Saved in 3 tenses?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

17 hours ago, Roselove said:

I had a question on the side that I wanted to ask you. In church last Sunday, the preacher was talking about the prodigal son, one of the points he made was, in the Old Testament, if a son abandoned the family, they were considered dead to them and were taken out of their family's genealogy book or something, but Jesus was saying that we are now sons and daughters even if we leave and He'll take us back. I found it very encouraging, especially when cross referencing it with Jesus in Revelation saying He won't blot our name out of the Book Of Life, but as I was reading Luke 15, verse 24 stuck out to me, the father says his son was dead and is now alive again and that he was lost and now found. It kind of sounded like he was saying that he was lost until he came back and repented. I looked up in the Greek, the word "dead" in that verse, it said it was literal physical or spiritual death from what I could tell? I wasn't sure what to make of it, do you think you could address this question also on your next reply? It's been kind of confusing me. Thanks!

Sister Rose,

I have one more installment to do concerning the article. After I am able to present that installment, then I will handle your question on Luke 15:24. Will that be acceptable?

[Roselove]

55 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

I have one more installment to do concerning the article. After I am able to present that installment, then I will handle your question on Luke 15:24. Will that be acceptable?

Yes, thank you! 

[Roselove]

Are you going to be able to give the rest of your comments, soon? 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

49 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Are you going to be able to give the rest of your comments, soon? 

Rose, 

I am sorry that I have not been able to do so lately.  The last few months have not been friendly to my schedule.  Please let me see if I can find an afternoon to do so within the next week.  Also, I do have an answer in answer to your question about the parable of the prodigal son.

[Roselove]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Rose, 

I am sorry that I have not been able to do so lately.  The last few months have not been friendly to my schedule.  Please let me see if I can find an afternoon to do so within the next week.  Also, I do have an answer in answer to your question about the parable of the prodigal son.

Thank you, I appreciate it! I'm looking forward to it. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 10:22 PM, Roselove said:

Thank you, I appreciate it! I'm looking forward to it. 

Well, yesterday afternoon I started working on my final installment of review for the article.  However, then I had a sump pump problem that stole away a number of hours from my schedule.  Will continue to attempt a completion within the next week.

[Roselove]

15 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well, yesterday afternoon I started working on my final installment of review for the article.  However, then I had a sump pump problem that stole away a number of hours from my schedule.  Will continue to attempt a completion within the next week.

Oh my, I'm sorry to hear that!   I hope you're able to get it fixed, soon! 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

In his third and final main point, the author of the article presented his most extensive effort to substantiate his given point.  I myself believe that this is the author’s weakest point, and that such is the reason that he had to put forth so much effort in order to attempt to make his point.  Since this point contains more material, I wish to respond to it by sections.  Even so, the author’s introduction to this point is as follows:

               (https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-did-jesus-mean-by-“i-will-lose-nothing”-in-john-639/amp/)

 

Quote

IS THE “RISING UP” RESURRECTION?

One might argue that if the phrase “all that He has given Me I lose nothing,” in John 6:39 is not about salvation why did the Lord Jesus say that he will “raise it up on the last day”? If what Jesus meant by “lose nothing” was his protection of the disciples so as not to lose them physically as explained in John 18:8-9, why did the Lord Jesus mention about raising them up again on the last day? Doesn’t it prove that since Jesus added, “but raise it up on the last day” the phrase “lose nothing” has to do with salvation?

Certainly, an individual might present such an argument.  In fact, such an argument would be quite valid since the two phrases are a part of the same sentence, and thus are a part of the same immediate context.  Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ specifically connected these two phrases together within the same grammatical sentence.
 

Quote

As I’ve already shown, John himself refutes the idea that the phrase, “lose nothing” mean “not to lose one’s salvation.” John’s usage of the word cannot in anyway be disproved. That the phrase, “lose nothing” does not mean “not to lose one’s salvation” is evidently clear as per John’s words in 18:8,9. John never used that phrase in anyway to suggest OSAS or ES. John, by using that phrase, simply means protection from physical harm or even death as we have seen in John chapters 17 and 18.

