Salvation

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jaywill it's really simple:

I NEVER WROTE THOSE WORDS in BOLD.

From what I can tell, YOU WROTE THOSE WORDS in BOLD and responded as if I did.

Once again, Please go back to my 2nd to last post and don't respond until after you've taken the time to understand what is being conveyed.

I think we understand each other.
So I asked:

Are you saying that I should never put in BOLD what you have not written in BOLD if I am quoting you ?

You are justified in your complaint.
The point is taken.

If I quote you I should indicate when the bolding is my doing.
Or better probably is to quote you in the same font that you used.

I apologize.
Do I still need to go back and read something again on process ?

Originally posted by sonship

Jesus says abide in me otherwise
- you will be cast away,
- you will be withered
- you will be thrown into the fire
- you will be burned.
[where ABIDE in Christ means following Christ's commandments.]

It is a very serious warning.
But I would never teach that it means that once receiving the Son as eternal life one could afterwar ...[text shortened]... is a warning about not walking and abiding in Him.

I'll talk about destruction latter.[/b]

Your pet verse John 10:28-29 is taken out of context, a fact that I have told you many times before. Cherry picking a verse leads to stupid doctrines. Here is the passage including the previous verse [27]:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (Joh 10:27-29)

CHRIST'S SHEEP HEAR HIS VOICE
THEY FOLLOW HIM.
THOSE GET ETERNAL LIFE
THOSE WILL NEVER PERISH
NOBODY PLUCKS THOSE OUT OF HIS HAND
GOD GAVE THOSE SHEEP TO CHRIST
NOBODY CAN PLUCK THOSE OUT OF GODS HAND EITHER

There is no contradiction. This is saying exactly the same thing as John15.

In the vine there are many branches, good and evil or sheep and goats. The good vines are the sheep and these will never perish. The evil vines are the goats that do not follow Christ and they will be plucked out, cast away and burned.

Originally posted by sonship
I think we understand each other.
So I asked:

[b] Are you saying that I should never put in BOLD what you have not written in BOLD if I am quoting you ?

You are justified in your complaint.
The point is taken.

If I quote you I should indicate when the bolding is my doing.
Or better probably is to quote you in the s ...[text shortened]... you used.

I apologize.
Do I still need to go back and read something again on process ?[/b]

Actually you don't understand at all.

Jaywill I don't have a problem with you placing what I write in BOLD.

The problem is that in this case, you seem to have placed something YOU wrote in BOLD and responded to it as if I wrote it. As ridiculous as that sounds, that's what seems to have happened. I know for a fact that I did not write it.

So once again, please go back to my first post on page 19 and don't respond until after you've taken the time to understand everything that is being conveyed. If there's something you don't understand, then ask.

ThinkOfOne did you write this sentence ?

If however, what hides behind your teaching is a rational not have assurance of Christ's indwelling then I am sorry to say, that would be like a wolf in sheep's clothing teaching.

If you wrote it please explain what you mean. Any important context in what went before would help.

Originally posted by Rajk999

Your pet verse John 10:28-29 is taken out of context, a fact that I have told you many times before. Cherry picking a verse leads to stupid doctrines. Here is the passage including the previous verse [27]:

It is not really my "pet" verse.

And it refutes that it is possible for a believer, once being put into the Lord's hand which is the Father's hand, to be plucked out.

Once in the hand of the Son, which is also the hand of the Father, that sheep will enjoy divine life forever. No one can remove that sheep from the Father's / Son's hand.

The footnote in my Recovery Version on John 20:28 is very good:

Eternal life ... is for the believers' living. The Father's hand, by which He chooses in His love according to His purpose (17:23; 6:38-39), and the Son's hand, by which He saves by His grace for the fulfillment of the Father's purpose (1:14; 6:37), both of which have the keeping power, are for the believers' protection. Eternal life will never run out, and the hands of the Father and the Son will never fail. Hence, the believers are eternally secure and will never perish.

The security of the eternal life is assured because of the never failing hand of power of the Son and the never failing hand of love of the Father.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (Joh 10:27-29)

Exactly.

