Not By Works

[Tellion]

It’s funny

the global flood prety much answers every question, if we take a literal 6 day approach, there is no need for millions of years for evolutionary means to get the earth to be able to facilitate mankind

i like to use the term aged, when I think of the creation sequence, God created the earth to be inhabited by an, who he created it for. Ie, he created it in an “aged” state,

I watched a video on distant starlight. It was quite informative about how creation in biblical terms allowed the billions love years distance between Earth the stars. Additionally, the flood best explains the formation of fossils.

 

[mailmandan]

It's obvious some interpreters choose to make both verses match the mood of vs. 16, and some choose to make both verses match the mood of vs. 18. That much is clear.

Thank you for responding. This is a critical topic.

But honestly, if you go strictly by what the original Greek moods are in vs. 16 you must interpret it as 'might not perish but might have everlasting life'. They are not being deceitful. It's an honest, accurate interpretation.

So why is NAB translation the only translation that states it that way, with 2 mights? That sounds deceitful to me and really places doubt on whether or not those who believe in Him will or will not perish in John 3:16. "Should" not perish (KJV) gets the point across of the subjunctive mood without going to the RC extreme of 2 mights. The Roman Catholic church teaches salvation by works and strongly opposes OSAS so I'm really not surprised by their translation. I am a bit surprised though that you see no red flag here and support the RC interpretation.

But as you point out, the mood changes to indicative in vs. 18 for 'is condemned' and 'is not condemned'. That's a clear contradiction to us. Apparently to the interpreters too, since they change one verse to the other to remove the contradiction. But one thing is clear, the Catholics did NOT misinterpret vs. 16.

If John 3:16 meant those who truly believe in Him merely "might not perish and merely might have eternal life," then that would contradict John 3:18 which clearly reads "is not condemned" and NOT "might not be condemned." As I already pointed out in post #126,594 "should" subjunctive mood expresses a possibility or a consequence which results if a condition is met. In the case of John 3:16 the condition is “whoever believes in Him.” When that condition is met, two things happen. The person shall not perish, but receive eternal life.

Actually, half or more of the English translations of John 3:16 do not use the word should, and maybe because the translators felt that might confuse people. The NASB and NIV read, “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” The NET Bible, LEB, and HCSB have the same translation except they use "will" instead of shall (will not perish).

 

[Judges1318]

in 1 Corinthians 15 the context is that the apostle is tearing down the arguments of those who do not believe in the literal, physical resurrection of the dead. he explains that denying the resurrection is denying the ((singular)) gospel he declares ((v.1)), the same ((singular)) gospel he received ((v.3)) -- that Christ died for us, was buried and rose the third day ((v.4)). he explains that the implications of denying the resurrection of the dead is denying the gospel ((vv. 12-14)) -- doing so would make anyone's faith vain ((vv.2,14,17,19))

really don't think there's any 'loss of salvation' going on in this chapter. there's Paul telling people their thinking is self-contradictory and that they need to get their heads straight.

And neither is there any 'not being able to lose salvation if you're a true believer' in the chapter. That's the point I'm addressing.

Osas doctrine interprets verses 1 & 2 to mean 'true believers are known by the fact they keep believing to the very end, otherwise they never really believed to begin with'.

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

As I've shown, that's not what it's saying at all.

 

[mailmandan]

No reason for personal attacks.
No pride here. I'm just going by what the Bible actually says. That's what makes it so easy for me to post here.

Osas doctrine has to make the Bible not really mean what it says to defend itself. That's very mentally straining to always have to be careful to make the Bible say what you need it to say to defend osas doctrine. Me? I just go by what the plain words say. I don't have to think of ways to make the Bible conform to my doctrine.

From my observation, self preservation is motivated by pride, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you say otherwise.

