Does this scripture refute OSAS? [Updated]

[Oldmantook]

Are you able to bolster your belief of implied loss of Salvation it with anything other than Rom. 8:13?

Sure. James 5:19-20

 

[Oldmantook]

Really?

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Again, your lack of knowledge of the Greek betrays you. Again, I suggest you study the Greek verb tenses as it will aid your understanding. The Greek tenses employed in v.6 are in the present tense.
Since they are crucifying/ anastaurountas (present tense participle) and shaming/paradeigmatizontas (present tense participle) Christ - they are in still engaged in sins of willful rebellion against God. Their continued actions in this manner give ample evidence that they have not repented. Since these believers have not repented and turned away from these sins but continue to do them, it is impossible "to be restored again to repentance" since they choose to continue sinning. Thus they have become lost; forfeited their salvation.
This passage does not address the possibility that IF they repented, then they would be forgiven. It only describes those believers who continue sinning and have not repented as evidenced by their actions.

 

[JIMINZ]

The Greek tenses employed in v.6 are in the present tense.
Since they are crucifying/ anastaurountas (present tense participle) and shaming/paradeigmatizontas (present tense participle) Christ - they are in still engaged in sins of willful rebellion against God. Their continued actions in this manner give ample evidence that they have not repented. Since these believers have not repented and turned away from these sins but continue to do them, it is impossible "to be restored again to repentance" since they choose to continue sinning. Thus they have become lost; forfeited their salvation.

(Sin) is the only thing which separates us (Humankind) from God.

1Jn_3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

In your mind then, does a person need to commit sin habitually in order for them to be deemed a sinner, or will one do the trick?

This passage does not address the possibility that IF they repented, then they would be forgiven. It only describes those believers who continue sinning and have not repented as evidenced by their actions.

It most definitely does address the possibility of Repentance.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

This is not a description of Habitual sin, but sin in the singular form, therefore it only takes one sin to separate us from God.

But God be thanked.

We are dead to the LAW.

Rom. 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Gal. 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

And not only so, but Sin itself has been destroyed in the Flesh by Christ.

We are dead to SIN.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom. 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

We are dead to the FLESH.

Rom. 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom. 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This is a definite, our new reality, not an abstract, we are no longer in the Flesh but in the Spirit.

Gal. 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Rom. 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Dead unto the LAW, SIN, FLESH = OSAS

How does a person (Believer, Christian) who are dead to the Law, Sin and the Flesh continue to sin?

1) When sin is the transgression of the Law?
2) When Christ Condemned (Destroyed) sin in the Flesh?
3) When we have died unto the Flesh, having been Crucified and Resurrected with Christ unto Newness of life in the Spirit?

 

[JIMINZ]

We’re they blaspheming the Holy Spirit or Jesus?

The Holy Spirit, they were attributing the works of the Holy Spirit unto Satan.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It isn't that I'm not making any sense, but that you are, apparently, out of your depth of understanding.

Seriously? I’m out of my depth of understanding?

Christ does not say, "If any man who is abiding me ceases to abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, etc..." No, a closer look reveals he says only "If any man abide not in me

So let me get this straight, what your saying is Jesus does not say if any man who is remaining in Me ceases to remain in Me, he is cast forth as a branch but Jesus is actually saying if any man doesn’t remain in Me he is cast forth?

Surely you must be able to see that doesn’t make any sense at all. What is the difference between ceasing to remain and not remain? And how does someone who is not in Christ to begin with remain in Him? A person cannot remain in Christ unless they are in Christ and a person cannot fail to remain in Christ unless they were once in Christ. In any case I’m confident people can see the truth here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Holy Spirit, they were attributing the works of the Holy Spirit unto Satan.

I don’t see where it says the Holy Spirit did the healing and not Jesus. They were speaking against Jesus not the Holy Spirit.

 

[Oldmantook]

(Sin) is the only thing which separates us (Humankind) from God.

