Greek Tenses and OSAS

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 1jim:
The requirement to continue to believe is no more a work than the requirement to initially believe is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the many texts posted and "not read by Lloyd" we have this one that is "apparently not read as well".

If you would try responding directly to the points made rather than sidestepping, ranting and obfuscating - we would not see the "Same old cycle" played over and over again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

IF you gloss over the text "enough times" you still don't win the point Lloyd! Get it??

Lets SEE the TEXT - and discover that it says MORE THAN BELIEVE!!

29 Jesus answered and said to them, ""This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.''

You DENY that the text says "THIS IS THE WORK" of God that WE BELIEVE in Christ.

Jim made a good point - when you deny this work you are denying Faith - the very starting point for Justification.

You then said that faith is NOT a work. The text SHOWS you to be in error.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd
First, believing in Jesus is not a work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was you Lloyd.

This is God by contrast --

The contrast is hard to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Every once in a lonnng while at the end of a string of pure obligatory ranting -- Lloyd will toss out "another point" to add to his argument.

Here is a recent one ...

I have never argued that Christ is NOT able to save -- or to create a sinless holy perfect being.

God PERFECTLY created the sinless holy perfect Adam and PERFECTLY enables sinners to choose Christ.

NOT ALL sinners DO choose Christ.

Adam did not CHOOSE to remain faithful.

NOT ALL believers will CHOOSE to remain in Christ.

NONE of these examples are "God's fault". To try and "pin it on God" as if "GOD WAS NOT ABLE To save to the uttermost" is Calvinist mishmash.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oops! Here is "another point" Lloyd has added amidst all of his pointless ranting.

(This is kinda like an easter egg hunt - looking for places where Lloyd stops childish ranting long enough to make a point for his POV on OSAS!)

Did you quote "PAY FOR SIN" from the text Lloyd -- or are you quoting "you" again?

In 1John 2:2 we find that Christ is the "ATONING SACRIFICE" NIV for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD>

That means that the sacrifice of Atonement described in Lev 16 was full and complete FOR THE WHOLE WORLD at the cross. This was done by God WHO 'So LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE'.

That PROCESS of Atonement listed in Lev 16 INCLUDES the HIGH PRIESTLY WORK of Christ described in Heb 7-10. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to deny those scriptures Lloyd. AND THAT is why Calvinism fails!

In Col 2 our DEBT of sin "Our certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us" NASB is nailed to the Cross.

That is the DEBT owed by all the people of the WHOLE WORLD -- Lloyd -- NOT just the saints.

In Christ,

Bob

 

When scriptures that directly refute your own speculative conjecture are presented you "disdain to read them" claiming that the amount of reading of God's Word that is opposed to you - is "too much".

But then you retreat back to your one-text snippet non-quote model to make your case. AS IF the Bible can be shrunk to such a small view of the text.

Why not embrace scripture instead Lloyd?

Confront the hard questions I have given you here - instead of publically amditting that you are running away from them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ascund:

At least for today, I refuse to read ... Sorry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi ascund,


ascund:

Believing is NOT a work. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE YOU GET THIS.


Jim (this message):

I’LL SHOW YOU HOW.


ascund (09/16/05, 12:59pm):

So which contractual clause of the New Testament do you use to support this statement of conditionality?


Jim (in response, 09/16/05, 05:42pm):

The contract is that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM HAS ETERNAL LIFE (John 3:16 and 6:47). That’s the contract. IF A BELIEVER STOPS BELIEVING and literally no longer believes that Jesus is the Son of God or that he took the sins of the world on Himself or that He rose from the dead, THEN THE CONTRACT IS BROKEN.


ascund (in response, 09/17/05, 08:36am, mistaking what I, Jim, said above for something said by steaver):

STUPENDOUS LOGIC! Many troubles with curiosities of a single word can be straightened out with an appeal to the larger known truths of God's Word. ... The onus is upon BobRyan and 1jim to manufacture the NT clause that would allow A BELIEVER TO BE CAST INTO HELL.


steaver (in response, 09/17/05, 09:08am):

THAT WAS JIM'S QUOTE LLOYD.


ascund (in response, 09/17/05, 09:19am):

THAT WAS A GREAT QUOTE! I THOUGHT 1JIM WAS THE ARMINIAN HERE.