You keep saying the osas doctrine has to make the Bible not really mean what it says to defend itself but that's only because you build your doctrine on isolated verses taken out of context. Once you properly interpret verses in context and properly harmonize scripture with scripture, your confusion is removed. If we interpreted every verse in the Bible (for what everyone personally believes the words plainly say) then we would have all kings of contradictions. I run into this all the time with works-salvationists. Their favorite verse to allegedly prove that salvation is by works is James 2:24, in which they claim it plainly says man is justified/saved by works and not by faith alone, yet they ignore the context and they also ignore Romans 4:2-3. It's called Biblical hermeneutics.

 

[Judges1318]

You have raised a very interesting point regarding interpretation of vs2.

I think those who are debating with you, don't see the way you see because they are trying to "harmonize" James 2 with Paul's gospel of grace.

To them, Paul and James are in total agreement so they need to somehow see James 2 in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

I think the argument is, James and Paul are not in disagreement about justification, even though at first read it appears that way. And their history of disagreement (now resolved) doesn't help the matter.

 

[EleventhHour]

Osas doctrine has to make the Bible not really mean what it says to defend itself.

This is where you are absolutely wrong.
You understanding of scripture is analogous to reading a grocery list written to one reader "you"

It is the inerrant word of God, yet written by individuals with their own style of written expression, speaking to first to the audience who heard it or to whom it is written.

If you do not understand the nuances and styles of written expression, verb tenses, word usage in context and relevant meaning and how they interconnect you will miss a great deal.

But ultimately scripture can only be understood from the view of eternal security, so you have a problem right out of the gate.

 

[lightbearer]

Paul plainly explains for us what he means by "unless you believed in vain".
You can't be saved by a gospel about a risen Christ no matter how strong and sure your believing is if Christ really didn't rise from the dead.

"2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain."

"14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

"17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. "

1 Corinthians 15:2,14,17

No amount of believing in Paul's gospel of a risen Christ (vs.3-8) is going to save anybody if Christ has not really been raised from the dead. But osas ignores the context provided right in the chapter and says "unless you believed in vain" means you are saved by the gospel unless you didn't really believe, and because you don't really believe you won't hold fast to the gospel like true believers do. But as we can see in this post and my last post that's not the message Paul is communicating.

Nice post. If we may add a couple things in respect to verse two to edify and further the cause of Christ and His precious word.

The word Saved in the Greek is a verb in the present tense, passive voice. Not in the perfect or past tense. It is an action being applied, something that is occurring not something that has occurred or a noun, a state of being. Most literal translations have it translated as the NET does in respect to the clause.

Being saved not saved is the best translation. Makes sense really when we consider the very next statement starts with the word IF.

(1Cor 15:2 NET) and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.

 

[posthuman]

And neither is there any 'not being able to lose salvation if you're a true believer' in the chapter. That's the point I'm addressing.

Osas doctrine interprets verses 1 & 2 to mean 'true believers are known by the fact they keep believing to the very end, otherwise they never really believed to begin with'.

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

As I've shown, that's not what it's saying at all.

it doesn't not say that.
it says if you believe, you are saved. by extension if you don't believe, you aren't saved.
what it says about 'unless you believed in vain' is addressing whether the resurrection is real or not; the double-minded logical contradiction of believing the gospel and denying the raising of the dead.

does being stupid in your thinking, holding doctrines which are contrary to the gospel when they're taken to their logical conclusions, count as unbelief?
does it count as unbelief before you've been corrected? does it count as unbelief if you've been corrected and refused to accept the truth? does it count as unbelief if it just hasn't sunk in yet?

that's one question raised. another question raised is whether true faith is faith that persists or not; that isn't being addressed in this chapter. where is that addressed? 1 John 2:19 is pretty clear and it forms a basis for one answer to that second question. what do you say about it? do you believe it?

 

[Judges1318]

You keep saying the osas doctrine has to make the Bible not really mean what it says to defend itself but that's only because you build your doctrine on isolated verses taken out of context.