1Jn_3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

In your mind then, does a person need to commit sin habitually in order for them to be deemed a sinner, or will one do the trick?



It most definitely does address the possibility of Repentance.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

This is not a description of Habitual sin, but sin in the singular form, therefore it only takes one sin to separate us from God.

But God be thanked.

We are dead to the LAW.

Rom. 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Gal. 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

And not only so, but Sin itself has been destroyed in the Flesh by Christ.

We are dead to SIN.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom. 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

We are dead to the FLESH.

Rom. 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom. 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This is a definite, our new reality, not an abstract, we are no longer in the Flesh but in the Spirit.

Gal. 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Rom. 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Dead unto the LAW, SIN, FLESH = OSAS

How does a person (Believer, Christian) who are dead to the Law, Sin and the Flesh continue to sin?

1) When sin is the transgression of the Law?
2) When Christ Condemned (Destroyed) sin in the Flesh?
3) When we have died unto the Flesh, having been Crucified and Resurrected with Christ unto Newness of life in the Spirit?

I see you did not give a counter-reply to my answers that I supplied you with. Why is that? Are you not able to reconcile my specific replies with what you believe? Instead you just shift the focus to another set of queries. In a discussion, one should be a give an a counter reply which you have neglected to do. You can either acknowledge that my reply adequately answered your query or demonstrate why my reply is scripturally insufficient. I can answer your questions but I suggest you reply to my answers before continuing your line of questioning.

 

[aiki]

So let me get this straight, what your saying is Jesus does not say if any man who is remaining in Me ceases to remain in Me, he is cast forth as a branch but Jesus is actually saying if any man doesn’t remain in Me he is cast forth?

No, I'm saying that verse 6 describes a person who is not in Christ. The verse is not describing someone who was once in him and now no longer is. Such a reading is eisegetical, not exegetical; it reads into the verse what is not actually there.

John 15:6
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.

What Jesus says here is akin to saying, "If anyone does not play on the soccer team, he is not a member of the soccer team." Or, alternatively, "If anyone does not live in the house, the house is not his home."

Surely you must be able to see that doesn’t make any sense at all. What is the difference between ceasing to remain and not remain?

If I pass by a coffee shop but don't remain at the shop to buy a coffee, have I been in the coffee shop and now no longer am? No. I did not remain at the coffee shop and so never entered it. What's hard to understand about this?

And how does someone who is not in Christ to begin with remain in Him?

Any place one passes by without stopping can be said to be a place where one does not remain. If a person passes by Christ, they aren't abiding (or remaining) in him. And if this is so, they are not saved but are lost in their sin - just like verse 6 describes. This isn't rocket science...

A person cannot remain in Christ unless they are in Christ and a person cannot fail to remain in Christ unless they were once in Christ.

Uh, no. It is a clever maneuver to move from "abide" which is not as easy a term to manipulate to your view as "remain" is, but I'm not such a noob to this passage as to be confounded by your switch of terms. See above.

 

[JIMINZ]

I see you did not give a counter-reply to my answers that I supplied you with. Why is that? Are you not able to reconcile my specific replies with what you believe? Instead you just shift the focus to another set of queries. In a discussion, one should be a give an a counter reply which you have neglected to do. You can either acknowledge that my reply adequately answered your query or demonstrate why my reply is scripturally insufficient. I can answer your questions but I suggest you reply to my answers before continuing your line of questioning.

It's not a line of questioning, it's a list of statements which address a specific topic.

You don't have to reply to this post, as there are a number of things you haven't replied to in my other posts, but that's alright, I understand your position, I don't agree with it but, I do fully understand why you believe what you do.

I wish you would reply, because I am interested what your thoughts on them is, but like I said you don't have to reply.

By the way I don't play that game of you didn't answer mine therefore I won't answer yours, If I did I would have ceased to respond long ago.

Have a good one.

 

[JIMINZ]

Amen we are saved by grace thru faith. Are we saved by faith without love?

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Grace and Faith are given by God to us, the Love is expressed by God towards us, through the giving His Son for us.