Jim (in response, 09/17/05, 10:55am):

WHERE DID YOU EVER GET THE IDEA THAT I THOUGHT THAT A BELIEVER WOULD GO TO HELL? That’s where unbelievers go, whether or not they ever believed before. The onus is on you to show where the Bible teaches that a believer cannot stop believing and thus become an unbeliever. The Bible is full of assurances to believers, to those who continue to believe. One must believe in order to have these assurances. IF ONE CHOOSES TO NO LONGER BELIEVE, THEN THAT FROM WHICH HE WALKS AWAY IS NOT FORCED ON HIM; HE FORFEITS THE INHERITANCE. Eternal security applies to believers, not to unbelievers. AS LONG AS ONE BELIEVES, HE IS ETERNALLY SECURE. ... The OSAS doctrine takes the Biblical idea that the believer is eternally secure one step farther into the NON-Biblical idea that even someone who USED TO believe but NO LONGER believes is likewise eternally secure. Thus, the OSAS doctrine ends up teaching that UNBELIEVERS HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, which is NOT Biblical.


ascund (in response, 09/17/05, 11:17am):

You CoCers are so focused on YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUS WAY TO PLEASE GOD that your whole denomination has put an unspoken ban on God's contracts.


Jim (in response, 09/17/05, 12:20pm):

WHY DO YOU SAY “SELF-RIGHTEOUS?” I’ve said more than once that BELIEVERS ARE SECURE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GOOD BELIEVERS, as long as they are BELIEVERS. If they STOP BELIEVING that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, THEN THEY ARE NO LONGER BELIEVERS, in which case they forfeit the benefits of being a believer.


ascund (in response, 09/17/05, 12:41pm):

I SAY SELF-RIGHTEOUS BECAUSE the task of remaining in God's family (for you) requires your faithful obedience and endurance. IF YOU EVER STOP BELIEVING THEN YOU PERISH. Everything is focused on YOU. ... You endorse A SELF-RIGHTEOUS SYSTEM of death for no one can comply with YOUR DEMANDS FOR PERFECTION. I endorse a system based totally and ONLY ON JESUS CHRIST. His righteousness pleases God - not mine!


Jim (in response, 09/17/05, 03:03pm):

THE REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IS NO MORE A WORK THAN THE REQUIREMENT TO INITIALLY BELIEVE IS. According to your logic, one should not even be required to believe in the first place, because that’s a work; God should just heap eternal life on everyone whether they want it or not and whether they believe or not, because that way no one can be said to engage in a work. WHY YOU EQUATE BELIEVING TO A WORK, I HAVE NO IDEA.


ascund (in response, 09/17/05, 04:07pm):

First, BELIEVING IN JESUS IS NOT A WORK. ... THE INITIAL ACT OF BELIEVING IS NOT A WORK. In John 3, Jesus equated it to a LOOK. One must make a willful decision to believe in Jesus. THIS IS NOT A WORK. ... One is required to believe because JUSTIFYING FAITH IS NOT A WORK. ... It is wrong to try TO TWIST THE LOOK OF FAITH INTO A FULL-FLEDGED SYSTEM OF OBEDIENCE. ... BELIEVING IS NOT A WORK. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE YOU GET THIS. Belief in Jesus is an active LOOK to Him - nothing more - nothing less. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO USE SUCH EXTREME LINES IN AN ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY YOUR POSITION.


Jim (this message):

One minute, you’re agreeing with what I say and calling it a “great quote,” in which I say, “If a believer stops believing ... then the contract is broken.” The next minute, you’re calling me a “Christ denier” who is “self-righteous” because I say that if the believer stops believing, thus breaking the contract, he perishes.

First of all, you can’t seem to make up your mind whether you agree with me or not. Your most recent position seems to be that initial belief is not a work but continuing to believe after that is a work. I have no idea how you figure that belief goes from not being a work to being a work.

I never said anything about a system of obedience or about perfect behavior. I said that one must believe in order to be saved and have eternal life. That’s just as true at the end of one’s Christian life as it is at the beginning of one’s Christian life. If a person believes, then he is a believer, and he has eternal life. If a person does not believe, then he is an unbeliever, and he does not have eternal life. There’s no time limit on when belief in Christ is necessary to have eternal life.

This differentiation that you make between initial belief as not being a work and continued belief as being a work has no Biblical foundation.


Jim

 

Jim - one thing to note about Lloyd's methods - when he can not find adequate grounds to make a case against what you DO say - he simply makes stuff up.

I think it is in genuine enthusiasm for his cause - but it does nothing for communication or his argument.

It is what it is.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lloyd (Ascund),

Thanks for your beautiful expositions! I am in agreement with you, (almost) fully. The one (little) point I would like to differ on, is the notion the "principles" referred to in the beginning of Hebrews 6, are "baby"-things. My argument rests on taking these for real 'principles' or 'basics' of Christian faith, so that the writer argues it is "impossible" they could be repeated. They are once for all, and one should not stay planted like a pole but grow like a true fruit-bearing planting of the Lord. One should not - or does not - receive the Holy Spirit only in regeneration or "renewal", but like a constant rain upon well-yielding crop. That does not minimize the 'first principles', but complements them.

 

29 Jesus answered and said to them, ""This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.''