Forfeiting Salvation versus Losing Salvation - What is the difference?

More often than not what you have is folks merely repeating what they have been taught. You are correct that this verse does not support OSAS, as the context is not eternal salvation. However just because folks use some bad texts to try and prove their point, doesn't make their point invalid

If folks would just stick with Acts 16:30-31 and Ephesians 2:8-9 they simply wouldn't need to go anywhere else in Scripture as those two texts alone show without a doubt that once a person is saved they are always saved for eternal purposes.

 

drfuss,

We dont skip over those words at all. Those are wonderful words from our Lord.

Then Christ lied. He said no one can take his sheep out of His hands, and the Fathers hands. You say someone can.

I choose to believe Jesus.

It doesnt have to say that at all. Just as written it is one of multitudes upon multitudes that prove the absolute security of the born again child of God. The scripture says "and they follow me" just as it says
"no one can take them out of" His hands or the Fathers hands.

To say that one can take themselves out of Christs hands is to believe the heresy of salvation by works.

We are not saved because we are good enough...we are saved because we come to understand that we are so evil that we will never be "good enough", and we place our faith in the only savior available...Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Mike

 

J Jump,

Amen! We have been taught, through this verse and multitudes of others, of our complete security as believers. We have been taught this by Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

They are wonderful teachers.

Not eternal salvation?

Needless to say, those too are wonderful scriptures that support this great truth!

This list goes on and on and on and on...

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Well, I'm OSAS, and I specifically don't use that passage, because the context is not our everlasting salvation.

"Forever" is not in the passage in the Greek, nor is it in the passage in the English that was in use at the time of the KJV translation.

The passage concerns "sheep" (not all saved people), perishing (which has to do with losing your soul or your life in the age to come), and it involves works (which has nothing to do with getting, staying, or proving you're saved.)

If this passage is talking about everlasting salvation, then there are more contradictions than you can shake a stick at.

 

Correct. Not eternal salvation. HoG pretty much explained it. If you would like more details I would be more than happy to share with you.

 

I have to admit that I always simply thought it was poor translation on the part of the KJV translators. "Aionios" is an adjective that means "age-lasting"; it's limited in duration, but without specific limits inherent in the word. We get our word "eternal" from the Latin, and there was one Roman society that set the length of an age at something like 107 years or something odd like that. (I don't feel like looking up that specific reference at the moment.)

In English, "eternal" technically means "without beginning or ending" or "existing outside of time". (The Greek word for this is found only twice in the NT.) We have come to use it synonymously with "forever and ever". In English. Modern English.

The Greek does have an expression that means "forever", and if I'm not mistaken, it's always translated "forever and ever" in the KJV.

But, "aionios" is limited in duration. Here the context is the Kingdom, which as Scriptures tell us is 1000 years in duration.

However, "eternal" is not poor translation. It's simply that the word has changed meaning over time. In Greek, "aionios" means "age-lasting". This was translated into the Latin "aeternus", from which, after a few mutations, we got our word "eternal". In the Latin, it simply meant "great age". In English, it simply meant "a long time" up until the 1700's or so, and from what I could find it was more of an idiomatic change than a technical change, and took a period of time. Sort of like saying, "This light is staying red forever!"

Here's a brief etymology of "eternal":

c.1366 (in variant form eterne), from O.Fr. eternal, from L.L. æternalis, from L. æternus contraction of æviternus "of great age," from ævum "age." Eternity first attested c.1374. In the Mercian hymns, L. æternum is glossed by O.E. ecnisse.

Oh, there's also an interesting word that is translated as "eternal" in the LXX that has to do with something being reliable. It's a stream that is eternal, and that Greek word simply means that it doesn't run dry, not that it will flow forever and ever.

So, it was not poor translation, but the KJV has so influenced our language that many translators still translate it as "eternal", in spite of the fact that our English word "eternal" has change meaning drastically.

If you're up for spending a couple hundred dollars on a good English etymology dictionary, it's also worthwhile to look up such words as "damn", "adoption", "affiliation", "hell", and almost any other word that you take for granted.

Edited to add two things:

One: This is why most of your literal translations simply transliterate the word "aionian" life.
Two: This obfuscation of meanings by changing the meanings of words is a very powerful tool of Satanic forces. It completely changes the meanings of many passages without having to "change" any of the words on the page.