CHRIST'S SHEEP HEAR HIS VOICE
THEY FOLLOW HIM.
THOSE GET ETERNAL LIFE
THOSE WILL NEVER PERISH
NOBODY PLUCKS THOSE OUT OF HIS HAND
GOD GAVE THOSE SHEEP TO CHRIST
NOBODY CAN PLUCK THOSE OUT OF GODS HAND EITHER

It is worth shouting. I agree. Amen.

There is no contradiction. This is saying exactly the same thing as John15.

In the vine there are many branches, good and evil or sheep and goats. The good vines are the sheep and these will never perish. The evil vines are the goats that do not follow Christ and they will be plucked out, cast away and burned.

No it is not saying the same thing. Why ?

The branches are IN the VINE.
No unbeliever is automatically IN the hand of the Son and the Father.

For the branches to be removed and placed in the fire they had to have first been in the true vine.

So removal from abiding in the true vine is mainly directed to those who are sheep in the never failing hand of the Father / Son.

In short the discipline of being collected because of not abiding in the true vine is one matter. The perdition of not ever being the Lord's sheep in the hand of the Father and Son is another.

You make the mistake of equating every instance of discipline towards Christians in the New Testament to only mean loss of eternal life and therefore suffering eternal punishment.

You have that myopic and binary view of the New Testament.

Now let's get practical and look at the judgment seat of Christ for CHRISTIANS in First Corinthians and relate it to John 10 & 15.

" If anyone's work which he has built upon the foundation remains, he will receive a reward. (v.24)

If anyone's wok is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (v.25) (1 Cor. 3:24,25)

Verse 24 refers to a sheep in the Father and Son's hand who has eternal life who is rewarded in the next age.

Verse 25 refers to a sheep in the Father and Son's hand who has eternal life who suffers loss, but is saved eternally nonetheless.

Verse 24 is about being in the Father/Son's hand being rewarded in addition to being eternally saved.

Verse 25 is about being in the Father/Son's hand and being punished yet being still eternally saved.

Notice also that in John 15 Jesus says that all the branches are already clean.

"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you." (v.3)

This should mean that in terms of eternal redemption they are clean. Their standing of being clean by redemption is already established because they believe the word of Jesus Christ.

But the disciples CAN still undergo some discipline which is short of being made eternally unclean. And so failing to abide in the true vine in a daily and moment by moment way could result in something negative. This negativity is short of eternal perdition though.

"IF one does not abide in Me, HE IS CAST OUT AS A BRANCH and is dried up; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (v.6)

Saying NOTHING bad could ever happen from God to a believer is one error.

Saying EVERTHING bad recorded to happen to a believer from God can only mean the loss of eternal life, is another error.

Saved - and rewarded verses Saved and suffering loss in [b]First Corinthians 3:14,15 prove this as the apostolic teaching.

Lastly, since abiding in the true vine and obeying the Lord's commands produce the full joy (v.11) probably the burning in v,6 is very related to the loss of joy. The loss of the flowing life from the vine from not adding can result in the loss of joy.

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

These things I have spoken to you that My joy may be in you and that your joy may be made fuil." (vs. 10,11)

Originally posted by sonship
ThinkOfOne did you write this sentence ?

If however, what hides behind your teaching is a rational not have assurance of Christ's indwelling then I am sorry to say, that would be like a wolf in sheep's clothing teaching.

If you wrote it please explain what you mean. Any important context in what went before would help.

I absolutely DID NOT WRITE THAT SENTENCE. I've been trying to tell you that for several posts now.

So once again:

The problem is that in this case, you seem to have placed something YOU wrote in BOLD and responded to it as if I wrote it. As ridiculous as that sounds, that's what seems to have happened. I know for a fact that I did not write it.

So once again, please go back to my first post on page 19 and don't respond until after you've taken the time to understand everything that is being conveyed. If there's something you don't understand, then ask.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

I absolutely DID NOT WRITE THAT SENTENCE. I've been trying to tell you that for several posts now.

Oh. I am sorry then. I can't seem to locate that sentence yet.

So once again:

The problem is that in this case, you seem to have placed something YOU wrote in BOLD and responded to it as if I wrote it. As ridiculous as that sounds, that's what seems to have happened. I know for a fact that I did not write it.

Why are you going through all this? The problem is that you did not write those words period. Right ?

