Saved in 3 tenses?

[No Nicolaitans]

14 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

 

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James.

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

By the way -- May I say that I do NOT AT ALL like the the "question" forum for such thread discussions, since postings can be moved through rating; and thereby the line of comment and response can become distorted.  (I wonder if this thread discussion could be moved to a different forum structure by one of the moderators.)

[Roselove]

16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

Since the words the writer uses are the same as kjv, how is it that he's wrong about our security being conditional? That's where i was a bit confused. 

I mean, in the way that he's trying to disprove it, that is.

(Sorry if this counts as impatience) 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Roselove

[No Nicolaitans]

8 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Well, all that I can go by is what I use. I'm no Greek scholar. Here's the word in my Bible program...as you can see, it's the same "number", but look at the Greek word in comparison to what you've posted...

G4982 σώζω sozo (sō'-zō) v.
to save, i.e. deliver or protect.
{literally or figuratively}
[from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saos, “safe”)]
KJV: heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 15:2 - σωζεσθε

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις

The Greek word from the Textus Receptus link that you provided of 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The screenshot's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The Greek word in my program from both 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σώζω (#4982)

All that I can say is...

The author has two different Greek words from the same single Greek word and "number"; which is 4982. The author, the screenshot, and the link provided show different Greek words than what mine shows. As I said, I'm no Greek scholar, and I just reference Greek occasionally. I'm wondering why the author has two different Greek words for the same Greek word...well, I think I know why, but I'll stop there.

I can't explain it to you any more than what I've shown Roselove.

Okay, I just installed the TR in my Bible program...

1 Corinthians 15:2, the word for saved is σωζεσθε

1 Corinthians 1:18, the word for saved is σωζομενοις

First, thanks to Bro. Markle for pointing out the situation with Strong's. I wasn't aware of that.

Second, I've learned a lesson from this, and though I originally tried to tread carefully, I realize that I need to tread even more carefully from this point forward. I will bow out of this conversation from here on out. Thank you Bro. Markle for addressing Roselove's concerns.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Sister Rose,

I have now read through all of the postings in your various other threads concerning the matter of eternal security.  At present I am reading through the article that you referenced in another thread concerning "the tense readings of the Greek New Testament."

In this posting, I wish to present some initial thoughts (which we may then consider in more detail as the discussion proceeds):

1.  Concerning the matter of eternal security -- Those who hold strongly unto this doctrine (as I do) will place their primary focus upon God's authority and power to maintain a believer's eternal security.  However, those who unto the doctrine of required perseverance (lest salvation be lost) will place their primary focus upon the believer's effort and power to maintain that security.  In my own case, I begin with the passages concerning God's authority and power in the matter and then build upon that foundation in consideration of other passages.

2.  Concerning the article about the tense readings -- Although I am only half-way through the article, I have a number of conflicts with the article already.  First, I believe that the article immensely distorts the meaning of the Greek present tense, as well as somewhat distorts the meaning of the Greek aorist tense.  Second, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration with favor.  (By the way, if the author actually does/did hold that water baptism is necessary for regeneration and salvation, then he held unto a false gospel which included human works.  As such, I must question the very salvation of the author, and thereby also question the ability of the author to discern Scripture correctly.)  Third, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of purgatory with favor.  Fourth, the author of the article strongly teaches the false doctrine of complete sanctification upon this earth.

3.  Concerning the article about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 -- I myself would contend that the author of the article mishandles the grammatical structure of the single sentence in these two verses.

I suppose that I must now ask which of these matters you desire to consider in detail first?

[Roselove]

On 9/22/2017 at 2:12 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

I have now read through all of the postings in your various other threads concerning the matter of eternal security.  At present I am reading through the article that you referenced in another thread concerning "the tense readings of the Greek New Testament."

In this posting, I wish to present some initial thoughts (which we may then consider in more detail as the discussion proceeds):

1.  Concerning the matter of eternal security -- Those who hold strongly unto this doctrine (as I do) will place their primary focus upon God's authority and power to maintain a believer's eternal security.  However, those who unto the doctrine of required perseverance (lest salvation be lost) will place their primary focus upon the believer's effort and power to maintain that security.  In my own case, I begin with the passages concerning God's authority and power in the matter and then build upon that foundation in consideration of other passages.

2.  Concerning the article about the tense readings -- Although I am only half-way through the article, I have a number of conflicts with the article already.  First, I believe that the article immensely distorts the meaning of the Greek present tense, as well as somewhat distorts the meaning of the Greek aorist tense.  Second, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration with favor.  (By the way, if the author actually does/did hold that water baptism is necessary for regeneration and salvation, then he held unto a false gospel which included human works.  As such, I must question the very salvation of the author, and thereby also question the ability of the author to discern Scripture correctly.)  Third, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of purgatory with favor.  Fourth, the author of the article strongly teaches the false doctrine of complete sanctification upon this earth.