 

Here is a bit of commentary on these wonderful passages of scripture in question...John 10: 27-29...from the "Believers Bible Commentary", William McDonald, Thomas Nelson Publishers...

To not be able to see what wonderful articulation these passages of scripture are regarding our complete eternal security..."OSAS"...is a very odd thing to me. I dont see how something so very obvious can be missed.

Maybe...less time "nit picking" the nuances of foreign languages and more time spent hearing God as He speaks to us...clearly...in English? :thumbs:

(thats not to imply that checking the original languages is un-important. I've gotten out those books from time to time. And surely those scholors who believe and teach that these passages do indeed support OSAS have as well.)

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Mike with all due respect the "commentary" that you have put forth is just that "commentary." It doesn't make it true just because some nice, well-intentioned guy said so. What we need to find out is what does the Scripture say, not what man has to say about the Scripture.

As already been put forth the Scripture does not say this is everlasting life, but life for an age (age-lasting life). So we can either believe what Scripture says or we can hold on to man-made commentary.

Again there is so much troubling with this statement. HoG has shown you how the word eternal has changed over the last several hundred years "in English." So are we to believe that God is speaking to us in 21st century English venacular or is God speaking to us in 17th century English venacular.

This can easily be seen in those that oppose OSAS. One need to just go to Acts 16:30-31 and Ephesians 2:8-9 and because of the langauge that is used there one can only argue against OSAS out of human logic and reasoning. Those two Scriptures are the only Scriptures needed to show OSAS is a true doctrine. The language used will not support being saved and then be eternally damned and being saved and then being eternally damned, etc.

But because folks choose to ignore the language used they still hold on to man-made doctrine despite what Scripture says.

 

If God only says something once we can count on it, but praise God He has given us evidence of the great and wonderful truth of our completle security multitudes of times.

As the little guy with the sign says...

:godisgood:

Mike

 

There are a couple of other places, but I wouldn't say it's a multitude of times. Eternal salvation doesn't have a ton of mentions in Scripture. Scripture is more about what happens after eternal salvation is taken care of.

 

Let me repeat something that I posted a few posts above...

When English translations are done, they have reams and reams of scholors and experts in the original languages involved. When people put together verse by verse commentaries they have reams and reams or scholors and experts in the original languages involved.

You guys are trying to convince me that all of them were bumbling incompetants who simply missed this information you are sharing.

I'm sorry. This passage in question is one...among multitudes...that are used to support our eternal security by a whole world full of teachers preachers and scholors who who are very competant regarding the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages.

You are an extreme minority on this. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. And I praise God that you understand the truth of our eternal security. But this passage is one among the multitudes that procalaim this truth wonderfully.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Well expert in "man's" view Here's one of the simplest ways to tell that not all translators are accurate despite their "expert" status. When Matthew used the phrase kingdom of heaven, it is actually kingdom of the heavens, but very very few translations translate it accurately. Most translations have it just as kingdom of heaven, but when you look at the original language heaven is always articular and it is always plural.

Now wonder why these so called experts couldn't manage to get the "the" in there and left heaven as singular when it is clearly plural?

Not exactly. You are misreading what has been said.

When the translators translated the passage in question among other passages the English word they chose doesn't have the same meaning as it does now.

Eternal life when the KJV was translated meant life for a long period of time, but not everlasting. Eternal life today has taken on a new meaning. When folks speak of eternal life today they mean life that never ends. However that is not what was meant back then.

It doesn't mean that they were "bumbling incompetants," it simply means that somewhere along the highway of history some folks changed the meaning of eternal from a long period of time to time with no end.

No need to be sorry. What you have stated is accurate. There are tons of people that use this verse in particular to express eternal security, but what has happened is you have fallen into the mindset that the majority is always right. Just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's right.

Eternal didn't mean without end. That's just the simple truth of the matter. Aionios is an adjective of the word aion, which means age. Therefore aionios is most every instance is better understood as age-lasting not eternal and not everlasting.

And if you run the study out to it's completion then you are going to run into some major contradictions holding aionios life as everlasting life.

So was Christ when He was preaching the message of the gospel of the kingdom. Being in the minority is not always a bad thing

Well if we were stating an opinion that would be true, but it has been backed up with evidence that is not our own. When tested the evidence backs up what we are saying.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion But again you are going to run into some major contradictions holding this view.