I expected you to go this route.
Actually, quite the opposite is true.
I just take what the Bible plainly says......all of it, not just isolated verses.
All the plain pieces put together give the plain understanding.
This was a very profound lesson that I learned very early after getting saved.
Of course there are the handful of things that remain elusive and are not revealed to us, but I don't think this is one of them.

IMO, the problem is most people don't have all the pieces of the Biblical puzzle. They haven't collected them through their own reading of scripture. What they have are parroted defenses of doctrines based on the isolated verses their pastors use to form that doctrine. And those pastors are themselves parroting what their professors taught them about those same isolated and unrightly divided verses of scripture. It's an ugly system. But it's what we have. But the problem comes down to the fact that very, very few people actually read the scriptures, all of them, for themselves. And the limited Bible reading they do is instantly filtered through what they've been taught.

 

[mailmandan]

And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
(Col 1:21-23 KJV)

We have been reconciled in the Body of His flesh through His death to be presented through Him, Holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight IF we continue in the faith grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope (the joyful expectation) of the Gospel.

Can't continue unless you were there in the first place.

IF ye continue is confirmation of having been reconciled. Continuance would show that the person's faith is firmly rooted and established in the hope of the gospel and they really HAVE BEEN reconciled. The form of this phrase indicates that Paul fully expects that the Colossian believers will continue in the faith; no doubt is expressed, yet what about "nominal" Christians whose spurious, temporary faith does not continue?

It's only natural that Paul would speak this way because he is addressing groups of people who profess to be Christians without being able to infallibly know the state of every person's heart. How can Paul avoid giving them false assurance of salvation here when if fact they may not receive salvation because their spurious faith does not continue? Paul knows that faith which is firmly grounded and established in the gospel from the start will continue.

Those who continue in the faith show thereby that they are genuine believers whose faith was firmly rooted and established in the gospel. But those who do not continue show that their spurious faith was not grounded in the gospel to begin with.

You can fail to continue in the faith that you once professed, but never truly possessed. It's not hard to find make believers mixed in with genuine believers in various churches (and even on various Christian forums, including Christian Chat) hence the IF.

 

[EleventhHour]

I expected you to go this route.
Actually, quite the opposite is true.
I just take what the Bible plainly says......all of it, not just isolated verses.
All the plain pieces put together give the plain understanding.
This was a very profound lesson that I learned very early after getting saved.
Of course there are the handful of things that remain elusive and are not revealed to us, but I don't think this is one of them.

IMO, the problem is most people don't have all the pieces of the Biblical puzzle. They haven't collected them through their own reading of scripture. What they have are parroted defenses of doctrines based on the isolated verses their pastors use to form that doctrine. And those pastors are themselves parroting what their professors taught them about those same isolated and unrightly divided verses of scripture. It's an ugly system. But it's what we have. But the problem comes down to the fact that very, very few people actually read the scriptures, all of them, for themselves. And what Bible reading they do is instantly filtered through what they've been taught.

The Holy Spirit reveals all truth, from the moment I was born from above and received the gift of eternal life, the Holy Spirit made it very clear through the written word and to my spirit I was eternally secure based upon the completed work of Christ, meaning his death on the cross and Resurrection to new life.

He holds those that are His, not the other way around like you keep insisting.

We are seated with Him in Heavenly places already, scripture makes that very clear.

The temporal does undo what has been completed spiritually.

What you teach is a corruption of the scripture and you place yourself in a contrary position to God's truth.

 

[EleventhHour]

does being stupid in your thinking, holding doctrines which are contrary to the gospel when they're taken to their logical conclusions, count as unbelief?
does it count as unbelief before you've been corrected? does it count as unbelief if you've been corrected and refused to accept the truth? does it count as unbelief if it just hasn't sunk in yet?

Exactly his doctrine is unbelief, if you have not trusted Jesus for the gift of eternal life, then you have not trusted Jesus, because that is what He offers, nothing less!!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I read what you said about further looking into it, but do you agree or disagree with what I shared with you in post #126,594 in regards to the subjunctive mood in John 3:16? Or do you agree with Roman Catholics that those who believe in Him might still perish?

