OSAS: Can salvation be lost?

[Curt]

Ask The Holy Spirit, and if you do so with an open mind He will tell you, then you will know it is the truth. On the other hand it should be obvious.

 

[EternallySecure]

5 of the virgins had oil (a type of the Holy Spirit)...and 5 didn't. Obviously, the 5 virgins who didn't have the oil (a type of the Holy Spirit), never were saved to begin with.

 

[Tawhano]

Matthew 25:8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

They all had oil in their lamps to start with.

 

[EternallySecure]

Not according to verse 3.

"They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them" (Matthew 25:3).

It says that they took NO oil with them. Which means they had NO oil. However the lamps were lit, they were lit without the oil that was needed.

 

[Tawhano]

How could the lamps be lit without oil? The oil the other five took with them was extra oil in another container so that when the oil in the lamp burned out they had extra to top up the lamps. All the lamps were lit when they fell asleep. The oil then burned out and those who had extra could then top it up.

Matthew 25:4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

They had oil in their lamps and also a container of oil.

Matthew 25:8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

Their lamps had gone out, therefore there was oil in the lamps to make them burn in the beginning.

 

[EternallySecure]

"They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them" (Matt. 25:3).

Took no oil with them to me....means they took no oil with them...period. Either in their lamps or in a separate container.

If they had oil in their lamps when they left then the text couldn't say, "and took no oil with them," because that wouldn't be true if they had oil in their lamps.

The text would have to read according to your interpretation, "and took no oil with them except the oil that was already in their lamps."

I'm sorry but the text doesn't say that.

How the lamps were lit without oil for a time is only speculation on our parts. Maybe they lit only the wick....who knows.

All I do know is the text says, "and took no oil with them" (Matt. 25:3). That means to me that they had no oil with them, either in their lamps or anywhere else.

 

[Tawhano]

EternallySecure said:
The text would have to read according to your interpretation, "and took no oil with them except the oil that was already in their lamps."

Absolutely not, it did not need to say that at all. It is only common sense that needs to be applied here. Anyone who ever used an oil lamp knows perfectly well that the lamp has to have oil in it in order to burn. The lamp is like a teapot in the sense that it has a spout on one end. They used flax (a plant) as a wick in those days. The wick was placed in the spout and soaked up the oil when lit.

Matthew 25:3-4 They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

This verse says nothing about whether or not there was oil in the lamp because it did not need to. Anyone familiar with oil lamps would know that there was oil in the lamps. At any rate you believe what you want. I just mentioned this because I thought it was so obvious but I guess I was wrong.

 

[oworm]

The word "lamps" as used in this text under question is the greek word "Lampadas" or stick with a rag on top which would be dipped in oil in order to prolong burning time.
The rag could be lit on its own but would burn bright and for a shorter time.

The word for oil burning lamp would have been "Lampas"

Its likely (as more than a few commentators point out) that the former is used to accomodate the idea that the rags burning brightly are professing christians who "Burn brightly but with no lasting flame".

I dont think the point can be laboured though as it is after all a parable and is meant to convey the message that there are those in the visible church who proffess to know Christ but in the last analysis will be found wanting and unprepared for his appearing.

 

[eldermike]

You can burn your own lamp, but it will go out......God's lamp burns forever. If you drink from living waters......if the Son sets you free.....Same, same.....you can drink regular water but you will die, you can claim freedom but you are not free apart from Jesus.

 

[Tawhano]

oworm said:
The word "lamps" as used in this text under question is the greek word "Lampadas" or stick with a rag on top which would be dipped in oil in order to prolong burning time.

Interesting, which version are you getting the Greek from? My Interlinear Scripture Analyzer (Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants ), Vine’s Greek Dictionary and Strong’s Concordance show lampas is the word used here. And since it talks about ‘trimming’ the lamps I have to believe these are oil burning lamps with wicks and not torches.

G2985
λαμπάς
lampas
lam-pas'
a “lamp” or flambeau: - lamp, light, torch.

 

[oworm]

Interesting, which version are you getting the Greek from? .

Robertsons NT word studies:25:1 {Ten virgins} (\deka parthenois\). No special point in the
number ten. The scene is apparently centered round the house of
the bride to which the bridegroom is coming for the wedding
festivities. But Plummer places the scene near the house of the
bridegroom who has gone to bring the bride home. It is not
pertinent to the point of the parable to settle it. {Lamps}
(\lampadas\). Probably torches with a wooden staff and a dish on
top in which was placed a piece of rope or cloth dipped in oil or
pitch. But sometimes \lampas\ has the meaning of oil lamp
(\luchnos\) as in Ac 20:8. That may be the meaning here
(Rutherford, _New Phrynichus_).


Maybe your right.................. But i think the point is that as its a parable it is meant to convey a message of spiritual or moral significance. The point here being that not all who carry a torch for Christ belong to him.

 

[Tawhano]

oworm said:
But i think the point is that as its a parable it is meant to convey a message of spiritual or moral significance. The point here being that not all who carry a torch for Christ belong to him.