 

[JIMINZ]

What about this parable?

1) What is it about these verses which make you believe they are a Parable?
2) What is the one thing which appears in the Parables of Jesus that is not present in these verses?
3) Why did Jesus speak in Parables?
4) Who did Jesus only speak in Parables too?


Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Joh 15:2 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.
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If 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.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, I'm saying that verse 6 describes a person who is not in Christ. The verse is not describing someone who was once in him and now no longer is. Such a reading is eisegetical, not exegetical; it reads into the verse what is not actually there.

John 15:6
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.

What Jesus says here is akin to saying, "If anyone does not play on the soccer team, he is not a member of the soccer team." Or, alternatively, "If anyone does not live in the house, the house is not his home."



If I pass by a coffee shop but don't remain at the shop to buy a coffee, have I been in the coffee shop and now longer am? No. I did not remain at the coffee shop and so never entered it. What's hard to understand about this?



Any place one passes by without stopping can be said to be a place where one does not remain. If a person passes by Christ, they aren't abiding (or remaining) in him. And if this is so, they are not saved but remain lost in their sin - just like verse 6 describes. This isn't rocket science...



Uh, no. It is a clever maneuver to move from "abide" which is not as easy a term to manipulate to your view as "remain" is, but I'm not such a noob to this passage as to be confounded by your little switch of terms. See above.

Jesus is saying plain and simple to His 11 faithful apostles to remain in Me. Not to stop by in Me for a little while, play some soccer, have a cup of coffee and go on your way.

I chose to use the word remain because it appears you don’t understand the definition of the word abide. The word remain is used in several bible translations and is the primary definition of the Greek word ménō.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

Abide

G3306


G3306


Lemma:

μένω


Transliteration:

ménō


Pronounce:

men'-o


Part of Speech:

Verb


Language:

greek


Description:

1) to remain, abide a) in reference to place

1) to sojourn, tarry

2) not to depart a) to continue to be present b) to be held, kept, continually b) in reference to time

1) to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure a) of persons, to survive, live c) in reference to state or condition

1) to remain as one, not to become another or different

2) to wait for, await one

 

[BNR32FAN]

1) What is it about these verses which make you believe they are a Parable?
2) What is the one thing which appears in the Parables of Jesus that is not present in these verses?
3) Why did Jesus speak in Parables?
4) Who did Jesus only speak in Parables too?


Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Joh 15:2 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.
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If 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.

1. It is called the parable of the vinedresser. Most likely because it is an illustration not a literal message. Jesus is not literally a vine and we are not literally branches.

2. I’m not sure.

3. Jesus spoke in parables so that only those who listen to His message will understand and those who don’t listen won’t understand.

4. Jesus spoke to everyone in parables. Perhaps you think He only spoke to nonbelievers in parables but that is not true.

 

[aiki]

Jesus is saying plain and simple to His 11 faithful apostles to remain in Me. Not to stop by in Me for a little while, play some soccer, have a cup of coffee and go on your way.

??? I've never contended against what Christ said to his disciples in John 15:1-6. I've rejected your spin on his words, though. Jesus most definitely told his disciples to abide in him. As Jesus said, anyone who does is saved and thus spiritually fruitful. Anyone who doesn't is lost in their sin and headed to eternal punishment in hell. What I reject entirely is your idea that Jesus was warning his disciples in the passage in John that they could be saved and then unsaved. I've already explained exhaustively why.

I chose to use the word remain because it appears you don’t understand the definition of the word abide.