So once again, please go back to my first post on page 19 and don't respond until after you've taken the time to understand everything that is being conveyed. If there's something you don't understand, then ask.

I asked you if you wrote those words.
You said you did not write those words.
I apologized for thinking you wrote those words however I responded.

I think that should be the end of it. Right ?
I'll be careful to locate what you actually wrote to me.

I don't know what other mileage you want to get out of this.

Originally posted by sonship

I absolutely DID NOT WRITE THAT SENTENCE. I've been trying to tell you that for several posts now.

Oh. I am sorry then. I can't seem to locate that sentence yet.

[quote]
So once again:

The problem is that in this case, you seem to have placed something YOU wrote in BOLD and responded to it as if I wrote it. As ridiculous as t ...[text shortened]... what you actually wrote to me.

I don't know what other mileage you want to get out of this.

Jaywill, I explained exactly what I'm trying to get out of this in my first post on page 19.

So please, please, please go back to my first post on page 19, read it and respond to it. Don't respond until after you've taken the time to understand everything that is being conveyed.

The fact that you don't take the time to understand what is being conveyed is a major problem. How can we possibly have a fruitful discussion if you do not do that?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jaywill, I explained exactly what I'm trying to get out of this in my first post on page 19.

So please, please, please go back to my first post on page 19, read it and respond to it. Don't respond until after you've taken the time to understand everything that is being conveyed.

The fact that you don't take the time to understand what is being conveyed is a major problem. How can we possibly have a fruitful discussion if you do not do that?

Should I make a big nitpicking deal about how you want to call me by my old tag jaywill ?

It does give some the impression that I have, deceptively, maybe used more than one identity. But the case is I plainly explained when I came back from a long cessation of posts how I now had a new tag sonship.

You see I can nitpick too. Why do you want to call me by my old tag jaywill ? Not that I care. But why are you going out of your way to do that ?

See? I can nitpick too.

Originally posted by sonship

Your pet verse John 10:28-29 is taken out of context, a fact that I have told you many times before. Cherry picking a verse leads to stupid doctrines. Here is the passage including the previous verse [27]:

It is not really my "pet" verse.

And it refutes that it is possible for a believer, once being put into the Lord's hand which is ...[text shortened]... e 25 is about being in the Father/Son's hand and being punished yet being still eternally saved.

The branches that bear no fruit are the Christians who just say Lord, Lord and do what Christ says. All the branches are Christians, some are good and some are evil. God removes these branches and they are destroyed.

Originally posted by sonship
Should I make a big nitpicking deal about how you want to call me by my old tag jaywill ?

It does give some the impression that I have, deceptively, maybe used more than one identity. But the case is I plainly explained when I came back from a long cessation of posts how I now had a new tag [b]sonship.

You see I can nitpick too. Why do you want ...[text shortened]... Not that I care. But why are you going out of your way to do that ?

See? I can nitpick too.[/b]

The fact that you don't take the time to understand what is being conveyed is a MAJOR PROBLEM. How can we possibly have a fruitful discussion if you do not do that?

Originally posted by Rajk999
The branches that bear no fruit are the Christians who just say Lord, Lord and do what Christ says. All the branches are Christians, some are good and some are evil. God removes these branches and they are destroyed.

So this verse -

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes it away; ... " (15:2a)

How did the branch become "in Me" in the first place ?
You say all the branches are Christians.

Originally posted by sonship
So this verse -

[b] "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes it away; ... " (15:2a)

How did the branch become "in Me" in the first place ?
You say all the branches are Christians.[/b]

Branches represent Christians.
These Christians are baptised into Christ and are IN Christ .. you are correct.
Christ says these are IN Him.
There are fruitful branches and there are worthless branches/Christians that bear no fruit.
God removes them. In verse 6 Christ explains their fate .. cast away and burned.
Evil doers have no place in Gods kingdom whether or not they are Christians.
Christ will know how to judge.
I will not presume as you do that all those that profess to believe in Chist will be in Gods kingdom.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 13:41-42)

And again:

Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Mat 3:12)

Yet again :

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Mat 7:19)

Page 19

You know jaywill, it's becoming increasingly evident that you aren't taking the time to understand the words to which you are responding. Rather it seems you've chosen the tactic of attacking indiscriminately.

