How to salvage OSAS in view of Rom 11 and 2Tim2

[BobRyan]

I have never made the argument here that if you sin after being saved - you are lost.

I have never made the argument here that if one is a sinner they must first reach some certain milestone after accepting Christ before they are saved.

But I have said a lot of other things that you might want to object too - just not those things.

Should I quote Romans 11 or 2Tim 2 "again"?

Christ was right in John 15 when he shows branches removed from the vine and then burned in the fire.

James is right when he declares that those who show the faith "of demons" are in fact showing "dead faith"

 

[Eric B]

Though you have inserted this disolaimer between your non-stop posts embracing Preterism and defending its doctrines - your disclaimer does little to erase your previous posts.

How much better history for you if you had in fact taken an objective approach to the topic and had been willing to weigh strengths AND weaknesses. THough I utterly reject preterism at least I showed where it had some strengths in shielding the man made traditions of OSAS from the Bible. I also showed that some of the points claimed in that view actually SUSTAIN the confession that the Bible texts it seeks to ignore are in fact devastating to OSAS were they allowed to APPLY!

In Christ,

Bob

I actually AM weighing it. That's why I said I was not sure of it. Still, you are in accuse mode, and gloss over that, and pretend I am sure of it just because I have been giving some of its arguments. And my weighing of it is much better than simply towing a party line of human traditions such as works-justification.

You actually never did deal with the preterist interpretation; only reiterated how it 'admits what that standard OSAS view denies' in some attempt to "save" OSAS (as if that in itself disproves it); and I keep telling you that saving the standard view of OSAS is not my starting point, but rather guarding against the false 'gospel' that is no gospel (good news) of a constantly unstable 'salvation' based on my own efforts.

Now tell me; can you admit the weaknesses of works-salvation and security placed in your hands?
You keep talking about James and 2Tim, but when we point out that such (with no works at all) were probably never saved, then here you come with Romans and Matt. On "the vine", but once again, these passages you're pasting together do not match, because the branches already broken off the vine they referred to were Jews who were never saved. So actually, both do match in favor of our view.

You basically redefine "faith" as works
While the CoC'ers redefine "grace" as 'instructions' for the works. So what you end up with in Eph.2:8 is "by instructions have you been saved through obedience to them; and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast". Putting it this way should make it obvious how wrong it is.

 

[BobRyan]

In this sentence you innexplicable CLAIM to defend what you state you would not want to start with as an a priori bias.

Eric
You actually never did deal with the preterist interpretation; only reiterated how it 'admits what that standard OSAS view denies' in some attempt to "save" OSAS (as if that in itself disproves it); and I keep telling you that saving the standard view of OSAS is not my starting point, but rather guarding against the false 'gospel' that is no gospel (good news) of a constantly unstable 'salvation' based on my own efforts.

Ok so taking the "best view" of that statement - we BOTH agree that starting with the bias to "shield OSAS from scripture" is not good and NEITHER is getting to a result of "works based salvation".

BUT IF you mean to define "works based salvation" as "anything but OSAS" THEN you have circular reasoning in your statement above. You would then be saying that although you do not START wanting to defend OSAS and shield it from scripture - you DO START with the bias of thinking that ANY denial of OSAS is "unstable salvation" and "salvation by my own efforts".

However if you are willing to say that you would consider the BIBLE as your standard for "what constitutes works based salvation" then lets take another look at James 2 and Romans 2. Let's agree first and formost that the "GOSPEL" Paul affirms in Romans 2 to be IN that chapter is not a "salvation by works" Gospel.

And then lets let scripture STAND AS IS - and let man made tradition "fall" as we go through the text to see just how DETAILED the bible can be about this "Saved by Grace" salvation when it comes to its proper relationship to works.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Eric -

Now tell me; can you admit the weaknesses of works-salvation and security placed in your hands?

Is this you defining "Works based salvation" as "anything but OSAS"???

Or are you asking an objective question here?

If it is really an objective question then yes - I would say that while OSAS is pure error so also is works-based-salvation is as well if we use the term "as the BIBLE defines it".

You keep talking about James 2 (the faith of demons) and 2Tim 2 (those whom Christ denies, but when we point out that such (with no works at all) were probably never saved, then here you come with Romans 11k, John 15 and Matt 18. On "the vine", but once again, these passages you're pasting together do not match, because the branches already broken off the vine they referred to were Jews who were never saved.

