Hey there Josh<br><br>(Josh states):<br>No, I believe that man can fail to remain Christ's people and fall short of His promises (Hebrews 4:1).<br>(fred) You responded to my question about whether or not Jesus could fail saving those whom he calls, and you answered by quoting Heb. 4:1. How exactly does Hebrews 4:1 demonstrate that Jesus is faithful to not fail, but men could possibly fall short? I sort of miss that. As I read Hebrews 4, it looks like to me that these people who may fall short did not have real faith, (see verse 2), and those who do believe will most certainly enter God's rest (see verse 3). You need to re-consider your "pet verses" you believe support conditional security in their contexts. <br><br>(fred asked Josh)<br>"Are you saying that Jesus lied, or was in error, when he told the people in Capernaum that, "all that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out." (John 6:37)?"<br>(Josh replied to Fred)<br>No. I said that all that the Father gives to Christ will come to Him, and that if one does not abide in Christ, God the Father will cut him off and cast him out (John 15:1-7).<br>(fred responds to Josh)<br>Josh, you make me wonder about your theological training. Not that you have to be a graduate from a seminary in order to read the Bible, but you need to have some rules of simple interpretation in place to at least properly handle and study it. You do not seem to employ any coherent rules of interpretation of scripture in order to answer our questions. It is not my intention to be mocking, but point out an observation. Let me show you what I mean:<br>First off, you approach my specific question about this text (as well as this entire debate) with the the theological presupposition that men must act in cooperation with God in order to be saved, or they will loose their salvation. It is a deplorable presupposition, but a presupposition none the less. <br>Next, you have an improper reading of scripture. What on earth does a discussion about salvation to the mass of people who thronged Jesus in Capernaum as recorded in John 6, have to do with an intimate conversation between Jesus and his 11 remaining apostles as recorded in John 15? Because you have this faulty approach to Bible study in place when you come to the Bible, you eisegete the text, (ie, read into the text), what you want it to say. The text of John 6 emphatically states that those individuals given by the father to Christ will not be lost, and they will be raised up on the last day. There are no conditions mentioned any where in the whole dialogue of John 6. Any conditions you want it to promote are brought there to the text by your theological presupposition. <br><br>(Fred pointed out to Josh an interesting grammatical nugget)<br>"One interesting textual note about that passage. The original language has two negatives, so that when Jesus states, "I will by no means cast out," the language of John's gospel is emphatically stating an impossibility. In other words, Jesus is so sure of what he will accomplish with the father giving his people to him, that they could never be cast out."<br>(Josh responds with his expected and typical retort):<br>It does not say that they could never be cast out, it simply says that Jesus won't. <br>(Fred responds)<br>Well Josh, this may shock you to no end, but it exactly does mean they will not be cast out. There is no way any honest evaluation of the grammar and context could yeild any other conclusion. You are basically saying the passage is not saying what it is saying! John means to record these direct statements by Christ like he did, because he wants to tell his readers that those given to Christ by the Father will never, no never, be cast out; even for not abiding (which is an impossibility as well) as you so claim.<br><br>(then Josh adds)<br>But as I pointed out above, John 15, as well as Romans 11 prove that one can be cast out for not abiding in Christ<br>(Fred responds) Yes, Josh, you did point those passages out, but you fail to realize those passages do not prove what you want them to prove.<br><br>(Josh complains)<br>I was just about to ask the same thing of you: What exactly does Revelation 22:19 mean if not what it is clearly stated? How can a man fall from grace (Galatians 5:4), and still be under God's grace? How can a man escape the corruption of the world through knowing Jesus Christ, and yet not be saved (2 Peter 2:20)?<br><br>(Fred responds) <br>Josh, all of these passages, as well as the many other "so-called" problem passages you keep raising are easily answered if you would read the text properly. Now reading the text involves more than reading the Bible with your conditional security glass in place. You need to consider context, grammar in the original language, the point of the book and so on if you wish to handle properly the word of God, or as Paul told Timothy "rightly dividing" the word of God. Maybe you could answer some of my questions to help clarify your position.<br><br>Regarding Rev. 22:19, perhaps you can explain to me why you think this is a reference to loosing salvation? Is it because of John using the phrase "book of life?" How exactly does the addition of plagues mentioned in verse 18 play into your understanding of one loosing his salvation? If I am looking at this passage the way you do, it seems like only plagues are added to the person who adds to the things in the book. Nothing is taken away. So, could the person who only adds to the book of prophecy still maintain his salvation, yet with the addition of plagues? Moreover, perhaps you can explain what it means to add or take away from the book of this prophecy? If doing either of these things is possible for a genuine Christian to do so that they loose their salvation, it would be important to know with certainty what it means exactly to add to, or take from, the book of life. Enlighten us please.<br><br>Regarding Galatians 5:4. How exactly does this teach us that we can loose our salvation? Do you know that the word translated as "fallen" literally means "to lose one's grasp on something?" It is not the word for apostasy, or turning from the truth. Considering the context of Paul's polemical letter to counteract the heresies of the Judiazers, why is it wrong to understand that Paul is telling the Galatians that by them embracing the Judiazing heresy they are placing themselves under a salvation theology that teaches works, rather than the biblical theology that teaches salvation by grace? Why is that not valid to see this verse as Paul telling the Galatians that they have slid into theological ignorance and are in need of simply being rebuked for their lack of discernment and corrected in their doctrine, rather than telling them lost their salvation? Why is it incorrect to undestand what Paul is saying to mean, "you Galatians have lost your grip on the doctrines of grace and have slid away from the truth of salvation by grace; let me help you regain your grip on the truth"? <br><br>Then regarding 2 Peter 2:20. What makes you believe that these individuals addressed by Peter were saved to begin with? It seems like to me that Peter is condemning men who were false prophets and teachers to begin with, not genuine believers who turned from Christ. Their character, as describe in chapter 2 by Peter, demonstrates that they never had any foundational change in their spiritual life. They only wanted to hook up with the Christians and the churches to gain from them for their own selfish interests. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong with my understanding of this passage.<br><br>Talk at you later<br>Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns