Strivings about the Law

Paul said "But what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 and this is the message of the Jerusalem council - as we see from their appeal to Lev 17:10 regarding the eating of meat with blood in it and regarding the 7th Commandment.

The NT authors always "uphold scripture" as we see in 2Tim 3:16.

Thus in Acts 15 the argument is made that Christians are hearing Moses preached every Sabbath in the Synagogues. Acts 15:21

In Acts 3:22 (Moses) and Acts 3:24 (Samuel and all the prophets) the NT evangelists argued that the Gospel is proven and established "sola scriptura" on the basis of scripture.

In Acts 16 - Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised - also in harmony with the Acts 15 Jerusalem council.

In Rom 3:31 - Paul says "do we then make void the Law of God - God forbid! IN fact we establish the Law of God" -- also in harmony with the Acts 15 council.

And so also Paul's argument in Romans 6 that Christians are not to sin against God's Law - in complete harmony with the Acts 15 council.

But what we do not see - is Paul insisting that gentiles "become Jews".

The Eph 2 statement by Paul makes it clear that the issue of circumcision - was in fact the issue of "becoming a full convert to Judaism" not merely to be a gentile "believer".

Eph 2
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "" Uncircumcision'' by the so-called "" Circumcision,'' which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

The Jerusalem council argues against the idea that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be saved -
Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."


And so when Paul argues in Eph 6:1-4 that the 5th commandment is binding as are all in the "UNIT" of Ten - what scripture calls "the Ten Commandments" - he is in complete harmony with the Acts 15 council.

And so it is with complete freedom that James quotes OT commands NOT listed in the Acts 15 council (as does Paul) and affirm that they too are binding on all Christians.

James 2
6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?
7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?
8If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.
9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty

Notice that James argues this point based on "what God said".

He refers to the Acts 15 affirmation of the 7th commandment then goes directly to the 6th commandment saying that "God also said" do not Murder and so IT TOO is binding on Christians because - God "also said" that commandment.

Those who like to imagine that these texts are not in compliance with the Acts 15 council - are simply out on a limb --

Your argument is "with the text of scripture".

in Christ,

Bob

 

The commandments of God refer to marriage on a chapter on marriage. Even in that verse the first half of it disannuls the law by frankly saying circumcision is nothing. He might as well have said: The law is nothing. It is nothing to be concerned about. You are not under it. Why do you twist Scripture Bob? And not quote the entire verse?

As for the command of Acts 15, it was the method of eating meat that was referred to--eating meat with blood. This is no way refers to the dietary laws of Leviticus. Just a few chapters earlier the Lord gave Peter a vision telling him that all meat was clean and nothing to be refused, including pork and other so-called unclean meat (meat that was previously unclean, was now called clean.)
This is verified in the pastoral epistles:

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
--Since the Bible says "Give thanks in all things," it would be a sin to refuse any kind of meat. Every creature is good; nothing to be refused--pork, rats, dog, etc. You have no excuse.
In other Scriptures it says: "Eat whatsoever is set before you asking no question for conscience sake." You have no excuse not to eat pork or other meat from any kind of animal. The Gentiles of Acts 15 were under no such law. The only thing they were forbidden of was the method of preparation--it could not be cooked with the blood still in it. For the most part we don't even practice that today.

So do we. It is you that does not uphold this verse by not rightly dividing the word of truth as explained above.

This was to be a recognition of the Gentiles for the Jews practice and culture, not a command. There is no command given to the Gentiles here. Can you see one? I don't. The Sabbath is not commanded to be kept. Besides that your interpretation is badly flawed. Note: Moses never preached in a Synagogue. Your interpretation is wrong. The only place that Moses preached was on the Mount, in the wilderness, and in the Tabernacle. There were no Synagogues in Moses' time. You have a flawed interpretation.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
--The prophet is Jesus. This has nothing to do with the Sabbath or the Law. Your point is moot and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Jesus disdained never required the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath.

How many times does this have to be explained to you before you accept it. This was after Acts 15, and had nothing to do with any decision made there. Timothy was already a Jew. He was circumcised so that he would be able to reach the Jews more effectively and that is all.

