Loss of salvation???

[Caveman]

IMO your theory doesn't resolve the issue.

Which of these theories below?

This theory...
this endless loop of OSAS Scriptural evidence that supports and Scriptural evidence that is counter will go on and on endlessly?

This theory...
MM & Kroogz get it right 99%?

This theory...
Christ Alone = Christ Crucified = Atonement = Justification = Sanctification = Glorification?

Or

This theory...
This is the Simple Gospel of Salvation...everything else is distortion?

 

[studier]

Which of these theories below?

This theory...
this endless loop of OSAS Scriptural evidence that supports and Scriptural evidence that is counter will go on and on endlessly?

This theory...
MM & Kroogz get it right 99%?

This theory...
Christ Alone = Christ Crucified = Atonement = Justification = Sanctification = Glorification?

Or

This theory...
This is the Simple Gospel of Salvation...everything else is distortion?

The theory I mentioned in the post you responded to.

 

[Caveman]

The theory I mentioned in the post you responded to.

There's never going to be "better" understanding between those that hold OSAS and those that don't, because NT Greek has Scripture for each side of the argument.

There's no ambiguity here.

Christ Alone = Christ Crucified = Atonement = Justification = Sanctification = Glorification

Christ Alone + Nothing…

 

[Lifted_by_the_word]

I want to use the NIV for reference to keep it simple.

John 15:1-17
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

(The gardener is the Holy Spirit and the true vine is the Word.God is Spirit.Jesus is the Living Word.)


“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.You are my friends if you do what I command.I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.This is my command: Love each other.

 

[studier]

There's never going to be "better" understanding between those that hold OSAS and those that don't, because NT Greek has Scripture for each side of the argument.

And you have an unproven theory that there are Hebrew manuscripts that prove wrong the Greek ones we have and that if we simply adopt a Paleo-Hebrew mindset we'll understand and agree with the faith-alone, eternal security theology some have come to ultimately through the Greek manuscripts we have.

Unless you have Scriptures - 1 at a time - you'd like to discuss and which I'll consider discussing, I'll bow out of this discussion. As I think I've made clear, I have no further interest in your presented theories, but remain open to any Paleo-Hebrew insights you may have learned about certain words and how they may assist us in better understanding certain verses contained in the manuscripts we actually have, and until if and when some of those theoretical alternate manuscripts may be found.

 

[Caveman]

And you have an unproven theory that there are Hebrew manuscripts that prove wrong the Greek ones we have and that if we simply adopt a Paleo-Hebrew mindset we'll understand and agree with the faith-alone, eternal security theology some have come to ultimately through the Greek manuscripts we have.

Unless you have Scriptures - 1 at a time - you'd like to discuss and which I'll consider discussing, I'll bow out of this discussion. As I think I've made clear, I have no further interest in your presented theories, but remain open to any Paleo-Hebrew insights you may have learned about certain words and how they may assist us in better understanding certain verses contained in the manuscripts we actually have, and until if and when some of those theoretical alternate manuscripts may be found.

I understand you and 99% of everyone else here is not going to get the case I am presenting that Greek is a Translation of earlier NT Hebrew...so with you I will forgo the frustration of walking down the logical thread that leads me to see it so with you as well.

But...on this OSAS topic, do you think there will be ever any resolution to OSAS seeing the NT presents Scripture on both sides?

There can be none this side of Heaven. So it's fruitless to attempt to persuade those already entrenched on one side or the other.

Those OSAS folks have peace to know Christ was crucified while they were sinners and they know that since He died for them when they were His enemies, He will Faithfull Keep them for His Name's sake.

Those on the other side of OSAS can go on striving to keep their salvation so they don't lose it.

 

[studier]

I understand you and 99% of everyone else here is not going to get the case I am presenting that Greek is a Translation of earlier NT Hebrew...so with you I will forgo the frustration of walking down the logical thread that leads me to see it so with you as well.

But...on this OSAS topic, do you think there will be ever any resolution to OSAS seeing the NT presents Scripture on both sides?

