved sinners be judging other unsaved sinners?

aiki said:
Romans 2:17
17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,
Romans 2:24
24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.
I don't see how it makes sense to think Paul is referring to Roman believers here. It seems to me that his descriptions above make it quite evident that he is not.

Paul here is addressing Jewish Christians in the church at Rome. The letter is addressed to the church at Rome not a Jewish synagogue.

aiki said:
Paul isn't indicating that good works obtain one's salvation in Galatians 6:9. That would directly contradict his explicit statements in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5. It seems to me, then, that by "a harvest" Paul means the fruit of the good deeds sown by believers: Sowing mercy produces a harvest of mercy (Matthew 5:7); sowing friendliness produces a harvest of friends (Proverbs 18:24); sowing diligence produces a harvest of recognition from superiors (Proverbs 22:29), and so on.

You are correct Paul was not talking about salvation by works.

Galatians 6:8-10
(8) Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
(9) Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
(10) Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

But all your other scripture citations are irrelevant the church at Galatia did not have them. They would have understood the verse to mean exactly what it says. And not Paul was including himself among those who might give up and not reap a harvest. "at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." vs. 9.

aiki" said:
The quotation above from Galatians 3 rather makes my case for me. It clearly excludes works as a means of salvation. As Paul explained in Titus 3:5, the Spirit gives spiritual life to a person entirely independently of their works. Paul simply repeats this fact to the Galatians.

Correct, Paul was not talking about works salvation so your response is irrelevant it does not change vs. 9 or how the church at Galatia would have understood it. Also the Galatians did not have the book of Titus to give them the "understanding" that you have.

MDC · Nov 18, 2018

Oldmantook said:
Is not obedience required for eternal life according to Heb 5:9? Why do you think believers are referred to as sheep in the NT? I live next to sheep. They are not smart animals and need a shepherd to lead them as they are prone to wandering away and getting into trouble. Read Lk 15:4-7 and tell me what you think.

Christ and His righteousness justifies and saves. By the obedience of ONE many shall be made righteous. Romans 5:19. If YOUR obedience is required, then Christ died in vain. And you seeking to be justified by the law, make void the cross. Galatians 2:21. This is exactly your message and anyone teaching that eternal life is lost in Christ by lack of meritorious works of men. A repentant heart of obedience that springs from faith, is the result of being saved in Christ by Gods Sovereign grace. It is mere fruit of a believer. Not the foundation by which we are saved or stay saved. Christ is the anchor and foundation of our faith. This message being espoused by those who teach loss of salvation by self righteous works of men, proves only one thing, there is no faith in the gospel of Christ

RDKirk · Nov 18, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Being chosen as an Apostle doesn't mean your saved, it's really as simple as that. What you are chosen for is what really matters, and Judas was chosen as a child of perdition to fulfill Scripture and it's right there in the passage.

Yes.

First, at this point they were not apostles, they were disciples. "Apostle" means "sent forth," and they weren't yet sent. They would receive that designation in the Great Commission and actually begin the mission after Pentecost. At this point, they were still disciples, which means "learner."

We can't take Jesus' choosing disciples as being the same as being the Elect with names written in the book of Life before creation.

These were men chosen by Jesus for the purpose of fulfilling His ministry, which included fulfilling the scriptures pointing to His death.

BNR32FAN · Nov 18, 2018

aiki said:
Of what? Losing one's salvation? Not really.

John 15:1-6
1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Verse 2 should read "Every branch in me that does not bear fruit He lifts up..." Vine's Bible Dictionary explains:

Greek Word: αἴρω
Transliteration: airō
Phonetic Pronunciation: ah'ee-ro
Root: a primary root
Part of Speech: v

Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:

take up 32
take away 25
take 25
away with 5
lift up 4
bear 3
miscellaneous translations 8
[Total Count: 102]

a primary verb; to lift; by implication to take up or away; figurative to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); specially to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebrew [compare <H5375> (nasa')] to expiate sin :- away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up).