Yet as I have demonstrated through a previous posting (here), the author’s argument on this matter is not as valid as he seems to claim.  So then, since the author proceeded to build the present point upon his previous point, his present point will be found to fall without a foundation.
 

Quote

Now, I understand that when Jesus said, “”This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing” and then followed it up with a statement, “but raise it up on the last day” seems to suggest that the Lord Jesus was talking about not losing one’s salvation because of that particular clause which I would like to call as the “raising up” clause. But that is not necessarily the case as I will try to demonstrate.

Indeed, that is true. The phrase, “But should raise it up again at the last day,” certainly does seem to suggest that our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking concerning the matter of eternal salvation and resurrection unto eternal life.  Yet the author suggested that this more natural understanding of the phrase is not necessarily accurate.  Thus he attempted to demonstrate this with a four-fold argument.  However, I myself stand in conflict with every one of those four arguments. 

In the first place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows:

Quote

First, even if the clause, “but raise it up on the last day” means resurrection, still the phrase “lose nothing” cannot mean “not to lose one’s salvation.” Jesus could have been simply saying that it is Father’s will for him to protect the disciples from any harm (or even death) and also to resurrect them in the last day because they believe in the Son (6:40). Their resurrection is not predicated on the “lose nothing” (6:39) but on their “believing” (6:40).

Herein the author attempted to present an option of compromise.  He presented an option which accepts that the phrase, “raise it up again at the last day,” does actually refer unto the resurrection at the end of the world.  Yet in this option of compromise, the author presented that meaning of the phrase, “should lose nothing,” could still refer unto the physical protection of the disciples.  As such, the author indicated that this option would present the idea that our Lord Jesus Christ was promising to protect the disciples physically “AND ALSO to resurrect them in the last day.” (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)  However, this option of compromise is not grammatically possible.  Grammatically, our Lord Jesus Christ did not say, “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, AND ALSO should raise it up again at the last day.”  Rather, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, BUT should raise it up again at the last day.”  Grammatically, the adversative conjunction “but” does not indicate an addition, but rather indicates a contrast.  Thus our Lord’s statement reveals that there is a truth of contrast, wherein two given results would be the direct opposite of one another.  In this statement the result of being lost is the direct opposite to the result of being raise up again at the last day.  Whatever is the correct meaning for these resulting conditions, they are grammatically presented as opposites.  On the one hand, if our Lord loses an individual, then He will not raise up that individual again at the last day.  On the other hand, if our Lord does not lose and individual, then He will raise that individual up again at the last day.

In the second place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows:

Quote

And second, the phrase, “but raise it up on the last day” or the “raising up” clause could be translated in another way other than the normal translation we have. In the original Greek, the phrase “raise them up” is “anistemi,” which could also be translated as “to stand up.” “Anistemi” came from the base words “ana” and “histemi”. Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines the word “histemi” as “to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): – abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).”

Notice the underlined words. The word “histemi,” while it is used to refer to a rising from the dead, it is not necessarily the meaning in John 6:39. I said it is not necessarily the meaning of “anistemi” because the word “dead” is not present in the text. Only “raising up” is clearly there. “Anistemi,” while it could mean “raising up,” could mean a number of different things as well such as, “to stand up,” “to appear,” to stand forth,” “to abide at,” since “ana” could mean “up” or “at.” “Histemi” could also mean, “to continue,” “hold up,” and “stand by.” If the word “dead” is present in the text, then it is beyond doubt that “anistemi” here must be interpreted “resurrection.” In other words, while raising (from the dead) is one possible meaning of “anistemi,” it is not the only possible meaning because the word “dead” is not present in the text. 