There can be none this side of Heaven. So it's fruitless to attempt to persuade those already entrenched on one side or the other.

Those OSAS folks have peace to know Christ was crucified while they were sinners and they know that since He died for them when they were His enemies, He will Faithfull Keep them for His Name's sake.

Those on the other side of OSAS can go on striving to keep their salvation so they don't lose it.

There's a difference between not getting it and not accepting it. We've already discussed the value of some of the Hebrew understandings of words and concepts in the Text and I may have been involved in some of that pursuit before you. As we discussed, I'm also aware of Benner and have a few of his published works. So, if you're suggesting you have some special mindset 99% of us are not going to have so you're the enlightened among us, please feel free to continue your course.

I try not to think in terms of not ever in regard to the Text. I'm in His Word nearly every day and have been for decades. God has many times opened my eyes to things I was struggling to understand. With that said, agreement among we Christians is another story.

I do think most of the ES or OSAS positions both ways are based upon reading into many verses that are actually very ambiguous.

I also see in your above statements the typical misrepresentation of those who don't share your views on the ES doctrine. It's based in a false-dichotomy that there are only 2 possible states or conditions - either we believe in ES in the form you do and have peace, or we strive and have no peace.

But this is just a failure in logic and in reality and I can assure you that some of us who disagree with your view of Scripture have just as much peace and maybe even more peace in our walk in Christ in Spirit than you do and it too is centered in Christ and not in ourselves.

 

[sawdust]

Faith is being persuaded that the words God speaks are true and placing one's confidence in and ordering one's life around them. So there is no power in faith; the power is in God's persuasion through his holy spirit to place our confidence in him.

Matthew 17:20
So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.

There is power in faith whether you want to accept it or not because it comes form the word of God and the word of God is powerful.

 

[sawdust]

I get my teachings from Robert Mclaughlin, R B Thieme and many from Lewis Sperry Chafer.

Far from "gnostic."

Yes, I can see that in what you write. Pity not all can. Be at peace brother, I have your back, even if others don't seem to like it and think it discourteous to defend one another.

 

[Caveman]

There's a difference between not getting it and not accepting it. We've already discussed the value of some of the Hebrew understandings of words and concepts in the Text and I may have been involved in some of that pursuit before you. As we discussed, I'm also aware of Benner and have a few of his published works. So, if you're suggesting you have some special mindset 99% of us are not going to have so you're the enlightened among us, please feel free to continue your course.

I try not to think in terms of not ever in regard to the Text. I'm in His Word nearly every day and have been for decades. God has many times opened my eyes to things I was struggling to understand. With that said, agreement among we Christians is another story.

I do think most of the ES or OSAS positions both ways are based upon reading into many verses that are actually very ambiguous.

I also see in your above statements the typical misrepresentation of those who don't share your views on the ES doctrine. It's based in a false-dichotomy that there are only 2 possible states or conditions - either we believe in ES in the form you do and have peace, or we strive and have no peace.

But this is just a failure in logic and in reality and I can assure you that some of us who disagree with your view of Scripture have just as much peace and maybe even more peace in our walk in Christ in Spirit than you do and it too is centered in Christ and not in ourselves.

Whether getting it or accepting it, the real problem is that there’s so little curiosity to ask why, if the New Testament Greek were truly original, why it would contain such errors as we see in Matthew and 1 John. On top of that, the Greek (and later English) tradition deliberately replaced YHVH with “Lord,” which obscures the Hebraic voice behind the text.

If I tried to argue strictly from the Greek New Testament — assuming it was itself a translation from an earlier Hebrew NT — it would be like rewriting the NT in a “Caveman” dialect, suppressing the original Scriptures, and then forcing all exegesis to be done verse by verse from that Caveman version. The result would be endless debates: Caveman purists defending “OSAS” (once saved, always saved) against others who found Caveman verses that seemed to contradict it. The loop would never end, because the argument would be trapped inside the Caveman translation itself.