He does not believe in true faith he thinks god saves wish washy belief only people who make God look foolish when they walk away

 

[posthuman]

IMO, the problem is most people don't have all the pieces of the Biblical puzzle. They haven't collected them through their own reading of scripture. What they have are parroted defenses of doctrines based on the isolated verses their pastors use to form that doctrine. And those pastors are themselves parroting what their professors taught them about those same isolated and unrightly divided verses of scripture. It's an ugly system. But it's what we have. But the problem comes down to the fact that very, very few people actually read the scriptures, all of them, for themselves. And the limited Bible reading they do is instantly filtered through what they've been taught.

does this not apply to you?

you've had teachers who told you to live in fear of losing your salvation. you've parroted defenses of this. you repeat isolated verses to justify your view, and you filter what you read by what you presuppose to be the truth -- do you not?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I watched a video on distant starlight. It was quite informative about how creation in biblical terms allowed the billions love years distance between Earth the stars. Additionally, the flood best explains the formation of fossils.

I look at it this way
creator God created the starts for a purpose
He has the power to create them and have their light show on the earth the minute they were created. Otherwise they could Not fulfill their purpose

 

[posthuman]

IMO, the problem is most people don't have all the pieces of the Biblical puzzle. They haven't collected them through their own reading of scripture. What they have are parroted defenses of doctrines based on the isolated verses their pastors use to form that doctrine. And those pastors are themselves parroting what their professors taught them about those same isolated and unrightly divided verses of scripture. It's an ugly system. But it's what we have. But the problem comes down to the fact that very, very few people actually read the scriptures, all of them, for themselves. And the limited Bible reading they do is instantly filtered through what they've been taught.

does this not apply to you?

you've had teachers who told you to live in fear of losing your salvation. you've parroted defenses of this. you repeat isolated verses to justify your view, and you filter what you read by what you presuppose to be the truth -- do you not?

i actually grew up in a church that taught me i could lose my salvation - but i read the scripture myself, and what i read was that salvation is Christ's work, not mine, that no one can take me out of His arms, and that He will never let go of me. it was contrary to what i was taught. i came to these beliefs despite what i was taught, not because it was what i was taught - and i came to them because i actually read the Bible myself and sought understanding from God, not from myself, and not swallowing what men - even men i respected greatly - told me without questioning it to find out whether it was true.

i believed in my security in Him - in His faithfulness to me - not because men taught me that. men taught me the opposite. i believe because it is what i found written; because i was taught by God, just as it is written - i believe Him, and tho i am nothing but an ignorant fool, even now, i know enough to know He is faithful and will complete in me what He began. i know it is Him who started this and that it is Him who will finish it. He will not fail.

the experience of my life has been exactly the opposite of what you describe, @Judges1318
i am sure what you say is accurate for some people, even many. but i bet if we poll the people in this forum, you will be quite surprised that your assumption about quite a lot of people is very much inaccurate.

 

[lightbearer]

IF ye continue is confirmation of having been reconciled. Continuance would show that the person's faith is firmly rooted and established in the hope of the gospel and they really HAVE BEEN reconciled. The form of this phrase indicates that Paul fully expects that the Colossian believers will continue in the faith; no doubt is expressed, yet what about "nominal" Christians whose spurious, temporary faith does not continue?

It's only natural that Paul would speak this way because he is addressing groups of people who profess to be Christians without being able to infallibly know the state of every person's heart. How can Paul avoid giving them false assurance of salvation here when if fact they may not receive salvation because their spurious faith does not continue? Paul knows that faith which is firmly grounded and established in the gospel from the start will continue.

Those who continue in the faith show thereby that they are genuine believers whose faith was firmly rooted and established in the gospel. But those who do not continue show that their spurious faith was not grounded in the gospel to begin with.

