In dealing with the issue of a Christian being able to "Forfeit" their salvation is made abundantly clear throughout the New Testament. So let's also deal with a particular passage which I believe demonstrates this concept as well.
The Seven letters of Revelation were written to Seven literal Christian Churches, not "church ages". Jesus had good things to say about these churches and bad things to say as well. Each one irregardless of their praise or rebuke were given a warning. Each one was told of the need to "Overcome" if they expected to inherit various things including eternal life. These letters were written to Christians, real Christians, Born Again Believers.
Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat of the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
What happens if one does not "Overcome"? They don't get to eat from the "Tree of Life".
Rev 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They will be hurt by the Second Death.
Rev 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give to him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knows except he who receives it .
What happens to those who do not overcome? They don't get to eat of the "Hidden Manna".
Rev 2:26 And he who overcomes and keeps My works to the end, to him I will give power over the nations.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They do not receive power over the Nations.
****Rev 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not BLOT OUT HIS NAME FROM the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.****
What happens to those who do not overcome? Their names are blotted out from the Book of Life! They Forfeited their salvation!
Rev 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They do not become a new pillar, they do not get God's name written on them nor Jesus' new name?
Rev 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
What happens to those who do not overcome? They do not get to sit down with Jesus on His Throne!
Rev 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. NKJV
Here we see Jesus making a very clear statement that it is entirely possible to remove someone from the Book of Life. To be in the Book of Life one must first be a true believer and that is obvious or else they would not be in the Book of Life to begin with. So if Jesus is warning CHRISTIANS of this very real possibility then the idea of a Christian "Forfeiting" their salvation, committing Apostasy is no doubt very real.
The False Teachings of "Once Saved Always Saved" and "Calvinism" flies in the face of these Scriptures, among others.
I still think this problem you guys are having is very simply explained just from the bible. Jesus said no one can snatch you out of His hand. True. But the bible also says that God will cut you off. The righteousness of the righteous will not save him when he sins against God. I believe it is possible for God to throw you out of His hand.
What about, I will never leave you nor forsake you? Or Whatever work I have started in you I will finish?
Walter, this is typical of the commentaries I have found:
Which (o). Who. If o (which) is correct, we have to take o pathr as nominative absolute or independent, "As for my Father." Is greater than all (pantwn meizwn estin). If we read o. But Aleph B L W read o and A B Theta have meizon. The neuter seems to be correct (Westcott and Hort). But is it? If so, the meaning is: "As for my Father, that which he hath given me is greater than all." But the context calls for o ... meizwn with o pathr as the subject of estin. The greatness of the Father, not of the flock, is the ground of the safety of the flock. Hence the conclusion that "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
At work so I am limited in my response for now. My impression of the conclusion he is try to come to is that God is so great that no one can be snatched from His hand and while that is true he does not address a person's free will to walk away. Additionally he doesn't go anywhere near the grammar of the verb "pluck". He can't because if he does the verb shows it is in the "Active Voice" and it settles the argument in that you cannot be the person who is unable to pluck. Does that make sense?
Oh....I gave the Greek for verse 28 not 29 which of course he says the same thing and cannot contradict Himself.
Regarding Hebrews 13:5 "I will never leave you nor forsake you". Paul was referring them to Deut 31;6. It is very important to read the whole passage as later God quakifies His statement and shows it is conditional. Verse 160and 17 shows that because Israel will go after other gods and play the harlot that He will then forsake them.
Hebrews 13:5 does not at all support OSAS but actually shows the true Arminian position and refutes OSAS.
God will always do His part. We can always have faith in that. But...there has to be a concession that it is possible for a righteous man to fall and be cut off...because that's what the bible says as well. And if you reconcile those verses together, it means that God is not going to force us to stay if we come to love sin more than Him. God cannot tolerate a sinful attitude, and He will cut such a person off "the vine"...which implies they were already on it("saved").
I have to disagree about verses 28 and 29 being the same. In 28 the word anyone is used and in 29, no one. In English this does not amount to much, but in Greek it makes all the difference. For one, anyone is a personal pronoun and subject to all the rules of such, but the Greek word for no one, or none, is not a personal pronoun and not subject to fitting into a "person" category. The verb chosen seems to fit better with 29 than 28, since it was derived from the word meaning to do something to oneself.
Thus it seems that we have two verses back to back that contradict each other. Now we know that cannot be, so we have to keep digging to find the truth. This is turning into work. If I had done my homework, I wouldn't have answered this one. It is not going to be easy. Now we know why most of the scholars didn't get into this part of this scripture, but concentrated on others.
I found some that supported both sides, but all of them were biased by their own beliefs. I didn't even bother posting them, they turned my stomach.
I am tired right now, but will get back to this tomorrow and let you know what I find.
Thanks for making me dig a little deeper. Now I am assured of my view and have no more doubts. Yes, you had me doubting once or twice there.
In the verse neither shall any pluck is kia ou tis due to the use of the absolute double negative and this particular conjunctive form tis must be "any thing" in the broad absolute as this combination is never translated "a certain" in any scripture which would be needed for a limiting application. As such it would literally include everything including the acts and sins of the man. So literally absolutely nothing can force us from the hand of God an all inclusive statement due to the grammar.