The argument that "never saved" was stated in the text - is not a form of exegesis - it is pure eisegesis. The text NEVER says that the problem for the failing case (those IN the vine who are then cast out and burned) is that those lost (supposedly LOST while In the vine) went from "lost to loster" as you seem to suppose.

Think about it!

God is NOT arguing for a "better way to be lost"!!

The text of John 15 and Rom 11 "IN the vine" places BOTH the failing AND the succeeding cases together IN the vine IN Christ at the start. It argues that they need to STAY THERE.

NEVER does the bible argue that the Lost need to STAY LOST!

You seriously need to consider dropping your man made bias on this to get to the text itself!

In Rom 11 and John 15 Christ does not argue NNE IN the vine is saved until after the time of the Cross!

In the Rom 11 and John 15 example of "IN the VINE" and abiding IN Christ - He does not argue that to be IN ME is to "BE LOST"!

In the Rom 11 and John 15 example of "IN the VINE" and abiding IN Christ - Christ clearly says WE are to FEAR for "NEITHER will HE spare you". This is a statement to the SAVED to those pictured in BOTH cases as being IN THE VINE and SAVED! It is the case for perseverance that EVEN the 3 and 5 point CALVINISTS get clearly!

Instead of being offended that this obvious point in the text is being brought out - why not stop clinging to your bias for a second and simply run with it??!!

 

[BobRyan]

You basically redefine "faith" as works

here again you insert your bias where you should have been objective instead and simply dealt with the text of scripture.

Start with these rules for a change.

#1. When I read a text I don't like because it does not fit OSAS - I can not blame Bob for it.

#2. When I read a text that does not fit OSAS I can not jump wildly to a teaching that "these texts are not for me" to get out of it and save OSAS.

#3. When I read those texts I will EXEGETE THE DETAILS in a way that does NOT first INSERT OSAS!

This may seem to be offensive or contradictory to what you would wish - but give it a shot anyway for the sake of this discussion with me. Just give it ONE try!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

BUT IF you mean to define "works based salvation" as "anything but OSAS" THEN you have circular reasoning in your statement above. You would then be saying that although you do not START wanting to defend OSAS and shield it from scripture - you DO START with the bias of thinking that ANY denial of OSAS is "unstable salvation" and "salvation by my own efforts".

However if you are willing to say that you would consider the BIBLE as your standard for "what constitutes works based salvation" then lets take another look at James 2 and Romans 2. Let's agree first and formost that the "GOSPEL" Paul affirms in Romans 2 to be IN that chapter is not a "salvation by works" Gospel.

Is this you defining "Works based salvation" as "anything but OSAS"???

Or are you asking an objective question here?

If it is really an objective question then yes - I would say that while OSAS is pure error so also is works-based-salvation is as well if we use the term "as the BIBLE defines it".

Not "anything but OSAS", but going by what you describe, it does seem to be about our own efforts.

The argument that "never saved" was stated in the text - is not a form of exegesis - it is pure eisegesis. The text NEVER says that the problem for the failing case (those IN the vine who are then cast out and burned) is that those lost (supposedly LOST while In the vine) went from "lost to loster" as you seem to suppose.

Think about it!

God is NOT arguing for a "better way to be lost"!!

The text of John 15 and Rom 11 "IN the vine" places BOTH the failing AND the succeeding cases together IN the vine IN Christ at the start. It argues that they need to STAY THERE.

NEVER does the bible argue that the Lost need to STAY LOST!

You seriously need to consider dropping your man made bias on this to get to the text itself!

In Rom 11 and John 15 Christ does not argue NNE IN the vine is saved until after the time of the Cross!

In the Rom 11 and John 15 example of "IN the VINE" and abiding IN Christ - He does not argue that to be IN ME is to "BE LOST"!

In the Rom 11 and John 15 example of "IN the VINE" and abiding IN Christ - Christ clearly says WE are to FEAR for "NEITHER will HE spare you". This is a statement to the SAVED to those pictured in BOTH cases as being IN THE VINE and SAVED! It is the case for perseverance that EVEN the 3 and 5 point CALVINISTS get clearly!