Herein the author attempted to present a difference in definition.  He began by revealing that the English phrase “should raise . . . up again” is translated from the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), In this he was correct.  Then the author revealed that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) was created by joining the Greek preposition “ἀνὰ” (“ana”) with the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”).  Again in this he was correct.  Then the author presented the definition for the the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) as given in Strong’s dictionary.  Yet again in this he was correct.  Yet it is after this point wherein the author went astray.  Directing our attention upon the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), the author stated, “The word ‘histemi,’ while it is used to refer to a rising from the dead, it is not necessarily the meaning in John 6:39.”  Now, there are two glaring errors with this statement.  First, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is NEVER used in the New Testament to mean “rising from the dead.”  Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is used in the New Testament with this meaning.  Second, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) most certainly does not mean “a rising from the dead” in John 6:39, because the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) does not even exist in John 6:39.  Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is found in John 6:39.  Yet for the remainder of his explanation above, the author of the article continued to mix together the two Greek verbs “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) and “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”).  (Note: This would be like mixing the definitions of the two English words “standing” and “upstanding,” simply because the word “upstanding” includes the word “standing” in its construction.)

In fact, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is not at all relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, specifically because this Greek verb does not exist in John 6:39.  Whereas the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) may be relevant in helping us understand how the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) developed its meaning, it is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) itself that is relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, since that is the actual Greek verb which is found in John 6:39.  So then, what is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) (which the author of the article never actually provided)?  According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is “to stand up (lit. or fig., trans. or intrans.):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up (-right).  Now, the author of the article directed us to consider his underlined portions from the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”).  These included “abide, continue, hold up, present, stand (by, forth, still, up).”  He directed us thus because it is upon these meanings that he made his argument concerning John 6:39.  Yet it should be noticed that the ONLY one of these meanings that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) also carries in meaning is “to stand up.”  Not a single other one of these meanings is a part of the meaning for the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”).  Even so, the author of the article has engaged in a significant definitional error herein.  The Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) never means “standing by (or, alive),” as the author of the article asserted in the conclusion of his article.   Rather, it always indicates some form of movement in an upward direction, whether literally or figuratively.

Strong’s Greek Dictionary indicates that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) can be used either transitively or intransitively.  This is important to understand because the difference in this grammatical usage will affect the applicational meaning of the word.  Grammatically, a transitive usage of a verb indicates a transition of action from the subject to the object.  (Example: I raised up the flag.  The subject “I” is doing the action of “raising up” upon the object “the flag.”)  On the other hand, an intransitive usage of a verb indicates no transition of action from the subject to any object.  (Example: I stand up.  The subject “I” is doing the action of “standing up,” but is not doing so upon any given object.)  In John 6:39 the Greek verb verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used transitively.  Even so, according to Thayer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “to cause to rise, raise up; a. properly of one lying down; b. to raise up from the dead; c. to raise up, cause to be born.  Furthermore, according to Bauer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise, erect, raise up; a. literally of idols, of one lying down, especially of the dead – raise up, bring to life; b. figuratively raise up in the sense cause to appear or be born.”  Thus we may understand that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise up again,” just as it is translated in the King James translation.

 
In the third place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows:

Quote

As a matter of fact, John, in his Gospel often used the word “egeiro” when referring to the rising up from the dead. The following Scriptures from John’s Gospel used “egeiro” instead of “anistemi”:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” (John 2:19-20)

So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:22)

Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. (John 12:1)

The large crowd of the Jews then learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. (John 12:9)

So the people, who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead, continued to testify about Him. (John 12:17)

This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead. (John 21:14)

I am not denying that “anistemi” can mean “to raise the dead” when it is used in reference to the dead. But since the word “dead” is not in John 6:39-40, 54, “anistemi” can also mean other than rising up from the dead in these passages . . . .

 

Jesus never mentioned death in relation to the “rising up” mentioned in John 6:39. This is very important since all usage of “anistemi” in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word “dead” is always present . . . . 