Sorry Bro. but you are still not getting this. The Verb Pluck determines the function of the pronoun. You cannot be included in the "anyone". Yes it is true that no external force, no person can take us away from Christ. BUT that does not include you from walking away from Christ. Verse 29 makes this even more pointed. Different words are used but the result is the same. There is no contradiction between 28 & 29. The rules of Grammar simply does not allow you to make the conclusion you are making.
But let's do this. If it were true that we, ourselves were not able to walk away from Christ, then how do you explain the Biblical fact that Apostasy does and will occur?
Heb 3:12-14
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of UNBELIEF,...... in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; (KJV)
Let's examine some key points here.
1) This passage is clearly addressed to the "Brethern". These are Christians. Jewish Christians but Christians nevertheless.
2) The warning is concerning Christians possibly developing an evil heart of "UNBELIEF" and if so, their departing from the living God. You cannot depart from God unless you are with God to begin with. How does this occur?
3)" lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin". Here we see that staying in a sinful lifestyle can harden a Christian's heart. That is what sin does. It hardens a person's heart to a point that they can fall back to a state of UNbelief and depart from God. This is what Apostasy is. A total rejection of Christ BY a Christian believer. Hardening is something that does not occur over night. It takes time but for each individual that time will vary.
4) 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Here is the condition placed upon our salvation. We are made partakers of Christ, ..."IF" we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end. What does that mean? It means that as long as we continue to believe in Christ, then we will remain a partaker of Christ.
Paul also related this same situation to the Christians in Rome. Paul was explaining to these Gentile Christians about unbelieving Israel and how some of the natural branches (Jews) were broken off so that Gentile Christians could be grafted into the vine. Then Paul gives a similar warning as Christ did.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. NKJV
Paul was warning these Gentile Christians not to be haughty but to fear. In other words do not be so secure in thinking that it is not possible for you as a Christian to fall back into "unbelief" and be cut off from God just as some Jews were.
According to Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, "Apostasy" is defined as "the determined willful rejection of Christ and His teachings by a Christian Believer [Heb. 10:26-29; John 15:22]. This is different from false belief, or error, which is the result of ignorance."
The nature of apostasy requires that one be a believer first, then turn away from God.
2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away [APOSTASY]comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
If your interpretation of John10:28-29 was as you believe then we have a clear contradiction in scriptures that tell us that Christians can and will deny Christ and abandon their faith and be eternally damned.
If what I am saying is correct then John 10:28-29 harmonizes perfectly with all these other scriptures and others.
Mat 24:10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.
Mat 24:11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.
Mat 24:12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
Mat 24:13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
I think I explained this in one of the first posts, but here goes again.
I believe it is impossible for one of God's true believers to walk away, they love and adore Him way too much for that to happen, so that leaves only deception. They will "take the mark". Deception is the only tool Satan has against a true believer.
We know from scripture that Satan will stand in the temple in Jerusalem claiming to be God and that many will be deceived. How? Because he will tell you he is Jesus come to take you up (Rapture) with him. He will tell you that he will give your families another chance, just bring them to me so I can prove I am Jesus. Do you see the link in the scriptures? Mother against daughter, wife against husband? They think they are doing the right thing, but they are delivering them up to the temple of Satan. We are instructed to not try to speak form ourselves in that day, for the Holy Spirit will speak through us.
Does any of that sound familiar? It's all through the bible prophesies. I am just putting it into a perspective we can understand. So those who are deceived will worship Satan as Christ, thus Apostacy. Now a willful turning away, but being deceived will turn to other Gods.
Remember two things,
1) the Anti-christ comes first, and
2)you will never meet Jesus in your physical body.
As for not getting it, you better check again. The double negative alone, without the choice of pronoun in 29, blows your theory out of the water and opens the background of the verb itself, which shows the oneself was the primary thing in discussion.
Here is what a friend, who teaches biblical languages in Seminary had to say when I emailed him about it;
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
the above is in reference to 28 man does not really appear it is added in in some translations.
In 29 you are right it uses a neuter pronoun oodice which would more correctly read nothing not no man once again a neuter all inclusive term in agreement with the grammar of the preceding verse. if it was intended to be male no man it should have used oodemeeah. This also agrees with the use of pas :all: ( a primary greek word and all inclusive root form) in the verse. is greater than all it does not say is greater than man as it should for pronoun agreement if man was ment in the other places. The entire passage relates to God being greater than everything and nothing having power to take us from His grasp.
A very comforting passage for every believer not sure why anyone would try to degrade it. Terry
Pronoun agreement does not count in this context. That is what I have been trying to get across to you. It is obvious and simple, just as it should be.
On that point there is a bit of an issue while according to Thayer and others the verb CAN be used in the first person to mean to seize on, claim for one�s self eagerly, this verb isn't used often in the Bible and does only appear in the third person but that is to be expected as much of the NT is written in third person telling stories or relating the work of the Spirit or God. While it is not citable in the first person or definately including self in everything it can be used that way and does not force a change of the pronoun to mean other men but not self. The absolute inclusiveness of the double negative makes it impossible to add exceptions to the pronoun with out agreement problems.