You can fail to continue in the faith that you once professed, but never truly possessed. It's not hard to find make believers mixed in with genuine believers in various churches (and even on various Christian forums, including Christian Chat) hence the IF.

Not only are they to continue in the faith they are to continue being grounded and settled. So your point is moot.

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
(Col 1:23 KJV)


Faith is a noun. It is a state of being. It is who they are. They can not continue in a state that they are not.

 

[lightbearer]

I watched a video on distant starlight. It was quite informative about how creation in biblical terms allowed the billions love years distance between Earth the stars. Additionally, the flood best explains the formation of fossils.

Here is an interesting video by Trey Smith

 

[Tellion]

I look at it this way
creator God created the starts for a purpose
He has the power to create them and have their light show on the earth the minute they were created. Otherwise they could Not fulfill their purpose

it is certainly a blessing to need only scripture for your salvation, but that God would allow any of our observations to see His glory in science is an added benefit.

 

[Judges1318]

it says if you believe, you are saved. by extension if you don't believe, you aren't saved.

Yep.
But osas says Paul is saying, 'you're a true believer if you hold fast and never stop believing, because if you don't it shows you didn't really believe to begin with'.

what it says about 'unless you believed in vain' is addressing whether the resurrection is real or not

Yep.
It isn't saying 'unless you didn't really believe to begin with'.

the double-minded logical contradiction of believing the gospel and denying the raising of the dead.

I don't see any double mindedness going on.
They are being led astray to really believe that there was no bodily resurrection of Christ. A change of mind has occurred.
The point Paul is making is, what you're being told by others is not what they were originally told, and not what they originally accepted and were saved by.

does being stupid in your thinking, holding doctrines which are contrary to the gospel when they're taken to their logical conclusions, count as unbelief?

Yes, it counts as unbelief when it replaces what you originally believed to be true.

The real question is, "does salvation really hinge on whether or not you believe Christ was raised from the dead?" Apparently so.

does it count as unbelief before you've been corrected?

I think the real question is, "In order for you to be saved, do you have to believe that Christ was raised from the dead? Isn't your sins being forgiven through his death sufficient to save a person?" Apparently not since justification has to do with the resurrected life of Christ, not his death.

Perhaps this is connected to the necessity of him being alive in heaven to intercede on behalf of the believer. He can't do that if he's dead.......and if you don't trust that he's there to do that for you, even if in reality he really is alive in heaven. And that's pretty much what my whole nosas argument is about.

does it count as unbelief if you've been corrected and refused to accept the truth?

By pure definition, if you refuse to believe something, that's unbelief.
Does that particular point of unbelief make the difference between being saved and not being saved?
Apparently, yes. At least in regard to justification. Justification seems to be wrought through the resurrection of Christ, not his death:

25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:25

Payment of sin comes through his death. Justification comes through his resurrection.
So it would stand to reason that if you don't believe in the resurrection part of the gospel you are not justified. (Oh, I feel a nosas argument coming on!) You have to believe in the ministry of a living Christ in heaven to be saved. The implication being, it's an ongoing condition of believing that secures an ongoing ministry of Christ. And without that ongoing belief in a risen Christ his ministry of intercession ends for you.

does it count as unbelief if it just hasn't sunk in yet?

As a matter of pure definition, yes.

that's one question raised. another question raised is whether true faith is faith that persists or not; that isn't being addressed in this chapter.

And that's the point I've been making.

where is that addressed? 1 John 2:19 is pretty clear and it forms a basis for one answer to that second question. what do you say about it? do you believe it?

I believe it.....because that's what the Bible says. But we have to realize it can't be applied the way osas applies it. The saved Galatians fell away from and left trust in Christ for justification and went back to trust in law keeping for justification. So how can 1 John 2:19 mean what osas says it means? It can't of course. I think the reason one falls away determines if their falling away shows they were never saved to begin with. In context, John is talking about those who do not think Christ came in the flesh. It's impossible to have been saved if you thought all along that Christ never came in the flesh. Food for thought.