Rendering verse 2 as "lifts up" rather than "takes away" accords far better with what is known of the viticultural practices of Jesus' time and with how the word "airo" (translated "takes away") was commonly used. But this quite changes the import of verse 2 and dissolves the saved-and-lost construction some try to put on it. Instead of threatening a loss of salvation, the verse indicates that God supports, bears up, or lifts up those branches that are not bearing fruit - just as the vine growers of Jesus time would have done with the unfruitful branches of their vines.

"The approach of most exegetes is to see in Jesus’ words a process by which farmers pick off the adventitious sprigs from the fruiting branches (cleanses them) and cut off nonfruiting branches (takes them away). This interpretation of ai[rei, however, contradicts the evidence from Pliny that nonfruiting branches were preserved and nurtured for use the following season. It would be better to see Jesus indicating what actually occurred during the spring, namely, certain nonfruiting branches were tied to the trellises along with the fruiting branches while the side shoots of the fruiting branches were being “cleaned up.” The nonfruiting branches were allowed to grow with full vigor and without the removal of any side growth or leaves, since the more extensive their growth the greater the diameter of their stem where it connected to the vine, giving greater ability to produce more fruit the following season. Removing the nonfruiting branches from the ground and placing them on the trellis would allow the rows of plants to benefit from unhindered aeration, considered an essential element to proper fruit development. To see ai[rei as removal (judgment or discipline) is to contradict the actual practice of the time."

("VITICULTURE AND JOHN 15:1-6" by Gary W. Derickson)

And what of verse six?

6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Isn't this clearly indicating that a person can lose their salvation? No. Not at all, really. Who is a person who is not abiding in Christ? Is such a description referring to a saved person? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Being "in Christ" is a description given in Scripture only to the truly born again. The phrase "in Christ" is used frequently in the NT in description of saved people (Romans 8:1; Romans 8:2; Romans 12:5; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthian 15:2, etc.) In fact, it is only by being placed in Christ that one is saved. It is, then, evident that when Jesus spoke of those not abiding in him, he was referring to unsaved people. And, of course, it is perfectly consistent with all that Jesus taught that such people end up in the flaming torment of eternal hell. Verse 6, is not, therefore, teaching that a saved person can lose their salvation. It is referring to the lost, the yet-to-be saved, not the born-again, in Christ, believer.

For these reasons, I don't see that John 15:1-5 is at all solid ground from which to contend for a saved-and-lost doctrine. The passage only appears to be so when one is looking at it through the lens of the SAL doctrine and thus reading the doctrine into the passage.

I don’t know why your Strong’s concordance doesn’t include the definition referring to something that is attached like mine does.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

away

G142

Lemma:

αἴρω

Transliteration:

aírō

Pronounce:

ah'-ee-ro

Part of Speech:

Verb

Language:

greek

Description:

1) to raise up, elevate, lift up a) to raise from the ground, take up: stones b) to raise upwards, elevate, lift up: the hand c) to draw up: a fish

2) to take upon one's self and carry what has been raised up, to bear

3) to bear away what has been raised, carry off a) to move from its place b) to take off or away what is attached to anything c) to remove d) to carry off, carry away with one e) to appropriate what is taken f) to take away from another what is his or what is committed to him, to take by force g) to take and apply to any use h) to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence i) cause to cease

Also in verse 6 the word throw or cast

f a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

cast

G906

Lemma:

βάλλω

Transliteration:

bállō

Pronounce:

bal'-lo

Part of Speech:

Verb

Language:

greek

Description:

1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls a) to scatter, to throw, cast into b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result c) of fluids

1) to pour, pour into of rivers

2) to pour out

2) to put into, insert

Grammar:

a primary verb; to throw (in various applications, more or less violent or intense):--arise, cast (out), X dung, lay, lie, pour, put (up), send, strike, throw (down), thrust. Compare ῥίπτω.