Instead of being offended that this obvious point in the text is being brought out - why not stop clinging to your bias for a second and simply run with it??!!

Why don't you read your own proof-texts and run with it? those mentioned as ALREADY "broken off" were Jews who rejected Christ. They "believed in Him" for the wrong reason in John 8, but never really ACCEPTED Him as LORD and SAVIOR. This was false belief. Therefore, in THOSE cases, "in the branch" must have abroader meaning than true believers ONLY. Noone is eisegeting it. It's in the CONTEXT, and that's something that rabid prooftexters like you have never heard of.

here again you insert your bias where you should have been objective instead and simply dealt with the text of scripture.

Start with these rules for a change.

#1. When I read a text I don't like because it does not fit OSAS - I can not blame Bob for it.

#2. When I read a text that does not fit OSAS I can not jump wildly to a teaching that "these texts are not for me" to get out of it and save OSAS.

#3. When I read those texts I will EXEGETE THE DETAILS in a way that does NOT first INSERT OSAS!

This may seem to be offensive or contradictory to what you would wish - but give it a shot anyway for the sake of this discussion with me. Just give it ONE try!

The only alternative you give is to pick one scripture and bend the others to fit, instead of RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Word ofGod. All you do is throw proof texts at everyone, and when we show you the contexts and other scriptures, you accuse us of "ignoring" scriptures (as if the ones you use are the only ones in the Bible), and trying to save some failed position. Now, if you don't believe in works-salvation, instead of accusing me of "making it anything but OSAS in order to save OSAS", show me how your position is not works-salvation.

 

[FollowMeHome]

Well we can't simply stick with the Bible and forsake OSAS can we?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm of the opinion that Baptists believe ONLY in scripture. Where does OSAS fit in?

Anyone can sin at anytime. If I've been "saved" and murder someone, does that mean that I'm still saved provided that I don't repent?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

FollowMeHome,

Over 90% of baptists believe in security salvation so called, "Once Saved Always Saved". I was one of them before for many years. Till three years ago, I left security camp, because it is not biblical.

Luke 15:11-32 is the clearest teaching that a Christian could lose salvation. Christ says, a son was with his father AT THE FIRST PLACE. His father cannot force his son to stay with him all the time. Father allows his son go. A son have his own freewill decision, if he wants to. Father lets son go. Same with God, He cannot force us to follow or stay with him all the time. We are not God's robots or puppets. Christ tells us, when a son leaves his father, turn away and he is lost(Luke 15:24 & 32). I rather to called him, 'a lost son' than 'the prodigal son' according many baptists called it. Because, Christ plainly saying he is 'LOST'.

Unless if a person turns back to the Lord and repent, then a person is ALIVE AGAIN.

Obivously it speaks of spiritually. Also, it does matter with salvation issue. No way you can avoid Luke 15:14-32 on salvation issue. Because Christ always speak of 'lose' & 'alive' clearly that he teaches us, that we all have freewill to make our decision to follow Christ or not. We are not God's robots or puppets.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm of the opinion that Baptists believe ONLY in scripture. Where does OSAS fit in?

Anyone can sin at anytime. If I've been "saved" and murder someone, does that mean that I'm still saved provided that I don't repent?

A four Point Calvinist (Baptist) and all those Arminian Baptists that cling to OSAS while rejecting the Bible doctrine on Perseverance would say resoundingly "YES STILL SAVED because no choice for rebellion after salvation will get you lost".

The 3 and 5 point Calvinists (baptists) and all those Arminian Baptists that cling to OSAS and insist on the Bible doctrine of Perseverance will complain about your statement that the person is saved and then fails to persevere as you propose. In other words they deny that what you describe could ever happen in all of time.

In my opion your scenario is correct and both groups listed above are wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

FollowMeHome,

Over 90% of baptists believe in security salvation so called, "Once Saved Always Saved". I was one of them before for many years. Till three years ago, I left security camp, because it is not biblical.

Luke 15:11-32 is the clearest teaching that a Christian could lose salvation. Christ says, a son was with his father AT THE FIRST PLACE. His father cannot force his son to stay with him all the time. Father allows his son go. A son have his own freewill decision, if he wants to. Father lets son go. Same with God, He cannot force us to follow or stay with him all the time. We are not God's robots or puppets. Christ tells us, when a son leaves his father, turn away and he is lost(Luke 15:24 & 32). I rather to called him, 'a lost son' than 'the prodigal son' according many baptists called it. Because, Christ plainly saying he is 'LOST'.