Uh huh. I gave you an explanation from the analogy Jesus used itself as to what "abide" means. Here it is again:

"It means to "remain," yes, or "continue in." But we see what Jesus really meant by "abide" in the vine-branch analogy he used. Does a branch immediately grow to full size and become fruitful? No. It must, over time, become a mature, fruiting branch. So abiding does not mean instantaneous fruitfulness. Does the branch produce itself? Did it decide one day all on its own to sprout out of the vine? No. A branch is an outgrowth of the vine; it has no independence from the vine but relies upon it entirely for its existence. Abiding, then, does not happen as a consequence of the effort or will of the branch. Do branches quiver and strain to hold onto the vine, to stay connected? No. The branch is a natural outgrowth of the vine, growing and then producing fruit naturally, without strain or effort. All the branch does is receive the life-giving sap of the vine by which it grows strong and fruitful. When I think of what it means to abide in Christ, these are the things the analogy makes evident."

The word remain is used in several bible translations and is the primary definition of the Greek word ménō.

Many more translations use "abide" than "remain." A few use neither term. Meno is rendered "abide" 61 times in the KJV but rendered "remain" only 16 times. According to Strong's, it is a primary verb meaning "to stay." Using "remain" as the term from which you want to argue your point, then, seems to me to be a maneuver intended to facilitate your manipulation of the text. In the end, though, as I pointed out, it doesn't really help your case any.

 

[Oldmantook]

It's not a line of questioning, it's a list of statements which address a specific topic.

You don't have to reply to this post, as there are a number of things you haven't replied to in my other posts, but that's alright, I understand your position, I don't agree with it but, I do fully understand why you believe what you do.

I wish you would reply, because I am interested what your thoughts on them is, but like I said you don't have to reply.

By the way I don't play that game of you didn't answer mine therefore I won't answer yours, If I did I would have ceased to respond long ago.

Have a good one.

I was also asking you to reply to my replies because I think since we're having this debate that is the courteous thing to do. It's not a game as I, along with you have invested time in this discussion so it's worth discussing, is it not? I would be glad to answer your further questions but I would like to wrap up just 3 areas we've already discussed. With that said based on my counter replies to your interpretation of Rom 8:13 do you agree or still disagree with my explanation using the Greek present tense? Do you agree or disagree that a sinning brother in James 5:19-20 will incur spiritual death if he continues to wander? Do you agree or disagree that the Heb 6 passage states that it is impossible for them to be restored to repentance because the present tense Greek is indicative of the fact that they are still sinning by their ongoing actions? It's also fine to say you're not sure as our belief systems (mine included) are resistant to change.

 

[JIMINZ]

1. It is called the parable of the vinedresser. Most likely because it is an illustration not a literal message. Jesus is not literally a vine and we are not literally branches.

2. I’m not sure.

3. Jesus spoke in parables so that only those who listen to His message will understand and those who don’t listen won’t understand.

4. Jesus spoke to everyone in parables. Perhaps you think He only spoke to nonbelievers in parables but that is not true.

Perhaps you should study the Parables and become acquainted with what Jesus was saying, who He was saying it too, and along the way understanding why He spoke in Parables at all.

It would really help a persons understanding of Scripture itself if they did.
But then again ignorance can be bliss.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Perhaps you should study the Parables and become acquainted with what Jesus was saying, who He was saying it too, and along the way understanding why He spoke in Parables at all.

It would really help a persons understanding of Scripture itself if they did.
But then again ignorance can be bliss.

Please enlighten me then by answering your own questions so I can prove you wrong.

 

[JIMINZ]

Please enlighten me then by answering your own questions so I can prove you wrong.

That is a really good beginning, right to the point, you have already determined I'm wrong, there isn't any need to proceed then is there?

Be Blissful

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is a really good beginning, right to the point, you have already determined I'm wrong, there isn't any need to proceed then is there?

Be Blissful

So you insulted me and can’t back up your claims then? Why even discuss it if your only going to say I’m ignorant without showing any evidence supporting your claim? Is your intention here to insult others or to help others understand?

 

[aiki]

Is your intention here to insult others or to help others understand?

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Who was it who called my view "a bunch of garbage"? Who has put the "funny" smiley face on my posts in mockery of them? Who has insinuated that I'm ignorant and stupid? You, BNR32FAN. It's...interesting that you are so quick to object to the very sort of treatment you have given others.