Also your interpretation doesn’t address the branches which did not bear fruit being carelessly thrown into the fire and burned.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2018

BNR32FAN said:
I don’t know why your Strong’s concordance doesn’t include the definition referring to something that is attached like mine does.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

away

G142

Lemma:

αἴρω

Transliteration:

aírō

Pronounce:

ah'-ee-ro

Part of Speech:

Verb

Language:

greek

Description:

1) to raise up, elevate, lift up a) to raise from the ground, take up: stones b) to raise upwards, elevate, lift up: the hand c) to draw up: a fish

2) to take upon one's self and carry what has been raised up, to bear

3) to bear away what has been raised, carry off a) to move from its place b) to take off or away what is attached to anything c) to remove d) to carry off, carry away with one e) to appropriate what is taken f) to take away from another what is his or what is committed to him, to take by force g) to take and apply to any use h) to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence i) cause to cease

Also in verse 6 the word throw or cast

f a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

cast

G906

Lemma:

βάλλω

Transliteration:

bállō

Pronounce:

bal'-lo

Part of Speech:

Verb

Language:

greek

Description:

1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls a) to scatter, to throw, cast into b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result c) of fluids

1) to pour, pour into of rivers

2) to pour out

2) to put into, insert

Grammar:

a primary verb; to throw (in various applications, more or less violent or intense):--arise, cast (out), X dung, lay, lie, pour, put (up), send, strike, throw (down), thrust. Compare ῥίπτω.

Also your interpretation doesn’t address the branches which did not bear fruit being carelessly thrown into the fire and burned.

You could have reduced that to:

to take off or away what is attached to anything c) to remove
to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls

I wouldn't say carelessly, I would say purposefully. Those trees are cast into the fire because they are worthless with regards to fruit. No problem, I doubt any of Jesus contemporaries missed his meaning. The fruit of the crop or the tree was vital, if the tree was defective it was gone. But even being unfruitful, yourself included, the obvious thing was to cast you into the fire. The answer came in the form of a puzzle, God's grace and human will, good luck with that one.

It's eternal life when the Holy Spirit says it is, that's as simple as I can make it. It don't change after that, I honestly believe that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

aiki · Nov 18, 2018

Der Alter said:
First let me preface my replies with this. I studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level more than 3 decades ago, therefore I do not require any instruction from anonymous persons online what the Greek or Hebrew "really means."
.....Also English is my native language and I have been speaking it more than 7 decades and have studied and written at the graduate level therefore I do not require instruction from anonymous persons online as to what the English "really means."

Wow. Quite a bristle. Have you ever heard the saying, "The empty barrel makes the most noise"?

I don't mean to be rude, but I couldn't care less about your credentials. The internet is full of people pretending to be what they aren't. For all I know, you're a twenty-something gay hairdresser from Pittsburgh with a penchant for Shakespeare and sparkly high heels. So, if you don't mind, lay off the bluster and just make your case.

Der Alter said:
.Let us remember that the audience that the NT writers were speaking to did not have a complete NT which they could cross check. Therefore what is written means what it means not what someone centuries later might think it means when read together with other NT texts.

But the divine Author of the NT did not inspire the writing of the NT under the same limitations as His audience. God did not Author the NT through the apostles solely for those who first received it. He knew you and I would read it centuries later and so shaped its contents such that we can, with perfect legitimacy, understand one book/epistle in the light of another. So, I'm not going to argue under the restriction you want to place upon doing so.

Der Alter said:
With all this in mind what you "think" something does or does not mean does not carry much weight with out clear scriptural support which you have not provided.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Der Alter said:
I don't see the words "genuine believers" anywhere in the NT. So when Paul says someone has been reconciled I must assume that person was a "genuine believer."
Colossians 1:22-23
(22) But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
(23) if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Once again Paul is talking to believers who have been reconciled, but Paul evidently believed that they could fail to continue in their faith, and that they could move from the hope held out in the gospel.
.....The church at Colossae did not have the book of Galatians to help them understand that Paul was not talking to "real believers."

As I already explained, I don't think Paul did "evidently" believe that the Colossians could fail to continue in their faith. Nothing you've said in response here gives me reason to think I'm mistaken. And, again, Galatians 3:3 certainly supports my view.