This has nothing to do with Acts 15.
Context:

Romans 3:29-31 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
--The law is established in that it is applied to all. Both Gentiles and Jews are able to come to Christ. This has nothing to do with the ceremonial law of the Jews--the law which the Judaizers wanted to impose.

That is not what Romans 6 says. And it has nothing to do with Acts 15.

Neither do we see that they keep the Sabbath, the law, or any other part of the OT law.

Hogwash!
"Circumcision is nothing."
Salvation is "not of works"

These verses simply teach that Jewish believers and Gentile believers are one in Christ. Circumcision doesn't mean one whit. The law doesn't matter. They are one in Christ. They were separated from each other. But now Christ has brought them together by his blood.

 

Paul doesn't quote all the Ten Commandments. All Ten Commandments are not mentioned in the NT. Never is a Gentile Believer commanded to keep the Sabbath.

James is simply putting forth a principle--the principle of sin. If you break one command you are just as guilty as breaking all the commands. One murder makes you a murderer. One lie makes you a liar. One sin makes you a sinner. You are guilty before God. One sin isn't greater in God's sight than any other. God doesn't differentiate. That is the point he was making.
There is still no command to keep the Sabbath.

Show any command to keep the law in Acts 15. You cannot do it. That was the very thing that was defeated. You go directly against what the Scripture is teaching. You twist the Scriptures to make it teach something that it isn't. The Judaizers come along saying they have to keep the law. The apostles come together. They make a decision. The decision is they don't have to keep the law. Your interpretation is the exact opposite of what is taught in Acts 15. How astounding is this misinterpretation of Scripture. How blatant a denial it is.

 

I know I am entering into this debate late but reading some of the posts stirs me up a little.

The Law of God, however you wish to define it, has no relationship to obtaining justification before God or maintaining justification before God. Paul makes this crystal clear when he contrast the Gentiles with the Jews in the following passages:


Rom. 9:30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.


Paul's point is very simple. The Gentiles made no attempt to follow after righteousness but obtained it any way simply by faith. The Gentiles had no written revelation at all, no Mosaic Law, moral, ceremonial or civil and yet they obtained righteousness without the law.

Act 15 has to do with making gentiles Jews in the sense of Law keeping as only the Jews kept the law and circumcision was the initial rite into a life of law keeping. Gentiles obtained righteous WITHOUT LAW KEEPING.

In contrast, the Jew from a child was trained to be obedient and faithful to the law but through faithfulness to the law did not obtain the righteousness of that law. Why? Because to fail in one point was to fail in all points and righteousness is defined by failure in no point.

The good news of the Gospel is that Christ failed in no point of the law, thus fulfilling the law of righteousness NOT FOR HIMSELF but for those who believe in His complete satisfaction for them! They thus receive HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS as their own righteousness not by their personal faithfulness but by IMPUTATION of His personal faithfulness to their account through faith ALONE! This is why the Gentile obtained the righteousness of God through faith WITHOUT the law, without the moral law, without the civil law, without the ceremonial law.

The SDA/Jew/Catholic/ advocates of "another gospel" inclusive of "law keeping" are described in Romans 10:1-4


1 ¶ Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


The phrase "their own righteousness" refers to personal obedience to satisfy the laws demands for righteousness instead of submitting to Christ's satisfaction of the laws demands IN BEHALF of the sinner. THE END of the law does not mean the beginning of law keeping in order to obtain, maintain or finally procure salvation. Submission to circumcision was the declaration of committment to law keeping as a way of life in order to ultimately satisfy God and thus a rejection of grace, a rejection of the gospel and a rejection of the only righteousness available by imputation for justification before God.

 

The position of imputation and complete satisfaction of the Law by Christ is the only position that naturally would give rise to the following consideration:

Rom. 6:1 ¶ What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Paul just got through saying "where sin abounded grace did much more abound".