Instead, if NT Caveman (Greek) is a translation from earlier Hebrew then we should step back and look at what we know of God’s nature from the beginning: His covenants, His cutting a New Covenant because the Old was a covenant of death (since we could not keep it), and the thread of His unilateral salvation woven throughout the Bible.

That broader witness shows us His consistent plan along with the Hebraic linguistic construct that entirely permeates NT Caveman (Greek).

So, if we recognize errors in the “Caveman NT” — like those in Matthew and 1 John, or the substitution of YHVH with “Lord” — and acknowledge that its underlying voice is Hebraic, then we can treat it as a translation rather than the original writings. From that perspective, the Gospel becomes unmistakably clear: it has always been Christ + Nothing.

Also,

IMO if you are not ES or OSAS you cannot be as secure as someone who trusts that their Salvation entirely rests on Christ and Him Crucified (alone) because ES would then rest on your continued faithfulness not His.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Whether getting it or accepting it, the real problem is that there’s so little curiosity to ask why, if the New Testament Greek were truly original, why it would contain such errors as we see in Matthew and 1 John. On top of that, the Greek (and later English) tradition deliberately replaced YHVH with “Lord,” which obscures the Hebraic voice behind the text.

There's no 'why?' because there's no 'there' there.

 

[Caveman]

There's no 'why?' because there's no 'there' there.

I expect a response such as this...true to form old reliable you...

Proverbs 25:2:

“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.”​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I expect a response such as this...true to form old reliable you...

Proverbs 25:2:

“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.”​

I think you're imagining something that's not there

 

[Caveman]

There's no 'why?' because there's no 'there' there.

These disconnects are not minor translation slips; they divert Western theology from its covenantal roots and overlay it with Greek meism qualifiers, presenting an alien Gospel that first‑century Jewish believers would have rejected"(2 Corinthians 11:4).

From the beginning, God’s Word has been distorted by subtle additions: Adam’s hedge (Genesis 3:3), the Pharisees’ fences (Mark 7:8–9), the serpent’s “not” (Genesis 3:4), and Greek’s covenant distortion; framed as conditional on man’s faith, belief, and endurance.

“God makes” versus “God cuts” a covenant is another example of a subtle shift in meaning: the Western Greek view implies a legal, contractual agreement entered into by man, while the Hebraic view is that God unilaterally cuts a covenant (Genesis 15:18), showing that it is not merely a contractual agreement but His sacred, sacrificial, and irrevocable oath.

In the Hebraic mind, “cutting” a covenant is radically different from “making” one because it’s about sealing a sacred, blood‑bound relationship that cannot be undone.

God initiated His unilateral redemptive plan after the fall of Adam by cutting the Edenic covenant (Genesis 3:15), He promised the Seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head. In God’s mind, Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), meaning salvation from the Beginning was never contingent on men but on God; and His redemptive plan was finally Finished at Calvary.

The True Gospel is this: God saved us because He promised-Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

Adam and Eve did not “believe” or “accept” the promise for it to be true; it was God's unilateral Covenantal work. Faith, belief, and endurance are gifts produced by God, not prerequisites for salvation.

Greek distorts the pure Gospel. Salvation is not “offered” or “conditional”, it is Finished and Gifted to us Freely by God’s Covenantal Love, Grace and Mercy, without any human (Greek) qualifiers at the cross.

The True Gospel is as follows:

Christ Alone = Christ Crucified = Atonement = Justification = Sanctification = Glorification

Greek skewed minds cannot accept the True Gospel because theirs is a foreign Gospel, one contrary to “Christ crucified”.

Christ Alone + Nothing…

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

“God makes” versus “God cuts” a covenant is another example of a subtle shift in meaning: the Western Greek view implies a legal, contractual agreement entered into by man, while the Hebraic view is that God unilaterally cuts a covenant (Genesis 15:18), showing that it is not merely a contractual agreement but His sacred, sacrificial, and irrevocable oath.
In the Hebraic mind, “cutting” a covenant is radically different from “making” one because it’s about sealing a sacred, blood‑bound relationship that cannot be undone.

