OSAS vs. Heb 6

Okay, I have read back through the entire thread and the main confusion I am still having:

Where does Christ distinguish between "inheritance" and "salvation"?

Furthermore, what exactly IS "inheritance" in Heaven?

I have a few more questions, but they depend upon these answers.

 

Jesusrocks: //Where does Christ distinguish between "inheritance" and "salvation"?//

Jesus did not have an explicit discussion on this mattter.
So your question is invalid. But your question does show the
problem all of us have here. We are trying to go way beond
what the scripture says with our questions. The Bible only contains
a limited amount of data points. The rest of our questions
lie between the data points or outside the data set.
We HAVE to make certain principles that we get from the Bible
and STICK WITH THEM. These principles are called 'doctrines'.

One big hang up people have is:

My doctrine is from the Bible; your doctrine is either
'of men' or 'of the devils'.

Pleae note, we do NOT agree on the Scriptural Doctrines,
how can we ever agree on the extra-data points?.

Galations 5:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
For brethren, ye haue beene called vnto liberty,
onely vse not libertie for an occasion to the
flesh, but by loue serue one another.

This verse preculdes some 90% of the questions that people
have about OSAS and what they say about it.

Sorry, if you are saved, you do NOT sit around making
excuses to sin. Saved persons do work with Jesus to become
more Christ-like; and saved persons.
Much of the Bible tells what saved persons do and don't do.

 

Absolutely, Ed. That's called lawlessness. (Often translated as "iniquity" in the KJV.) Or, willful sin, depending upon the heart attitude.

 

Amen Hope and Glory

Amen Amen Amen


Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.

 

Once we're' saved, the "Soul" is "sealed", but the flesh continues to sin, what happen to these "sins of the flesh"??

The "flesh" will evenually "paid those wages", it will die.

The OT saints made sacrifices, according to God commandments and their sins were "forgiven", or "Payment Postponed" until a later date when Jesus "took away sin" by fulfilling the law.

NO MAN comes to the Father but by me.

If we continue to sin, not following God commandments, we don't repent, so our sins are not "postponed" to a later date for the flesh to die, we can "shorten" our life.

Our "Bodies" are the "temple of God", if we allow the "old man, flesh", to be resurrected and "Rule", it's the equivalent of the AC sitting in the temple of God, showing himself to be God.


1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?


17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

This is "Death of the flesh", not the Soul, you have to first be saved before becoming a "temple of God".

For those who continue to sin without "repenting", it's a "sin unto death".

1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Here's what Paul said to do with such a person, and it's the same thing God does to "Israel" during the trib for "rebelling" (Rejecting Jesus) against him.

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

How is my question invalid because Christ doesn't make the distinction? ...Doesn't that make the premise invalid?

 

If you want to stay at the milk stage,
carry on, you have it all figured out.
If you would like to eat meat with some of the
others, go beyond what is said.

I beleive that in the rapture every
child below the age of accountability
will be raptured off the earth, including
pregnant women's babies. There will be
no births for seven years.

However, you will not find an explicit
discussion in the Bible of 'age of accountability"
nor of the fetuses of women being
raptured. All these things are implicit
to the Bible not explicit.

The Bible never mentiones 'velcro' but I
use it to keep my shoes on my feet.
In fact, shoes are not mentioned, but sandals
are mentioned.

 

Mr. Edwards,

I see your point.

However, I am failing to see anywhere in this discussion such a distinction, even implicitly in the Scripture between inheritance and salvation. I have seen the distinction made in regards to "rewards" based on merit, but no such distinction of "inheritance" which has yet to even be defined.

More importantly, however, I am concerned with the fact that since I asked the question no one has replied with WHAT exactly is "inheritance" in Heaven, under the context of this thread...

 

Believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and one will no doubt be saved. Perhaps you do not believe this, but His Name completes the classical Greek verb tense, as He is completeness. Note also this is not past tense for it is now that we believe. Now is the time of Salvation. It will be too late if one tries to look back (witness Lot’s wife). We look up and forward, communicating in the Holy Spirit to being with God the Father our Savior, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Christian faith, ituttut

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by jesusrocks:
Okay, I have read back through the entire thread and the main confusion I am still having:

Where does Christ distinguish between "inheritance" and "salvation"?