Rom. 8:31 ¶ What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

However, the response to these conclusions is that although justification before God is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works, it is accompanied by other things:

Heb. 6: 9 ¶ But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

These other things that accompany salvation that manifest it and guarantee it (love as the manifest fruit of a new nature, immutable promise of God as the covenant pledge; the complete satisfaction of salvation already entered into heaven for us in the person of our forerunner, as the stedfast anchor and hope on which salvation rests alone (heb. 6:10-20).

 

"Persevere in these things" -- ("take pains with them") for "AS you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and those who hear you".

Romans 6
Romans 6
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God


1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

 

Eph 2
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "" Uncircumcision'' by the so-called "" Circumcision,'' which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

The Jerusalem council argues against the idea that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be saved -
Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

Ineed the symbol is clear from Ephesians 2.

And the argument that sets the context in Acts 15 is that the gentiles "cannot be saved" unless they become Jews.

It was a works based justification -

The only way your argument works is if you accept the fiction that the Jews WERE being saved "by being Jews" but the gentiles were being saved by Grace. In that case your argument would stand - that it makes no sense for gentiles not to "get saved" by the same method as Jews so why is Peter claiming that the Jews cannot bear to be Jews?

Your arguement fails at that point.

Peter is pointing out that even Jews are not saved by "being Jews".

I just did.

Your problem is with the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ahhh - then my plan is working. People will be motivated to look at the inconvenient details in the text of scripture.

:type:

Indeed it does. IT condemns the lost as sinners and shows that they NEED justification - they need forgiveness and the new Birth that comes at the moment that a lost person accepts Christ as their Savior.

Paul directly relates obedience to the Law as a saved saint to "future" justification".

You circle back to the state of the lost to make a case about the condition of saved saints in regard to the law of God.

Doesn't work.

In the Rom 9 case Jews do not become saved by law keeping any more than a gentile would.

But the issue we discussin Romans 2 and Romans 6 and Romans 3:31 and John 14:15 and 1Cor 7:19 "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" and ... has to do with the role of the Law of God in the life of the saved saint.

Again you emphasize the mechanism whereby the lost becomes saved - and in that context your statements are correct.

Indeed - by circling back to this case of the lost condition and the means of justification for the lost - your observations have some truth.

It would be for Gentiles since there was no scripture requiring gentiles to be circumcised.

But your statement is totally false for Jews - hence immediately AFTER the Acts 15 decision - the first thing Paul does is require the Timothy be circumcised Acts 16:1-3.

By your wooden rule above (if one were not careful to apply it to gentiles and only in a certain context) Paul would be condemning Timothy to hell in that act.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Circumcision occurred eight days after birth and it was an Old Testament type of the new birth. However, it was the initial rite to entrance into a life of obedience to the law of God. The gentile could never become an ethnic Jew by circumcision but circumcision was their committment to life of law keeping. The Jews in Acts 15 were advocating law keeping for salvation and this is made clear by Paul when he attacks the same position in the book of Galatians and summarizes their position on justification before God by "the works of the law."

Therefore, the only sense Paul repudiated circumcision was in regard to it being recognized as an act that proclaimed a life committed to law keeping as the means of justification before God.

This is clearly seen by Paul approving circumcision of one young preacher (Timothy) but refusing to allow circumcision in the case of another young preacher (Titus). In the case of the young Jewish preacher he allowed it because it would make him capable of reaching his own kinsmen, the Jews for Christ. Where he refused to have one young preacher circumcised is because it would be admission that Gentiles (Titus) are justified before God by obedience to the law or committment to "the works of the law" for justification.

Paul did not fight "circumcision" because there was anything evil in the act of circumcision itself as he promoted it in one case. However, it was in the case of gentile believers he resisted it because in that act it would be recognized by lost Jews to be an open admission that one cannot be justified before God without a life of obedience to the works of the law, which for the jew, that life began with circumcision. Hence, Paul was opposing justification by works of the law when he opposed the circumcision of Gentiles.

Ga 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Ga 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


Why would submission by gentile believers to circumcision make Christ unprofitable to them? Because in submitting to circumcision it would be received as an act that declared they believed they must be law keepers to be justified before God

Ga 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Bob, do you have eyes to see?