Unless if a person turns back to the Lord and repent, then a person is ALIVE AGAIN.

Obivously it speaks of spiritually. Also, it does matter with salvation issue. No way you can avoid Luke 15:14-32 on salvation issue. Because Christ always speak of 'lose' & 'alive' clearly that he teaches us, that we all have freewill to make our decision to follow Christ or not. We are not God's robots or puppets.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

What a great testimony - I had almost given up on anyone steeped in OSAS allowing the Bible evidence to be accepted.

As some have said here about John 15 (being case out of the vine of Christ and burned) and Romans 11 (being cast out of the vine of Christ) and 2Tim 2 (being denied by Christ) -- "Those texts should not be allowed to apply to NT Christians today so ignore them".

Others have said of them "That just means you don't get millennium perks not that you lose salvation".

The Myriad ways to avoid the text of scripture and cling to OSAS "anyway" seems to be without limit.

I am encouraged by your testimony.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Eric speaking of Rom 11
Why don't you read your own proof-texts and run with it? those mentioned as ALREADY "broken off" were Jews who rejected Christ. They "believed in Him" for the wrong reason in John 8, but never really ACCEPTED Him as LORD and SAVIOR. This was false belief. Therefore, in THOSE cases, "in the branch" must have abroader meaning than true believers ONLY. Noone is eisegeting it. It's in the CONTEXT, and that's something that rabid prooftexters like you have never heard of.

#1. I did not write Romans 11 - so don't blame it's existence on me as if "mean ol Bob gave us this text and now we have to fis it".

#2. You are STILL playing games here. We both admit that BEING out -- being broken off and out - is "the lost state" -- but that OBVIOUS problem you are glossing over is that to have BEEN TAKEN OUT they had to have BEEN IN!! The OBVIOUS point I was making is that WHILE IN they were SAVED just as SAVED as those that Paul writes to who ARE presently IN and who are told to "FEAR for if God did not spare those other branches that WERE IN but were then TAKEN OUT -- neither will He spare you"!!

It is a devastating point - and yet you think that if you gloss over it -- I will not notice.

What makes you think that such tactic will work?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

I never said you wrote the text, but you are writing your own meaning to it. Being 'taken out' means they had to have been 'in'; but to clarify 'in' WHAT, once again, we have to look at WHO he was talking about. Israel as a covenant nation was the branch being broken off, and they were never "saved" as a whole. It only means they were in a covenant relation with God. We have to use the Bible's definition of terms, not Bob's.

And now the Prodigal Son is coming up, but that is the same thing. That parable represents Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were the 'faithful but jealous' brother, and the lost Gentiles were clearly the prodigal. Now you ask how, since they were never saved? All of mankind was said to have "gone astray". None of these parables and metaphors have to do with individuals who were once saved being lost. Mankind was created good by God and then fell. God in His plan of reconciliation reached out to Israel first, but then cut them off, and turned to the Gentiles. If they make the same mistakes as Israel (self-righteousness instead of true faith in the first place) they will end up in the same state as physical Israel: cut off! That is what is being illustrated there.

 

[BobRyan]

In John 15 Christ does not declare to His followers "ALL Jews are IN the vine by definition so don't fall out". It is clear that it is only the saved that are IN in John 15.

The same thing is true for Romans 11 it is the saints that are IN and the ones that WERE TAKEN out ALSO used to be IN.

It is the principle of the fall of a SAVED person that is the problem. Once we admit to the obvious (that being IN the vine of Christ) is saved - then having them TAKEN out is the doom of OSAS. Worse than this Christ not ONLY says this is true of those who WERE taken out - but He also says to those that are currently IN the vine "YOU too fear for if He did NOT SPARE them NEITHER will He spare you"

The imaginatve ways needed to shield the man made tradition of OSAS from this text are almost without limit. I give credit to GE for looking for them but when you tire of that - try exegeting the text of Romans 11 "instead".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rom 11

18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

As you read the details in the text of Romans 11:20 why do you think Paul says "to fear"??