Herein the author attempted to present a distinction of usage.  First, he indicated that the word “dead” is not found in John 6:39-40, 54.  In this he was correct.  Then he stated that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present.”  Yet this is a little misleading.  First, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is only used a total of eight time in the gospel of John (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:23, 24, 31; 20:9); and four of those times are in the context of John 6:35-65.  John 20:9 includes the word “dead” and is clearly speaking of resurrection, employing the phrase “rise again from the dead.”  John 11:31 is clearly not about resurrection, but about rising up from a sitting position.  However, while John 11:23 and John11:24 do not include the word “dead,” these two verses clearly are speaking of resurrection.  Therein we read, “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.  Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”  Indeed, Martha’s statement in John 11:25 is quite instructive; for it is clear that in her mindset “the last day” and “the resurrection” were directly connected with one another.  Yeah, the resurrection was an event that would occur “at the last day;” and “the last day” was the time period for the event of “the resurrection.”  Even so, the claim by the author of the article that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present” is found to be somewhat inaccurate.  John 11:24-25 does not include the word “dead,” yet is clearly speaking of resurrection.

So then, what about the context of John 6:35-65?  As I have mentioned, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used four times in this context, being found in verses 39, 40, 44, 54.  Thus whatever meaning this Greek verb might carry in one of these verses, it would contextually carry in all four of these verses.  What then do these four verses teach us as a whole together concerning the raising up at the last day?  In John 6:35 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “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.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is a responsibility that God the Father has given to God the Son, and that it is the opposite of God the Son’s losing an individual.  In John 6:40 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “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.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who “see” God the Son and believe on Him, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of everlasting life unto such believers.  In John 6:44 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to those who come unto God the Son through faith, in response to God the Father’s drawing.  Finally, in John 6:54 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who spiritually partake of God the Son, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of eternal life unto such partakers.  Joining these truth together, we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised work by God the Son unto those who come unto Him and partake of Him through faith, in direct connection with the gift of everlasting-eternal life, and as the direct opposite of being somehow lost by God the Son.  When we further join these truths with what we learn from John 11:24-25, it appears quite clear that the raising up at the last day is indeed a reference unto the event of the resurrection at the last day.

In the fourth place, the author of the article presented the argument and concluded his article as follows:

Quote

I am not denying that “anistemi” can mean “to raise the dead” when it is used in reference to the dead. But since the word “dead” is not in John 6:39-40, 54, “anistemi” can also mean other than rising up from the dead in these passages. I don’t think that “anistemi,” in this occasion in John 6 necessarily means rising up from the dead for the following reasons:

The taking place of the last day in Jesus’ mind during his time on earth was not after 2000 years. The last day in his thinking and in the disciples’ thinking was only a few years away, that is, in the lifetime of the disciples. Nobody during the time of Christ and of the early NT church would think that the last day will be after 2000 years. In that case, for Jesus to state the he will “resurrect” his disciples is for him to presume that they will die in the next few years since the last day, again, was not thought of as being after 2000 years or even after 200 years.

Jesus never mentioned death in relation to the “rising up” mentioned in John 6:39. This is very important since all usage of “anistemi” in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word “dead” is always present. If Jesus was presuming that his disciples will die before he comes again, then his promise in John 14:2-3 is a bit misleading since he promised them that “I will come again and receive you unto myself.” He did not say that they will go to him. Rather, he said that he will come back for them. Thus, in the last day (if it is connected to his coming) his disciples would still be alive.

In Matthew 16:27,28 Jesus said, “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing (“histemi”) here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Jesus was certain that some of his disciples would still be standing or alive when he comes back. Thus, showing that the last day, in Jesus’ thinking, is not after 2000 years and that some of his disciples (probably the Twelve) will be standing still at the last day.

In Matthew 10:23 Jesus said, “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Again, another passage that demonstrates that the disciples will be standing still until the last day.

Peter in Acts 3:19, 20 preached, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you–even Jesus.” This is what the disciples believed. They believed that Jesus will come again during their lifetime (see also Romans 13:11; James 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7)

It is possible then that when Jesus said, “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day,” he was simply saying that the Father’s will for him is to protect the disciples from any harm or death and to have them standing by (or alive) until the last day (which was a few years from that time as far as they believed it back then).