I agree wholeheartedly. In both this parable and the one Jesus tells just after it the Bridegroom and the man who was to travel into a far country (the Master) both represent Jesus. The virgins and the servants all belonged to the bridegroom and the master respectively. In both parables those who made good use of the lamps and talents given them were the ones received. The others who did nothing with what they had were rejected.

 

[EternallySecure]

Robertsons NT word studies:25:1 {Ten virgins} (\deka parthenois\). No special point in the
number ten. The scene is apparently centered round the house of
the bride to which the bridegroom is coming for the wedding
festivities. But Plummer places the scene near the house of the
bridegroom who has gone to bring the bride home. It is not
pertinent to the point of the parable to settle it. {Lamps}
(\lampadas\). Probably torches with a wooden staff and a dish on
top in which was placed a piece of rope or cloth dipped in oil or
pitch. But sometimes \lampas\ has the meaning of oil lamp
(\luchnos\) as in Ac 20:8. That may be the meaning here
(Rutherford, _New Phrynichus_).


Maybe your right.................. But i think the point is that as its a parable it is meant to convey a message of spiritual or moral significance. The point here being that not all who carry a torch for Christ belong to him.

Well said, Oworm. Reminds me of the parable of the wheats and tares (Matt. 13). The tares are there with the wheat, growing right there with them, but the tares are not the wheat. The tares are the children of the wicked one (Matt.13:38). The 5 virgins who had no oil never did belong to the Lord. Notice that He said, "Verily I say unto you, I know you not" (Matt. 25:12). The bridegroom didn't say, "I use to know you, but because of your disobedience you have lost your salvation and now I don't know you." He said, "I know you not." Period. End of story. He never knew them (cf. Matt. 7:23).


God bless!

 

[Tawhano]

EternallySecure said:
The 5 virgins who had no oil never did belong to the Lord.

The two parables are parallel, they are telling the same message. I suppose you believe the servant who did nothing with the talent given him wasn’t really the Masters either?

 

[EternallySecure]

The two parables are parallel, they are telling the same message. I suppose you believe the servant who did nothing with the talent given him wasn’t really the Masters either?

If you mean the servant in Matt. 25:26, no, I don't think he was ever truly saved. Jesus couldn't call a saved person wicked, because a truly saved person has the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21).

 

[Tawhano]

Matthew 25:14 For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

 

[EternallySecure]

The Lord through Paul calls all men God's offspring (Acts 17:28--29)...but that doesn't mean that all men are saved children of God in Christ.

So, in that sense, all men are servants of their Creator (God), but that doesn't mean that all His servants, are saved children of God in Christ. God calls the King of Babylon His servant (Jer. 27:6).

We have many professing Christians doing many wonderful works in the Lord's name, who have prophesied in His name, who have even done miracles (casting out devils) in the Lord's name (certainly they think they are serving Him, and that they are His servants)...but He will tell them, " I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:21-23).

The same fate of the wicked servant in Matthew 25:26, 30.

 

[Tawhano]

EternallySecure said:
The Lord through Paul...

With all due respect ES, you are reading your own religious views into a simple parable. The parable says quite clearly that the servants were his.

You are not being consistent at all. First you say that the foolish virgins had no oil because the scripture said so.

Matthew 25:3 They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

Despite the physical evidence of the operation of oil lamps (or torches) constituting the need for oil in the bowl to burn you stand by the literal meaning of that one verse. That’s fine, do so by all means. But then you simply ignore literal meaning in this next verse:

Matthew 25:14 For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

So it is obvious to me that you interpret scriptures to suit your own religious beliefs. At any rate we have strayed off track here and need to get back to the topic so I am finished with this discussion on the parables.

 

[EternallySecure]

With all due respect ES, you are reading your own religious views into a simple parable. The parable says quite clearly that the servants were his.

You are not being consistent at all. First you say that the foolish virgins had no oil because the scripture said so.

Matthew 25:3 They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

Despite the physical evidence of the operation of oil lamps (or torches) constituting the need for oil in the bowl to burn you stand by the literal meaning of that one verse. That’s fine, do so by all means. But then you simply ignore literal meaning in this next verse:

Matthew 25:14 For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

So it is obvious to me that you interpret scriptures to suit your own religious beliefs. At any rate we have strayed off track here and need to get back to the topic so I am finished with this discussion on the parables.

Actually, what you need to learn friend, is how to take the entire Scripture as a whole, and not just certain verses to support your own pet doctrines.

I think you interpret Scriptures to suit your own religious beliefs...so now what?

Might I suggest in the future, if you don't like the way I interpret Scripture, then please don't post to me. Ok?

Don't ask me questions if you can't handle my answers. Deal?


Have a nice day,Tawhano!

 

[Tawhano]

EternallySecure said:
Don't ask me questions if you can't handle my answers. Deal?

Deal. It’s not that I can’t handle your answers it’s that you don’t answer my post directly. All you do is post scripture without explaining how it negates the scriptures I quote. You constantly use strawman tactics and ignore anything you can’t explain away. So please explain why you take one verse literally and not the other as I pointed out in the post above.