3.  Concerning the article about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 -- I myself would contend that the author of the article mishandles the grammatical structure of the single sentence in these two verses.

I suppose that I must now ask which of these matters you desire to consider in detail first?

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

[Jim_Alaska]

14 hours ago, Roselove said:

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

Sister Rose, I am not sure what you mean when you say that "eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church." If you are talking about "extra-biblical" writings instead of actual scripture, then I have no answer for you. If you are talking about scripture, then I would respectfully submit that every time you see the words "eternal life" written in the New testament, these are the writings of the early church.

Once such instance is one that has been submitted already and bears being resubmitted:   Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 
 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

These words are from the lips of Jesus, the one who instituted the very first church and as such, are in fact the writings of the first church. Jesus is very specific here in saying that He gives to believers "eternal life."  The word "eternal" means life without end, as such it can never be temporary, nor can it be lost since it is without end. Please notice that Jesus also includes further explanation to clarify what he means by saying, "and they shall never perish."

I have in my files a sermon by the late Dr. Harry Ironside that addresses this subject in great detail. I will attach it to this post for your consideration. Just click on the attachment.

ETERNAL SECURITY.doc

[Jordan Kurecki]

17 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

And how do you know the writers of the so called early "church" were actually even saved believers and not heretics? 

The word of God is the final authority not the writings of the early "church".

We never find the validity of a document based on its absence or presence in the uninspired writings of the early "church"

And if you really want to get into Calvinism, Augustine popularized it, and seems very likely that his views of predestination and free will came from the Manichianism that he believed before his "conversion", Ironically Calvin quoted from Augstine ferquently, in fact Calvin said that he could teach his doctrines of election and predestination completely from the words of Augustine. 

And even besides that, I doubt whoever is making the claims that the early church did not believe in eternal security has even read all the writings of the early "church". 

[Jordan Kurecki]

18 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

in reference to John 15,

 

"Some think this verse is referring to unbelievers due to the reference of fire. The assumption is that since fire is mentioned, it must be referring to Hell.

But the Judgment Seat of Christ also speaks of fire. Also, the flow of thought in John 15 refers to believers. Jesus urges those “in me” (15:2) to “Abide in me” in order to “bear fruit” (15:4-5). So what gets burned in verse six?

The verse says, “If a man [singular] abide not [present tense, lit. “is not abiding”] in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them [neuter], and cast them into the fire, and they [singular, lit. “it”] are burned.”

The purpose of a branch in the vine is to bear fruit. This occurs as the branch abides in the vine. Jesus is the true vine. He said, “without me ye can do nothing.” This implies with Him you can do anything you ought to do, because He is the source of life. Therefore the words of Jesus here define the word “abide” as depending on Jesus.

So if one who is in Christ (15:2) does not abide in Christ (15:4-5), he will not bear fruit. His purpose “as a branch” is unfulfilled. So the useless wood with no fruit, because of a lack of abiding, is cast out and burned. The “them” in verse six is neuter, and “it” is cast out, not “they” the people. This fits in perfectly with the teaching that the wood, hay and stubble represents the self-dependent aspects of one’s life which will be incinerated at the Judgment Seat (1 Cor. 3)."

 

http://revivalfocus.org/q6-what-gets-burned/

[Roselove]

On 9/24/2017 at 12:48 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

in reference to John 15,

 

"Some think this verse is referring to unbelievers due to the reference of fire. The assumption is that since fire is mentioned, it must be referring to Hell.

But the Judgment Seat of Christ also speaks of fire. Also, the flow of thought in John 15 refers to believers. Jesus urges those “in me” (15:2) to “Abide in me” in order to “bear fruit” (15:4-5). So what gets burned in verse six?

The verse says, “If a man [singular] abide not [present tense, lit. “is not abiding”] in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them [neuter], and cast them into the fire, and they [singular, lit. “it”] are burned.”

The purpose of a branch in the vine is to bear fruit. This occurs as the branch abides in the vine. Jesus is the true vine. He said, “without me ye can do nothing.” This implies with Him you can do anything you ought to do, because He is the source of life. Therefore the words of Jesus here define the word “abide” as depending on Jesus.

So if one who is in Christ (15:2) does not abide in Christ (15:4-5), he will not bear fruit. His purpose “as a branch” is unfulfilled. So the useless wood with no fruit, because of a lack of abiding, is cast out and burned. The “them” in verse six is neuter, and “it” is cast out, not “they” the people. This fits in perfectly with the teaching that the wood, hay and stubble represents the self-dependent aspects of one’s life which will be incinerated at the Judgment Seat (1 Cor. 3)."