Der Alter said:
I was anticipating that objection. The OT was the only scriptures that were available at the time Paul wrote his letters.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
(16) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
(17) so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Except, of course, that Paul had been instructed by "the revelation of Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12) and was divinely-inspired in the writing of his letters to the Early Church, as the apostle Peter attested when he implied that Paul's writing were scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

What's more, your observation about Paul having only OT scripture, does not refute the point I made about the difference Calvary makes to the usefulness of using the OT to characterize the post-Calvary, born-again believer's walk with God.

Der Alter said:
More spurious objections. While writing to the church at Rome would Paul suddenly be talking to unsaved sinners? And would those unsaved sinners be judging other unsaved sinners?

Would Paul suddenly be talking to unsaved sinners? Maybe. He could certainly have been talking about them to the Roman Christians which he certainly seems to be doing in the very first chapter of his letter to them. Did Paul expect his readership never to include the sort of hypocritical teacher he speaks to in the second chapter? It seems not. And unsaved sinners judge each other fairly commonly. Don't you know any unsaved people?

Der Alter said:
Correct, Paul was not talking about works salvation so your response is irrelevant it does not change vs. 9 or how the church at Galatia would have understood it. Also the Galatians did not have the book of Titus to give them the "understanding" that you have.

As I said, I'm not going to operate under your restriction. See above. I also think the "harvest" Paul was talking about was not concerned with salvation but with the things I pointed out. I don't see, then, that you've offered anything significant in challenge to my view. I'm sure it must aggravate you to have me say so, being such a terribly seasoned Bible scholar and all...

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2018

aiki said:
Wow. Quite a bristle. Have you ever heard the saying, "The empty barrel makes the most noise"?

I don't mean to be rude, but I couldn't care less about your credentials. The internet is full of people pretending to be what they aren't. For all I know, you're a twenty-something gay hairdresser from Pittsburgh with a penchant for Shakespeare and sparkly high heels. So, if you don't mind, lay off the bluster and just make your case.

But the divine Author of the NT did not inspire the writing of the NT under the same limitations as His audience. God did not Author the NT through the apostles solely for those who first received it. He knew you and I would read it centuries later and so shaped its contents such that we can, with perfect legitimacy, understand one book/epistle in the light of another. So, I'm not going to argue under the restriction you want to place upon doing so.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

As I already explained, I don't think Paul did "evidently" believe that the Colossians could fail to continue in their faith. Nothing you've said in response here gives me reason to think I'm mistaken. And, again, Galatians 3:3 certainly supports my view.

Except, of course, that Paul had been instructed by "the revelation of Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12) and was divinely-inspired in the writing of his letters to the Early Church, as the apostle Peter attested when he implied that Paul's writing were scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

What's more, your observation about Paul having only OT scripture, does not refute the point I made about the difference Calvary makes to the usefulness of using the OT to characterize the post-Calvary, born-again believer's walk with God.

Would Paul suddenly be talking to unsaved sinners? Maybe. He could certainly have been talking about them to the Roman Christians which he certainly seems to be doing in the very first chapter of his letter to them. Did Paul expect his readership never to include the sort of hypocritical teacher he speaks to in the second chapter? It seems not. And unsaved sinners judge each other fairly commonly. Don't you know any unsaved people?

As I said, I'm not going to operate under your restriction. See above. I also think the "harvest" Paul was talking about was not concerned with salvation but with the things I pointed out. I don't see, then, that you've offered anything significant in challenge to my view. I'm sure it must aggravate you to have me say so, being such a terribly seasoned Bible scholar and all...

Ok first, I loved it. Secondly, let us yet be gracious. Anyway, you wrote that with exceptional persuasive power, good for you. I think you could have given a little more attention to the concept of the harvest. It is the fall of the year after all.

JoeP222w · Nov 19, 2018

Neostarwcc said:
Can a true born again Christian EVER lose their salvation?

No. If we could, we would, probably only moments after being saved. And if you could lose your salvation, that means that you earn your salvation, which is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

God is the one who saves. God is the one who perseveres the believer.

Neostarwcc said:
Is there a point in which a Christian can sin in which they can actually lose their salvation?

No, not if they are in Christ.

Neostarwcc said:
What about falling away?

Same question, same answer.

Can you lose your salvation?

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Regular Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

He’s a Way of life

Natura non facit saltum

Regular Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Similar threads