With that in mind, I would like to submit that John 6:39 does not in anyway teach that once a person is saved he will always be saved or that his salvation is eternally secured the moment s/he believes in Christ. The security of our salvation in IN Christ. As long as a person is truly IN Christ he is saved, but once he turned his/her back to the Lord, he is no longer IN Christ. John himself in the same chapter said, “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (6:66) And then Jesus himself said to the Twelve: “You do not want to leave too, do you?” (6:67)

Herein the author attempted to present an adjustment of perspective.  He implies that we need to adjust our perspective in order to view our Lord’s declaration in John 6:39 from the perspective of the disciples back then, rather than from our perspective 2,000 years later.  Indeed, the author of the article stated, “The taking place of the last day in Jesus’ mind during his time on earth was not after 2000 years.  The last day in his thinking and in the disciples’ thinking was only a few years away, that is, in the lifetime of the disciples.”  Now, it is certainly true that the disciples, during our Lord’s earthly ministry, did not have a correct perspective of God’s plan concerning Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, church administration, and second coming.  Yet for the author of the article to indicate that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was just as wrong in His own understanding of God’s plan as the disciples were is (in my opinion) edging toward blasphemy.  Our Lord Jesus Christ never had a false viewpoint concerning these things, and in John 6:39 He Himself is the One who is teaching truth from His own perfect perspective. 

Again the author of the article stated, “In that case, for Jesus to state the he will “resurrect” his disciples is for him to presume that they will die in the next few years since the last day, again, was not thought of as being after 2000 years or even after 200 years.”  Yet within this very same gospel of John, in John 21:17-19, the record is given, “He [Jesus] saith unto him [Peter] the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?  And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.  Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.  This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”  So then, our Lord Jesus Christ most certainly did recognize that at least His disciple Peter would experience death before His second coming.  Yet this creates a complicating contradiction.  IF our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in John 6:39 is to be applied at the very least unto His chosen apostles, and IF His promise in John 6:39 means that He would not lose even one of those apostles unto physical harm or death, then how could He declare His recognition that the apostle Peter would indeed experience physical death, and that through martyrdom.  IF this verse means what the author of the article indicated, then our Lord Jesus Christ was given the responsibility by God the Father not to lose even one of His chosen apostle unto physical harm or death.  Thus Peter’s death would be a failure on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ to fulfill that responsibility before God the Father, and thus that failure would cause our Lord Jesus Christ no longer to be qualified as the Savior of the world.  To these things I declare – GOD FORBID!

Yet again the author of the article stated, “If Jesus was presuming that his disciples will die before he comes again, then his promise in John 14:2-3 is a bit misleading since he promised them that ‘I will come again and receive you unto myself.’  He did not say that they will go to him.  Rather, he said that he will come back for them.  Thus, in the last day (if it is connected to his coming) his disciples would still be alive.”  Yet the New Testament teaching of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 indicates otherwise – “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”  Herein we learn that in the event of the catching up (rapture), our Lord Jesus Christ will descend from heaven and will resurrect His own who have previously died to meet Him in the clouds, in order that He might receive them unto Himself and they might ever be with Him.  The fact that they have previously died in no way brings doubt upon our Lord’s promise, for it is factored directly into His promise.

And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 16:27-28, “Jesus was certain that some of his disciples would still be standing or alive when he comes back.  Thus, showing that the last day, in Jesus’ thinking, is not after 2000 years and that some of his disciples (probably the Twelve) will be standing still at the last day.”  Now, in Matthew 16:28 our Lord Jesus Christ only applied His promise unto SOME of His disciples.  This would imply that at least some other of His disciples would indeed experience death, and would thus defeat the promise of John 6:39 for the Lord not to lose even one unto physical harm or death (IF that is what is actually intended in John 6:39, as the author of the article indicated).  Furthermore, our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled on the high mountain of His transfiguration, even as Peter indicated in 2 Peter 1:16 that he himself, James, and John were “eyewitnesses” of Jesus’ kingdom “majesty.”  And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 10:23, “Again, another passage that demonstrates that the disciples will be standing still until the last day.”  Yet this now pushes forward the false (in my opinion) teaching of preterism.