 

http://revivalfocus.org/q6-what-gets-burned/

He says "it" because it's a branch He's talking about, it's an analogy. I don't see how it couldn't just mean, exactly what it appears to mean. This is the 4th version I've read on this parable. Every verse that people that believe in absolute security try to explain, everyone seems to have a totally different answer. The other side never seems to contradict each other. They all say the same thing about the verses, and they take it at face value, in the context.

 I really wasn't trying to sound provoking or anything, I'm really sorry if it comes across like that. I hope you, understand.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Roselove

[Pastor Scott Markle]

18 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

Sister Rose, 

In your above paragraph, you have made reference unto various passages of Scripture, including James 2:14-26; Acts 13:43; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 12:4-11; Hebrews 12:15-17; John 15:1-6; Matthew 25:14-30.

However, before I focus my attention upon these passages individually, I wish to focus your attention upon one of the passages that (I believe) teaches the doctrine of eternal security.  This passage is John 6:35-40 -- "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.  But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

In this passage we encounter four different groupings of individuals:

1.  The Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son.
2.  Those individuals who come unto and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
3.  Those individuals who do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
4.  God the Father, the One who sent God the Son.

For the sake of our present discussion, I wish to focus out attention, not upon the activities of those who believe or upon the activities of those who do not believe, but upon the activities of God the Father and of God the Son and upon the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, as revealed in this passage.  These points are as follows:

1.  God the Father gives certain individuals unto the Son.
2.  God the Son will "in no wise cast out" those individuals who come unto Him.
3.  God the Son came down from heaven to do God the Father's will.
4.  God the Father wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should lose nothing, no, not even a single one.
5.  God the Father also wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should certainly raise them up in the last day.
6.  God the Father also wills that unto every one of the individuals who believe on God the Son, God the Son should give them everlasting life.
7.  God the Son will indeed raise up at the last day every one of those individuals who believe on Him.

Now, I wish to ask of you some thought questions based upon this passage:

1.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to lose not even a single one of those whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does actually lose even one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

2.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to raise up at the last day (in the resurrection of righteousness) all whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does not actually raise up every single one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

3.  If God the Son actually does in either of these matters break the will of God the Father, what would that be called spiritually?  (Hint: It would be called sin against God, something that God the Son would NEVER actually do.)

4.  If God the Son actually does commit a sin against God the Father, can He be the eternal Savior of any other sinner whatsoever at all?

If tuno this point you have followed my flow of thought, then I would present the following truth for consideration:

If God the Son loses even one, then God the Son can be the Savior of NONE.

 

(Note for the audience as a whole:  I fully recognize that John 6:35-40 is a passage of controversy in the doctrinal debate between the Calvinistic belief system and the Arminian belief system, specifically in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace.  For the present thread discussion I was not focused upon the events that precede an individual's coming unto Christ through faith, but was focused rather upon the assignment of His will that God the Father placed upon God the Son concerning those who actually did come unto the Son through faith.  However, I DO believe that the key in correctly understanding the passage in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace is to be found contextually through a correct understand of John 6:44-45, with a strong focus upon verse 45.) 

[Roselove]

17 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose, 

In your above paragraph, you have made reference unto various passages of Scripture, including James 2:14-26; Acts 13:43; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 12:4-11; Hebrews 12:15-17; John 15:1-6; Matthew 25:14-30.

However, before I focus my attention upon these passages individually, I wish to focus your attention upon one of the passages that (I believe) teaches the doctrine of eternal security.  This passage is John 6:35-40 -- "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.  But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

In this passage we encounter four different groupings of individuals:

1.  The Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son.
2.  Those individuals who come unto and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
3.  Those individuals who do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
4.  God the Father, the One who sent God the Son.

For the sake of our present discussion, I wish to focus out attention, not upon the activities of those who believe or upon the activities of those who do not believe, but upon the activities of God the Father and of God the Son and upon the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, as revealed in this passage.  These points are as follows:

1.  God the Father gives certain individuals unto the Son.
2.  God the Son will "in no wise cast out" those individuals who come unto Him.
3.  God the Son came down from heaven to do God the Father's will.
4.  God the Father wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should lose nothing, no, not even a single one.
5.  God the Father also wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should certainly raise them up in the last day.
6.  God the Father also wills that unto every one of the individuals who believe on God the Son, God the Son should give them everlasting life.
7.  God the Son will indeed raise up at the last day every one of those individuals who believe on Him.