Response: As far as I can see you are saying I responded to words which YOU DID NOT WRITE.

That is incorrect. But that is not attacking indiscriminately. It is attacked with mistaken discrimination.

You really need to focus on understanding the underlying concepts that are being presented.

That is correct.

If you doubt the above, then you need to take a hard look at the following from your post to me:

By now I don't doubt that I need to be careful to respond to words that you wrote.

Since I don't doubt that I need to be careful that the words I attribute to you are really yours, I don't need to come back to pg 19 again.

Skipping over the exchange, down to this -

It's clear that all you've done is pick out a couple of phrases from the text in bold and attacked them without regard to what the sentence is conveying.

What I think the issue at hand was that words which I thought you wrote you say you did not wrote. So I was responding to something someone else wrote I suppose.

I have apologized.

You've taken exception to the word "hides" and went on a little rant about it.

The main error is that I responded to words that someone ELSE apparently wrote. In caps you protested that you never wrote that which I responded to.

That's been cleared up.

You've taken exception to the phrase "wolf in sheep's clothing teaching" and went on a little rant about it.

According to your protest you never wrote anything about "wolf in sheep's clothing" so my rant was misdirected.

And now an extended lecture on English composition I have sat through.

Let's be clear though. What I apologized for was attributing words to you which you protest you NEVER WROTE to me.

What I said in my "little rant" I have said BEFORE to you though. It was not the first time. And I stand by it. You don't take the full canon of the New Testament.

Am I wrong about that ?

Besides a scolding that was ill-timed and provoked by words which you say you didn't write, there were some other things useful in the response.

The most fascinating parts are where you got your back up and wrote "So you want to talk about 'hiding'" and "If you want to play hardball with me, I'll oblige you". What a tough guy.

I have no particular response to this and no question about it.
I have now gone through page 19 as you repeatedly requested.
Are you satisfied now ?

One little problem. I DIDN'T WRITE THE TEXT IN BOLD.

From this we can move on.
Since this is the main issue, acknowledging the mistake is all that really needs to be done.

So I asked point blank did you write this here sentence ...
You said you never write it.

Not only didn't I write that sentence, but from what I can tell, the underlying concept being presented lines up with YOUR position rather than mine.

It is my position that you don't take the epistles on the same level of authority as the four gospels where the direct quotes of Jesus are in, let us say, the red letters ?

I think the charge is true.
You don't take the rest of the New Testament as authoritative.
If I am mistaken then you'll have to demonstrate that I am.

No retraction on that point until you demonstrate that you hold the books of Acts and beyond through Revelation to be the inspired and authoritative speaking of God.

I mean the same way you are in awe with -

"Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say ti you, Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. and the slave does not abide in the house forever; the son abides forever. If therefore the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:34,35)

I fully agree that that is a marvelous truth from the mouth of Jesus.
I still you use it to discount many other passages, particularly in the basic book of Christian doctrine - the book of Romans.

However, I think you also use that passage to nullify other words out of the same mouth - that of Jesus even in the four gospels.

When the day comes that I am persuaded that this is a false criticism on my part of you, I will retract that. Before that, I cannot and won't.

The condition of my back is not all that relevant to it.
The emotional style with which that observation is made is secondary, though I don't want to be unnecessarily mean.

In fact, I spot checked the last few pages and I couldn't find the text anywhere. Insofar as I can tell, YOU WROTE THE TEXT IN BOLD.

I believe you when you said you didn't write it. You should know.
Somehow in my going from discussion to discussion and copying I may have made a error.

So from what I can tell, you wrote a sentence directed at me, got confused and responded as if I wrote it. You took exception to your own words. You got all tough with your own words.

Something like that happened.

So, I've gone over Page 19 thing in detail.

Now if you'd taken the time to understand the words to which you were responding you probably would have caught your error and you could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.

What embarrassment ? By now any little embarrassment has long worn off. In fact if you bring up page 19 again, I'll feel more embarrassed for you.

So, if you think you can start taking the time to understand the underlying concepts that are being presented, I'll respond to the rest of your last couple of posts. Are you willing to do that?

Whew! Are we finished now with Page 19 ?