 

And, in spite of the reams and reams of all this stuff, there still isn't even a consensus.

I can show you reams and reams of commentaries that take a look at this passage, and if there are 100 commentaries, there will be 200 opinions of what it means.

Some were bumbling incompetents and some simply have different opinions.

Obviously, some see this truth and some don't.

Ironically, there are many people who try to use this passage to prove that spiritual salvation can be lost. (After all, whatever this passage is talking about can be lost.)

What makes you right and them wrong?

After all, there are reams and reams of studies on it.

Why no consensus?

 

HP: That is simply an unfounded presupposition with no validity to it. Show us your proof that would substantiate such a nonsensical idea.

 

I believe that HoG laid that out for everyone to see a few posts back. Might want to go back a page and see it. I could be mistaken in that he put the information on a different thread, but I'm pretty sure it was this one.

Here I'll do it for you:

Hope that helps HP.

 

HP: As some might say in the heartland, hogwash. What gives one the right to place any such restrictions on the word aionios? The word simply meant eternal, for ever, everlasting.

HP: ‘Convenient conjecture’ is the only way to describe your twisting of the meanings of the word.

HP: Show us your source. In the end what would it matter, when we know what is clearly meant in the GK, which was not limited in scope to any thousand year period as you falsely claim.

HP: That is simply unfounded error. Show us plainly that such was the case. I say you have no proof whatsoever of any such convenient conjecture.

 

HP: Thanks JJ. HOG could not be further from the truth in this matter. I sure hope you are not following the notions he is trying to float.

 

Well as another poster said you are welcome to your opinion. And in your post that is all you have given is an opinion. You refute is "that's not true." Which is a pretty typical refute - baseless. :wavey:

Where is your proof that the word meant eternal or forever or everlasting?

 

HP: The burden of proof lies upon you or Hog to prove that it does not. When you start down a rabbit trail claiming that words as well known in meaning as black and white, you had better to get ready for some sensible opposition to come your way. You have left the realm of reason, and created meanings of your own to your own demise.
Try a dictionary for starters. Move on to works like the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Show us any Exegetical dictionary that would vary from the word eternal from the meaning of everlasting or forever, except in possibly one case or so in which it is referring to God Himself or an attribute of God.

The translators of the Scriptures were not devoid of the meanings of the word eternal as you would imply. Now would not it make perfect sense that if what you or HOG were implying were true that the translators would have used a different word more in keeping with the thoughts of the original authors? It seems to me that you and HOG place yourselves and your own novel interpretations above Scripture itself and the plain common understood meaning of words, as well as above the scholarship of the greatest group of scholars to ever be assembled for the purpose of translating the original GK into the English language, the men responsible for the KJ version of Scripture.

I am certain though that you will find this all 'baseless' as well. Baseless prejudice and unfounded presuppositions are indeed stronger than the bars of a castle.

 

You know I get so sick of hearing this lame line. HoG has given you none opinion evidence. You are the one that has come back with "no it's not." So I would say that in fact the ball is bouncing in your court to come back with something other than opinion.

Well we're not talking about black and white, and you certainly haven't come up with any "sensible" opposition. All you have is "no it's not." I hardly call that sensible and its hardly grounds for someone to say okay I believe you because you say so. Unfortunately there are plenty of gullable people in the world today that are doing just that

How is repeating what comes out of an etyolomical book "making" stuff up. The whole basis behind such a work is to show a word and the meaning(s) of said word through history.

Eternal didn't always have the same meaning as it does today. That's not making things up that's merely stating the historical facts of the matter.

To my knowledge no one has implied that, but actually quite the opposite was said. They knew full well what the meaning of the word in the Greek was and they knew what the equivalent 1611 English word was they chose in the translation.

The problem you are having is seeing the difference between the 1611 definition of eternal and the 20-21st century definition of the word eternal. They aren't the same.

If one was going to make a "new" translation today yes that would be necessary, however unfortunately they haven't done that in very many cases. A few, but not many. I could speculate a variety of reasons why that would be, but it would be speculation, so there's really no sense in going there.

:laugh: That was a good one HP. It speaks volumes or at least it should speak volumes when you can't debate on the merits of an argument, but you have to go personal. Unfortunately that is the MO of a great number in Christendom today

Well at least you got one thing right today. :applause:

This will be my last repsonse to you unless you want to bring something to the table other than your opinions.