So then, Sister Rose, having thoroughly reviewed the author’s article, and having demonstrated a significant number of errors in that article, I am compelled to content that the author is simply false in his claim that John 6:39 does not teach the doctrine of eternal security.  

Do you have any further questions about the article or about my review thereof?

Edited February 24, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Alan]

12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

having thoroughly reviewed the author’s article, and having demonstrated a significant number of errors in that article, I am compelled to content that the author is simply false in his claim that John 6:39 does not teach the doctrine of eternal security.  

Thank you for the very, grammatically, detailed (in English and in Greek), study on the words of the Lord Jesus in John 6:39, and the appropriate related passages. 

In my estimation, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the author's premise was false in numerous ways and deceitful in the handling of both the English and Greek texts. You have proven that the words of the Lord Jesus in John 6:39, and its related passages, clearly teach the eternal security of the soul of the redeemed.

I appreciate the time, effort, intense study, presentation, and the good spirit, that you made in making the study.

Alan

[Jordan Kurecki]

Just so everyone knows.

Strongs Definitions, as Pastor Markle has pointed, are definitions for root words.

in Greek Morphemes are added to words to slightly change the meaning/part of speech, grammatical function, tense, mood, etc  (though not the core meaning).

for example in English the word “talk” is a root. We can modify the root “talk” in a few different ways: talk-ed creates past tense, talk-ing creates present tense.

however if hypothetically you were to put a number for Strong’s condorance, you would have 1 number for the root “talk”, you would not have 2 separate Strong’s numbers for talk-ed or talk-ing. 

Hope maybe that clears things up.

[Roselove]

Thank you, Pastor Markle! That was a very informative teaching that you gave on the article! I'm convinced about what you've said! It was a blessing!

I do have a question about the Old Testament, next. Please let me know when you're ready, I know that you are busy! 

On 2/25/2018 at 10:36 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Just so everyone knows.

Strongs Definitions, as Pastor Markle has pointed, are definitions for root words.

in Greek Morphemes are added to words to slightly change the meaning/part of speech, grammatical function, tense, mood, etc  (though not the core meaning).

for example in English the word “talk” is a root. We can modify the root “talk” in a few different ways: talk-ed creates past tense, talk-ing creates present tense.

however if hypothetically you were to put a number for Strong’s condorance, you would have 1 number for the root “talk”, you would not have 2 separate Strong’s numbers for talk-ed or talk-ing. 

Hope maybe that clears things up.

I wasn't sure how this answer fits into what he said. I get overwhelmed with a lot of this, so I was just confused about what you mean. Are you confirming what Pastor Markle said, or are you questioning something? (I'm not being argumentative, I seriously just don't understand, I'm autistic, I just get confused easily with lots of information.)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Roselove said:

I wasn't sure how this answer fits into what he said. I get overwhelmed with a lot of this, so I was just confused about what you mean. Are you confirming what Pastor Markle said, or are you questioning something? (I'm not being argumentative, I seriously just don't understand, I'm autistic, I just get confused easily with lots of information.)

Sister Rose, 

First, Brother Kurecki is a friend of mine.  Second, what he presented was NOT intended to contradict my explanation, but was intended as a further help to it.  It is always difficult when an article includes Greek or Hebrew information.  I myself have some training in those languages, and can usually follow what is going on, as well as wherein errors might be being made.  However, it is difficult to then explain this information unto an audience that may have little or no understanding of those Languages.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Roselove said:

Thank you, Pastor Markle! That was a very informative teaching that you gave on the article! I'm convinced about what you've said! It was a blessing!

I do have a question about the Old Testament, next. Please let me know when you're ready, I know that you are busy! 

Sister Rose, 

I praise the Lord that He has used my for your help and edification.  Concerning your question concerning the Old Testament, I believe that I am scheduled to handle the parable of the prodigal son next.  Then we can move to your question concerning the Old Testament.