 

Bob, you are denying the very thing you affirm. You affirm that lost people are justified by faith in Christ but then deny they are justified but rather in a process of justification by works.

Romans 4 and justification by faith is regarded as a past tense completed action prior to submission to ordinances or obedience to commandments and thus accomplished WITHOUT them.

You confuse justification before God with justification before men. You confuse justification with sanctification. The former is WITHOUT any personal obedience to God's commandments while the latter is through obedience to God's commandments. The former obtains heaven while the latter obtains temporal blessings and future rewards.

In essence, the bottom line of your doctrine of Justification is one and the same with the Roman Catholic doctrine and all others who preach a gospel of justification ultimately through works.

You are rejecting Jesus Christ and the righteousness of God already provided through the personal life and death of jesus Christ as COMPLETE SATISFACTION for God's Law for justification before God by including your own personal obedience to God's law which can never ever be approved in God's sight for justification. You simply reject the gospel of Christ. The only place YOU have in the gospel are in the words "FOR US" - add any doctrine that includes "BY US" and you have another gospel.

 

You will need to be specific.

Agreed.

How so?

Well - You are right about justification past - and you are right about sanctification.

But what you are missing is the Rom 2:11-16 concept of justification in the future (as we also see in James 2 and in Daniel 7:22 "judgment passed in favor of the saints" NASB)

Heaven is not "obtained" until you get there - hence the bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints.

I cannot be blaimed if there are points of doctrine where the Catholic church is more Biblically correct than the OSAS traditions of man.

How so?

I never claim that justifcation past - is based on works of any kind. The sinner simply follows the Romans 10 model of choosing to believe and confess. (Or you could call it the Rev 3 model of "opening the door" to let Christ in to your life).

Maybe you were confusing Romans 2 speaking of justification future - with the Romans 5:1 concept of Justification past.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Once you accpet Paul's teaching in Rom 2 - it is pretty easy to accept what he says in 1Cor 7:19 "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

here is James on that same point as 1Cor 7 -

 

I have in another thread dealt with your understanding of Romans 2 and demonstrated that you are jerking it from its proper context and applying it completely opposite to how Paul applied it in that context.


Your view of past justification is no justification at all. Instead, your view of past justification is more like acceptance to be on God's football team but actually justification depends upon playing on the field and making the touch down with God's help or there is no justification at all.

Therefore, your past justification means nothing but potential salvation while running the plays and crossing the goal line is actual justification.

Your whole false system can be easily repudiated by Christ's words in John 6:37-40 and in particular the words "OF ALL that the Father giveth me I shall LOSE NOTHING but should raise it up again at the last day."

Your theory of justification and eternal life REPUDIATES that statement of Christ. All your interpretations of John 6:37-40 REPUDIATES that statement by Christ. This statement by Christ is declarative ORSAS (once REALLY saved always saved).

No matter what rationale you bring to this discussion from your position it will ALWAYS REPUDIATE those words by Christ and thus demonstrate your interpretations are in error and your position is in error.

 

I kindly debunked that accusation here --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1556318&postcount=149

and here
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1556325&postcount=150

1. No - I claim that the "by their fruits you shall know them" statement of Christ (Matt 7) is actually true. You are claiming it means there is no real justification.

2. What you call "my view" of past justification - is the Bible statement that a person is born-again and yet the man-made tradition of OSAS has no Bible support.

It is the condition of being "Born again" - forgiven - the "New Creation" of 2Cor 5 in which we "walk by the Spirit --- putting to death the deeds of the flesh" Rom 8.

In John 6:40 Christ specifically states that this is only for those that "believe" - and James 2 argues that belief has to have actions as does Christ in Matt 7 "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father".

Hence Christ's continued lesson in the book of John from chapter 15 "Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit" is cast away and burned in the fire.

"Severed from Christ -- fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4

Thus the exegetical principle of context that takes in the full orbed 360% view of the subject - when applied to John 6 results in complete harmony on the doctrine.