This is factully incorrect because God cut a blood covenant with Israel at Sinai that was conditioned upon Israel's obedience, ie, not unilateral. God made an unconditional covenant with David that was not cut because it wasn't a blood covenant; it was a salt covenant. The covenant of circumcision was not cut because it was not a blood covenant, and it was conditioned upon circumcision. ie, not unilateral.

 

[studier]

Virtually no Scripture being presented or discussed, just a stream of theoretical theologies including a latest take on 1% Messianic Judaism. At least Free Grace winners was 2-3% last I knew.

 

[Caveman]

This is factully incorrect because God cut a blood covenant with Israel at Sinai that was conditioned upon Israel's obedience, ie, not unilateral. God made an unconditional covenant with David that was not cut because it wasn't a blood covenant; it was a salt covenant. The covenant of circumcision was not cut because it was not a blood covenant, and it was conditioned upon circumcision. ie, not unilateral.

That's nice sleight of hand...I can count on you to ignore the broader point to fixate on the minor point.

The Mosaic Covenant indeed was a conditional Covenant, but one that God ultimately "unilaterally Fulfilled" by the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.

The Abrahamic Covenant God made was unilateral because He promised it to Abram at age 75 in Genesis 12, God ratified it with Blood with Abram at age 85 in Genesis 15 and Circumcision was enacted when Abraham was 99 in Genesis 17 as a sign of belonging to the Covenant already ratified earlier by God unilaterally; there is blood in circumcision.

The Davidic Covenant...like the Abrahamic Covenant was promised in 2 Samuel 7:1 and much later ratified in Luke 1:32–33 Son of David, with His Blood of Atonement in Matthew 27:32–56 and so the fulfillment of all of Gods Covenants are in Christ when He rose from the dead 2 Corinthians 1:20.

Scripture consistently shows that blood is the ratifying element of covenants. Hebrews 9:18–22 – The New Testament makes the principle explicit: “This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood… In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

 

[sawdust]

Virtually no Scripture being presented or discussed, just a stream of theoretical theologies including a latest take on 1% Messianic Judaism. At least Free Grace winners was 2-3% last I knew.

I think that is an unfair comment as @ChristRoseFromTheDead and I have been trading scriptures. We seem to invariably disagree as to their meaning but then, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Caveman]

Virtually no Scripture being presented or discussed, just a stream of theoretical theologies including a latest take on 1% Messianic Judaism. At least Free Grace winners was 2-3% last I knew.

Actually, my post 4,074 has plenty of Scriptural references and a reasoned line of logic to boot...but it's anathema to anyone that can't fathom that Gentiles may have rewritten the narrate of original NT writings.

Ignoring the inherent NT internal evidence that brings into question some serious problems with the Greek without any critical thought and accepting the consensus scholarly view because they "know" is not unlike believing Mayorkas that the border was closed though millions of aliens infiltrated our country, like the 50 intelligence officials who claimed Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation or how 2/3's of the country bought into everyone needed the Covid shot.

NT Greek linguistic construct is the root of Christian confusion, because it subtly shifts emphasis away from Christ crucified, “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2) and reframes it into the bastardised, heretical doctrine of “Christ Plus.”

This only proves God right about His people...you can just fill in the blank.....

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The Abrahamic Covenant God made was unilateral because He promised it to Abram at age 75 in Genesis 12, God ratified it with Blood with Abram at age 85 in Genesis 15 and Circumcision was enacted when Abraham was 99 in Genesis 17 as a sign of belonging to the Covenant already ratified earlier by God unilaterally; there is blood in circumcision.

You have your facts confused.

There was no covenant in Genesis 12; it was a promise.

The covenant of Genesis 15 was an unconditional blood covenant promising to give the land to Christ

The covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17 was a separate covenant that established the people of God. Blood was involved in circumcision, but the covenant was not cut. Go read the Hebrew. Once a covenant has been made you can't go back and add conditions.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Galatians 3:15​

As an example, the covenant of Sinai was not later modified to add blessings and curses; an entirely new covenant was cut

These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. Deuteronomy 29:1​