Far from simply “writing off unsaved Jews” as some have imagined here. Paul says “He is able to GRAFT THEM IN AGAIN”. The current scenario is not only that WE should fear “for if He did not spare them NEITHER will He spare you” but also ”He is able to graft them in again”. This is truly the death of OSAS.

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Why does Paul say in Rom 11:21 "Neither will he spare you" who is the "you" and what is the "you" supposed to take away from that instruction?

When Paul says "if you continue in His kindness" is "YOU" a saved person?

When Paul says "otherwise YOU will be cut off" in vs 22 is being "cut off" a saving experience of the saints that they will cary with them into heaven?

In vs 23 is "continuing in unbelief" a sign or reason for them "being cut off" if so - then what were they doing BEFORE they were "cut off for unbelief"? What was their start? believing? OR were they initially brought in "as unbelievers"??

Is "graft them in again" a reference to a saving relationship with Christ being restored - or some more frivolous idea?

As we explore the instructive answers to these questions we will see a very bright light shining in Romans 11 on the subject of salvation gained and lost.

Rom 11:
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, [b]they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. [/b]

They were even MORE compatible with God's plan than we are today. They could only FALL from such an exalted position. In Christ – the vine (John 15) the Jews fell and this is a warning to “us”? Only if OSAS is not true.

Rom 11:
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

They become a warning to US as WE are in THEIR former position.

Rom11:
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

God desires to RE-establish them WITH US in that FORMER position IN the body of Christ. (Every branch In Me that does not bear fruit is cast into the fire – John 15). Yet here we see that God is able to “graft them in again” – so they can come back IF They do not Continue in unbelief.

1Cor 10

4. they ALL drank from the SAME SPIRITUAL PETRA which FOLLOWED them that PETRA was CHRIST"

Heb 4:1-2 We have had the Gospel preached to US just as They also

And yet all this does not REJECT the plan of salvation as it continually unfolds in the NT - in fact it explicitly relies upon it. Including the future events of the coming
Messiah as described in Isaiah 53. But they ALL benefit from the God who "gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does NOT exist" Rom 4:17 so that God
called Abraham the Father of many nations - while as yet he had no children.

The Cross of Christ - benefits of forgiveness already applied PRE cross.

Rom 11
24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are
the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

They were even MORE compatible with God's plan than we are today. They could only FALL from such an exalted position.

Yet God shows His CONTINUED willingness, purpose, intent and interest in "Grafting them in again". He never presents the fall of Israel as "God's fickle choice for the CHOSEN" -- rather it is "Their UNBELIEF" – it is the rebellion of the CHOSEN.

Rom11:
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Note that “you” is to the INDIVIDUAL reading the letter and – it is on an INDIVIDUAL basis that they stand IN Christ. Trying to “ignore this inconvenient detail” in an effort to save OSAS is not “exegesis” it is EISEGESIS. And this comes as a surprise to many.

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

Actually, the part of the vine being cast out as being Isreal is CORRECT. Its Paul refrences as the "Jews advantage over the gentiles," in that they are BORN with the faith, yet Jesus could easily remove that gift of promises (rom 9) if they didn't take that faith and come to a saving knowldege of him with it. THe same goes true for the 10 widows, or virgins, or whatever with the oil lamps. They are only a refrence to Isreal, not to the rest of the Gentiles. The same holds with the anaology of the servants with their talents. Most of what Christ was preaching was to save Isreal FIRST, but is not enforced on the Gentiles who didn't know better anyway.
I think there is way too many terminiology issues going here overall, especially with the definition of Faith vs. Salvation. Faith in the EXISTENCE of Jesus is not enough to save, even Demons have Faith, and fear God, yet are not saved in it. Sadly several people who professes to have faith only mean taht they know of Jesus, but do not accept him ot be in conrtrol (ie the hypocrites who say "Lord, Lord." There has to be a personal acceptance of Christ to have salvation, which also requires relevation by the Holy Spirit, as he is the one of the Trinity who walks with us. Take the diciples Peter and Judas. Peter already had the Holy Spirit who gave him the Faith to say "You are Christ the Son of God." However he denied he even knew Christ three times soon afterwards. Had he lost his salvation? How could he from the guilt he fealt after doing so? Judas, however never had any salvation, since he meraly came to Jesus out of political motives-he was never saved in the first place, only his faith made him realize he had killed the savior, however he still didn't want to accept him, so he committed sucide instead. Romans is actually specigfing our contract to God when we recieve salvation- that signs us as God's Chrildren-who he will not deny us. If a Athiest reciweves salvation but decides to be an athiest afterwards his salvation is still intact due to this contract and romans 5. Which does not violatefree will either, since the Holy Spirit dwells within a saved person, does He not become a part of our will as well? Therefore no one can retract from their saving contract with God, but few ever come to true salvation in this world....there are so many hypocrites who have no idea, who don't want to have an idea (hence why the HOLY SPIRIT hasn't revealed it to them yet. We has true Belevers should be more in earnest to open even our own hearts as well as other to His truths to be saved) of what it is to actually recieve eternal salvation...God asks for so little yet so much...
Most of this is what I think my dad said so if you disagree you'll have to ask him ("ancientofotters at hotmail dot com") about this first because I may have made it confusing than what it truely is. So I think this anaology will work if you take a look at this comic:

you can't throw that heart away...you only get one in the first place and its not yours its of God, so its impossible to want to anyway, no matter how much your body may want to reject it.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, the false belief of people like Judas is the key to understanding many of these warnings babout ending up lost. This is what I was pointing out in John 8, where Jews are said to "belive in Him", yet with them too, it was the same wriong reason, which Jesus exposed, and then they opposed Him, and He called them the children of their father the devil. These were the "vines" being "broken off", but as INDIVIDUALS, they were never saved.
Rom. 11, I explained, also. To repeat: "If they make the same mistakes as Israel (self-righteousness instead of true faith in the first place) they will end up in the same state as physical Israel: cut off! That is what is being illustrated there."

In John 15 Christ does not declare to His followers "ALL Jews are IN the vine by definition so don't fall out". It is clear that it is only the saved that are IN in John 15.

The problem once again, is that you are pasting different passages together because they use similar words.
Notice in John, the branches taken away are those, not who break themselves off, but simply do not bear fruit. Does this mean in your system that we lose salvation if we have not won enough souls, or if we simply don't grow fast enough? You need to examine the full implications of these scriptures you pick.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, the part of the vine being cast out as being Isreal is CORRECT. Its Paul refrences as the "Jews advantage over the gentiles," in that they are BORN with the faith, yet Jesus could easily remove that gift of promises (rom 9) if they didn't take that faith and come to a saving knowldege of him with it.

In Romans 11 "He is able to GRAFT THEM IN again" if they do not CONTINUE in unbelief.

your idea of "having faith but still not saved" is not in the Romans 11 account "at all".

In Romans 11 He then points to the saints IN Christ - In the vine and instructs us to persevere in that faith relationship WITH Christ saying that we should "FEAR for IF he did not spare them NEITHER will He spare you".

Obviously this is devastating to OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
In John 15 Christ does not declare to His followers "ALL Jews are IN the vine by definition so don't fall out". It is clear that it is only the saved that are IN in John 15.

Eric said
The problem once again, is that you are pasting different passages together because they use similar words.
Notice in John, the branches taken away are those, not who break themselves off, but simply do not bear fruit. Does this mean in your system that we lose salvation if we have not won enough souls,

#1 I did not write John 15 - God did.

#2. The Bible never says that "evangelism" is the fruit of John 15 or of Gal 5 "The fruit of the Spirit".

#3. You are right about the text saying GOD is the one that removes the branches that are IN Christ but do not GROW and produce fruit. HE says they are cast away and burned.

That is not a reference to purgatory and then "going to heaven anyway".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

Again, that verse in Rom 11 is for the Hebrews. In fact, Romans seems to be the fifth Gospel because the Jews simply wern't getting it. Why else would Paul himself desire to be cut off from Christ in order to save them only?
And if the gift of salvation is eternal life-in which we are transformed into a new creature other and human i.e our spirits being born again, does it make any sense that our being can devolve back into being a human of the flesh? Being eternal means it is immortal and cannot be killed nor die of its own accord.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

UnchartedSpirit,

You say, verses of Romans are for Jews. Why do Romans 11:20 tells us, that we must be FEAR of the Lord? Obivously, this is not speak to just for Jews only, also, to Gentiles too.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!