Consider Christ's forgiveness revoked sermon in Matt 18 - this only works with John 6 if we take this larger view and pay close attention to what Christ said in John 6:40.

As pointed out elsewhere your argument fails on this point because you have no way to accept the Bible teaching on perseverance in the way the Bible states it -

A few examples will suffice to demonstrate the point.

Matt 10:22 but it is he who has endured until the end that will be saved.

Heb 2:1-3
1. For this reason we must pay close attention to what have heard lest we drift away from it
Heb 3:6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence
and the boast of our hope firm until the end.
Heb 3:12-14
12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.
13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called ""Today,'' so that none of you will be hardened
by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,


Heb 10:35-39
35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.
37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

1Cor 15:1-2
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received,
in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Rom 11:22
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness,
if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Col 1:21-23
22 He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death in order to PRESENT you before Him
Holy and Blameless and beyond reproach
23 IF indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not moved away
from the HOPE of the Gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven
and of which I Paul was made a minister.


1Tim 4
15Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all.
16Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

in Christ,

Bob

 

If you will look again, you will see that I thoroughly debunked your debunk (grin). Just go back and look.

It is one thing by fruits to "know them' and it is another thing by fruits to save them.

I told you that any interpretation you attempted of John 6:37-40 would repudiate the statement by Christ "OF ALL the Father given me, I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

You try to reverse the cause and consequence in John 6:37-40. The cause is found in the Father giving "ALL" to the Son. NONE come but those given and ALL who are given come - therefore the cause is found in being given not in coming. However, the fact that "ALL" given do "come" and "ALL" given NONE SHALL BE LOST but raised by Christ to resurrection of life completely repudiates your EXCEPTION interpretation as the text denies all exceptions as NONE given are lost and ALL given come.

Like I said, your false doctrine is completely repudiated by the phrase "OF ALL the Father giveth me I SHALL LOSE NOTHING." Any interpretation you give will repudiate Christ's words as it excludes any kind of exception for those given - Period!

 

Your understanding and interpretation of the texts you quote simply CONTRADICT the plain statement of Christ which is directed specifically to the issue concerning whether any that come to him will be lost. Hence, you pit scripture against scripture. All the texts you quote can be perfectly harmonized with the absolute statement "of all that the Father giveth me I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

John 15 and the vine has nothing to do with redemption "in Christ" but rather ones daily "walk" in Christ. It deals with progressive sanctification not justification.

Galatians 5:4 deals with falling from the DOCTRINE of Grace in THEIR MINDS (Gal. 3:1) not from the state of grace in justification.

Matthew 10:22 is set in an eschatalogical context dealing with physical endurance to the end.

Hebrews 2 and 3 are defined in Hebrews 4:1-2 pertaining to those who professed but no faith was mixed with the gospel when they heard it.

Hebrews 10:35-39 is found in the context of progressive sanctification not justification and in regard to the daily trespass offering for sin (Heb. 10:18-22) rather than the once a year sacrifice on the day of atonement (Heb. 10:5-17).

I Corinthians 15:1-2 is defined by the immediate context to have reference to those who deny the resurrection only. Those who do not receive the gospel in the first place but a distorted gospel.

Romans 11:22 has to do with NATIONS not individuals as the same nation that was cut off is grafted back in "again." It refers to the chosen sphere of operation (Israel versus Gentile nations) from which God calls out his elect.

Now, you will challege the intepretations I have given on all these texts but the bottom line is all my intepretations do not repudiate Christs words that deal explicitly and literally with the topic we are debating "OF ALL which the Father has given me , I SHALL LOSE NOTHIN".

However, every single intepretation you give repudiates the plain sense of those words.

 

And then - innexplicably - instead of addresssing the texts raised in opposition to OSAS - Steaver chooses to explain why he is not reading them.

Paul argues "According to my GOSPEL ... God WILL judge all men" in Romans 2.

Hint - Paul's Romans 2 Gospel is the SAME as he preached in Gal 1.

Hence your problem with ignoring Romans 2.

But you have free will - you are free to make that choice.

in Christ,

Bob