Now, I wish to ask of you some thought questions based upon this passage:

1.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to lose not even a single one of those whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does actually lose even one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

2.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to raise up at the last day (in the resurrection of righteousness) all whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does not actually raise up every single one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

3.  If God the Son actually does in either of these matters break the will of God the Father, what would that be called spiritually?  (Hint: It would be called sin against God, something that God the Son would NEVER actually do.)

4.  If God the Son actually does commit a sin against God the Father, can He be the eternal Savior of any other sinner whatsoever at all?

If tuno this point you have followed my flow of thought, then I would present the following truth for consideration:

If God the Son loses even one, then God the Son can be the Savior of NONE.

 

(Note for the audience as a whole:  I fully recognize that John 6:35-40 is a passage of controversy in the doctrinal debate between the Calvinistic belief system and the Arminian belief system, specifically in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace.  For the present thread discussion I was not focused upon the events that precede an individual's coming unto Christ through faith, but was focused rather upon the assignment of His will that God the Father placed upon God the Son concerning those who actually did come unto the Son through faith.  However, I DO believe that the key in correctly understanding the passage in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace is to be found contextually through a correct understand of John 6:44-45, with a strong focus upon verse 45.) 

I see what you're saying. I know God says He's not willing any should perish, though, but not everyone will except Him. Or is it because we have a part in responding to that, but when Jesus says it's God's will that He keep all that He's given, it's fully on Jesus? If that makes sense 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

21 minutes ago, Roselove said:

I see what you're saying. I know God says He's not willing any should perish, though, but not everyone will except Him. Or is it because we have a part in responding to that, but when Jesus says it's God's will that He keep all that He's given, it's fully on Jesus? If that makes sense 

Indeed, God the Father is "NOT willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," as per 2 Peter 3:9.  However, that is NOT the point of God's giving certain individuals unto God the Son, as per John 6:37.  Indeed, I believe in the doctrine that all human individuals are drawn by God unto His Son as Savior.  However, I would agree with you that not every one will accept Him as Savior.  Many follow the broad way unto eternal destruction; whereas few follow the narrow way unto life everlasting.  God's Holy Word does NOT teach universalism in relation to eternal salvation and eternal life.  All are drawn, but not all come; therefore, not all shall be saved.

However, John 6:37 speaks concerning those individuals who actually DO come unto Christ through faith for salvation.  The order of the verse is as follows:

1.  God the Father gives certain individuals (NOT all individuals) unto God the Son.
2.  ALL (every single one without exception) that God the Father gives actually do come unto God the Son through faith for salvation.
3.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall "in no wise be cast out" by God the Son.

If we then add the truths of John 6:39-40 concerning these individuals, we would add:

4.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall have everlasting life (as per verse 40).
5.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall not be lost by God the Son (as per verse 39).
6.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall be raised up at the last day by God the Son (as per verses 39 & 40).

The great doctrinal controversy then concerns a question in relation to point #1 -- By what means does God the Father determine which certain individuals He chooses to give unto the Son?  I believe that the answer to this doctrinal controversy is to be found contextually within the teaching of John 6:44-45 (as per my note in my previous posting).

[Roselove]

16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, God the Father is "NOT willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," as per 2 Peter 3:9.  However, that is NOT the point of God's giving certain individuals unto God the Son, as per John 6:37.  Indeed, I believe in the doctrine that all human individuals are drawn by God unto His Son as Savior.  However, I would agree with you that not every one will accept Him as Savior.  Many follow the broad way unto eternal destruction; whereas few follow the narrow way unto life everlasting.  God's Holy Word does NOT teach universalism in relation to eternal salvation and eternal life.  All are drawn, but not all come; therefore, not all shall be saved.

However, John 6:37 speaks concerning those individuals who actually DO come unto Christ through faith for salvation.  The order of the verse is as follows:

1.  God the Father gives certain individuals (NOT all individuals) unto God the Son.
2.  ALL (every single one without exception) that God the Father gives actually do come unto God the Son through faith for salvation.
3.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall "in no wise be cast out" by God the Son.

If we then add the truths of John 6:39-40 concerning these individuals, we would add:

4.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall have everlasting life (as per verse 40).
5.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall not be lost by God the Son (as per verse 39).
6.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall be raised up at the last day by God the Son (as per verses 39 & 40).

The great doctrinal controversy then concerns a question in relation to point #1 -- By what means does God the Father determine which certain individuals He chooses to give unto the Son?  I believe that the answer to this doctrinal controversy is to be found contextually within the teaching of John 6:44-45 (as per my note in my previous posting).

Okay, i think this might make sense. I see what you're saying. 

What do you think of the passages that were concerning me? I really felt like those seemed to explicitly say that you can fall from not enduring through faith in Jesus. I very strongly believed that.