If we are saved, we inherit Christ. Christ’s inheritance includes we that are saved.

Until Jesus died, His inheritance was not attainable. Until Jesus died, salvation could not be accomplished. This is the reason that the Jew was “conditionally saved” and had to endure until the end to be held in separation in the earth from the nonbelievers. The holding place for the saved became Paradise when Jesus died, and is today in heaven, after His first ascension.

As we are dead to sin, being crucified with Him at the Cross, we are “unconditionally” saved for we are His inheritance.

Furthermore, what exactly IS "inheritance" in Heaven?

I have a few more questions, but they depend upon these answers. [/QUOTE]

We belong to Him. The Jew inherits the earth in the kingdom of God, and we today in the Body of Christ inherit Him in the kingdom of God. Christian faith, ituttut

 

First of all, our inheritance is in the coming Kingdom. The OT, which is given to us as examples is chock full of examples of inheritance. Take the example of Jacob and Esau. Jacob esteemed the inheritance, Esau did not. Esau lost the double portion of the firstborn, as well as the blessing of the firstborn. (Don't look to him as a type of the lost, though; he still had an inheritance, he just lost the better part.)

Also, look to Isaac and Ishamael. Ishmael had an inheritance. He was the son under law instead of under grace. Although Isaac got the better inheritance by far, Ishamel still had an inheritance.

Salvation is not inheritance. Inheritance is a family matter. Inheritance is what you get, basically.

Would you mind backing this up with a Greek grammar text?

If it were "now", it would be present tense. It is aorist tense. It is punctiliar action. It's an event. The aorist tense is graphed as a dot on a timeline. The aorist tense can be stopped.

In Acts 16:31, if you believe (aorist tense; an event) on the Lord Jesus ("Christ" is not in the original), you will (indicative; a simple statement of fact) be saved. Period. No works involved, no obedience, no strings attached. In this verse, if you stop believing, you have still believed in the aorist tense. If you can lose your common salvation, then God is a liar and the Scriptures have error, and it's all useless because God is faulty. (He's not faulty, and he's not a liar, BTW.)

Obedience has to do with inheritance; inheritance is a family matter (you don't inherit anything from the stranger down the street, do you?); you are born into the family when you believe (aorist); you are placed into a position of son-ship by doing the will of the father; if you do the will of the father, you will have a better inheritance.

 

Matthew 25, is the first one that comes to mind. 1 John 4, as well.

Not if you're an unfaithful or unprofitable servant. You will be cast into outer darkness. You will be a subject and not a sovereign.

 

God question. I do wonder why you ask how Jesus distinguishes between inheritance and salvation... Paul has more to say about it. Isn't that acceptable?

But Jesus does talk about it:

The parable of the minas in Luke 19 IMO does just that:

Look at these people involved in this parable:

The king (Christ - coming as King over His kingdom)
10 servants: (all servants - if they are serving God, are "saved.")
1st servant - took his 1 mina and earned 10 - was praised ("well done. good servant!") and rewarded with authority over 10 towns.
2nd servant - took his 1 mina and earned 5 - was rewarded with authority over 10 towns. (Was not praised, though)
3rd servant - made excuses for his laziness and worldliness - the one mina he had was taken from him and no authority over any towns given to him.

Citizens (His subjects) who said that they didn't want Him to rule over them - called them "enemies" and they were taken out and slaughtered.

So we see faithful servants who are rewarded to various degrees. We see an unfaithful servant (notice the assumption - perhaps - that more will be faithful) who is criticized and no inheritance or authority is given to him. Then we have His "subjects" who are not saved - they were taken out to be executed. They will be executed in His presence. Notice that essentially not wanting God to rule over you is an indication that you are not saved. Some of those who do acknowledge His Lordship will yet be very unfaithful.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3 refers to the "natural man" (who does not know God and is not saved), the "fleshly" (or "carnal" - "fleshly is a better translation of SARKINOS) man who are Christians but acting "like mere men," and the spiritual man who are eating solid meat of the Word.