Now, early in this thread discussion, I presented a posting concerning the teaching of eternal security from John 6:35-40 and its application unto you personally.  It was at that point wherein you presented the article as casting some doubt that John 6:35-40 actually teaches the doctrine of eternal security.  Having now given my thorough review of that article, wherein I demonstrated various errors in that article, I wish to repeat my posting from John 6:35-40 for the encouragement of your assurance in your own eternal security, as follows:

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 2:46 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 3:45 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 7:15 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I wish to apply the truths that we have gleaned from John 6:35-40 unto your personal case --

Have you yourself, "Roselove," come unto God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, through faith as personal Savior?

If you have, then:

1.  God the Father gave you unto God the Son.
2.  God the Son did not and will not cast you out.
3.  God the Father has assigned God the Son not to lose you.
4.  God the Son will certainly NOT fail God the Father in this assignment.
5.  God the Father has assigned God the Son to give you everlasting life.
6.  God the Son has indeed given you everlasting life.
7.  God the Father has assigned God the Son to raise you up at the last day.
8.  God the Son will certainly raise you up at the last day.

Your assurance of security is founded upon and rooted in the authority, power, and faithfulness of God the Father and God the Son.  Indeed, in relation to God the Son's faithfulness, your assurance of security is not only founded upon and rooted in His faithfulness unto you, but even more so is founded upon and rooted in God the Son's faithfulness unto God the Father.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Roselove]

52 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose, 

First, Brother Kurecki is a friend of mine.  Second, what he presented was NOT intended to contradict my explanation, but was intended as a further help to it.  It is always difficult when an article includes Greek or Hebrew information.  I myself have some training in those languages, and can usually follow what is going on, as well as wherein errors might be being made.  However, it is difficult to then explain this information unto an audience that may have little or no understanding of those Languages.

Okay, I didn't think he was being rude or anything, I just couldn't tell what he was talking about. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding everything, correctly. It's a lot to take in, especially after my long battle with believing salvation could be lost. I'm really striving to trust in this doctrine, because I just can't seem to live a stable life with Christ, always being worried about that kind of thing. I really enjoy getting all of this help, if I ask a lot of questions, it's not to be controversial or anything, I just tend to get overwhelmed easily, for the reason, stated above. 

Also, thank you for bringing up some of your posts from before, it really helps bring all of this info, together! I really appreciate the effort you've put into helping me understand these concerns, it has been a big blessing.

On 2/25/2018 at 10:36 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Just so everyone knows.

Strongs Definitions, as Pastor Markle has pointed, are definitions for root words.

in Greek Morphemes are added to words to slightly change the meaning/part of speech, grammatical function, tense, mood, etc  (though not the core meaning).

for example in English the word “talk” is a root. We can modify the root “talk” in a few different ways: talk-ed creates past tense, talk-ing creates present tense.

however if hypothetically you were to put a number for Strong’s condorance, you would have 1 number for the root “talk”, you would not have 2 separate Strong’s numbers for talk-ed or talk-ing. 

Hope maybe that clears things up.

Pastor Markle cleared up my question, sorry! Was just trying to get a clear understanding! 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Roselove

[Pastor Scott Markle]

34 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Okay, I didn't think he was being rude or anything, I just couldn't tell what he was talking about. 

Sister Rose, 

I certainly understood that you were not being rude, and that you were only seeking to clear up some confusion.
 

35 minutes ago, Roselove said:

 I really enjoy getting all of this help, if I ask a lot of questions, it's not to be controversial or anything, I just tend to get overwhelmed easily, for the reason, stated above. 

Also, thank you for bringing up some of your posts from before, it really helps bring all of this info, together! I really appreciate the effort you've put into helping me understand these concerns, it has been a big blessing.

As far as the time and efforts spent in order to answer your questions (even if they may be "a lot"), in many ways teaching God's truth and answering spiritual questions is the very calling of the Lord our God upon my life.  In many ways such is the very reason that I exist upon this earth.  As long as I can find the time and ability, I shall ever be glad to help in this manner.