Paul spoke of crowns, as did James, and about the BEMA seat of Christ. The BEMA seat was not a place of judgment, strictly speaking. The Greeks referred to the BEMA seat where a judge awarded the participants in their olympic contests with a garland if they won. He didn't punish those who did not win - he awarded those who did. Jesus' parables refers to a negative side ofsuch judgment. But John 5:24 says that the one who hjears His word and believes in His who sent Him has eternal life. Then He said that he would not come into judgment (or "condemnation" - KRISIS) but has crossed over out of death into life.

Later in chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians Paul said:

FA

 

Matthew 25, is the first one that comes to mind. 1 John 4, as well.

Not if you're an unfaithful or unprofitable servant. You will be cast into outer darkness. You will be a subject and not a sovereign. </font>[/QUOTE]There are various views on this. Some see this "chastisement" as enduring throughout the 1000-yr. kingdom reign, while others see it as more temporal in nature. Personally, I see the criticism by Christ as short-lived, but we will have lost those opportunities to reign with Him. That will certainly endure throughout the kingdom reign of our Messiah (Christ), though those who are not rewarded will be in the kingdom, but have missed some crucial opportunities.

I do not think that after eternity begins (after the new heaven, and new earth) that such distinctions will continue... but scripture does not seem to address that. So who wants to take a chance? Let's serve Him faithfully now. For every glass of water will be rewarded.

His disciples used to argue over who would be greatest in the kingdom. Jesus tried to correct their thinking regarding how that was accomplished - by serving. But he did not correct them for desiring to reap such rewards.

FA

 

Also, like the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance, there will be great benefits for just being in the kingdom. And there will be certain inheritance that all sons will gain regardless - such as our new bodies, for example.

But those who are faithful can be joint-heirs with Christ. The first-born received a doube portion, and we can share in that - if we are faithful servants. i want to hear, "Well done though good and faithful servant." Wow.

FA

 

What is "what we get"?

WHAT do we get?

 

The text doesn't actually say that. We have to remember that this is allegorical language. The unfaithful servant does not become a subject. Where does it say that in Luke 19? Jesus specifically distinguishes between the faithful servants, the unfaithful servant, and the subjects who rejected His rule. The unfaithful servant never rejected His rule. He was merely lazy. He lost his reward.
FA

 

All that sin, willful or not, was covered by the blood of Jesus. Are you saying that His blood was not sufficient to pay the penalty for all of my sin? (I don't think so.)

According to 1 John 3:4, sin is lawlessness (or the breaking of the law). For us to have to later be accused for any sin would be double jeopardy.

But how about Hebrews 6? Any comments on what I posted on it yesterday?

Thx,

FA

 

Matthew 25, is the first one that comes to mind. 1 John 4, as well.</font>[/QUOTE]1 John 4:17-18 (KJV1611 Edtion):
Herein is our loue made perfect,
that wee may haue boldnesse in the day
of Iudgement, because as hee is, so are
we in this world.
18 There is no feare in loue,
but perfect loue casteth out feare:
because feare hath torment: hee that feareth,
is not made perfect in loue.

My Bible says that if we fear 1,000
years of future punishment we cannot become
complete (i.e. saved) in God's Love.

BTW, Matthew 25 is several parables
to go with what Jesus said in Matthew 24.
Not only are you going to have to
specify specific verses in Matthew 25 and
1 John 4, you are going to show how the
words there show the 1,000 year punishment
of God's saved. BTW, doesn't 'saved'
mean 'spared from actual punishment'?

Sorry, i've read these scripturs for 41
years as an adult person and a Christian
(saved person) and never did see no
1,000 years punishment for sins that
were supposed to be FORGIVEN SINS.

 

Well, since my questions remain still yet unanswered completely (oh sure, I've been tossed "implicit" references with really no explanation of how one gets to such an interpretation) but some aspects of my questions--and attempts to understand have gone completely ignored... which is rather frustrating. I know everyone is busy, but a grunt of acknowledgment of my questions--even a simple "hey jesusrocks/jr/whatever, saw the post, thinking about it" would be nice.

The hinge--and even the core of this discussion at the moment relies on WHAT the "inheritance" is, if this can be answered, perhaps we can reach agreement. If not, what are you trying to demonstrate to me?