#2 Two Salvations? #3 Kingdom Exclusion

A thought just hit me, like a wet fish: Universalists use some of the same passages to "prove" that everyone will be saved. How? They see the present tense and the subjunctives, but they also fail to see the distinction between the salvation of the spirit and the salvation of the soul. Most people see the salvation of the body, either as a present reality (such as being saved from a physical peril) or future, such as the resurrection, but they stop there. They fail to see that man who was created in the image of God is trichotomous, just as God is triune.

There is no place in the Bible that talks about "truly saved" or "professors, not possessors", or any such thing. Those are all man-made terms to try to explain things that seem contradictory, that when taken in context (soul/spirit) are not contradictory at all.

Most of these terms are coined to explain why works are required to be "saved", even though it's a gift, or how perishing applies to a person, or something else such as that.

And universalists (as well as those who think you can lose your salvation) use the exact same passages to come to an opposite conclusion, but for the same reason: The failure to distinguish between the soul and the spirit.

 

I'm going to mix 'n' match your quotes:

There are only two problems with this that I see, neither of which cannot be overcome: First of all, many of these things are interrelated in the topic at hand. I guess you could call them sub-topics, but they all come back to the same thing, and some of them point to each other.

The other one is, that because they're interrelated, even when you break them up and don't talk about them all at once, they cross back over, and you end up with the same deluge of sub-topics.

We can certainly agree on this!

Not all who are disobedient are going to be chastized; some are just going to fall short. Many are called; only a saved person can be called; but few are called out or elect.

Does that mean that those who don't persevere or endure are going to be punished?

I don't think so.

I think that Scripture also only points to a select few who are going to be actively chastized.

Those who continue in believing will not perish; but, those who quit believing will, and we are told that those who are believing might or might not perish. Does "perish" mean to go to the lake of fire forever? No.

But, you cannot lose something that you don't have. So, if they are believing, they are saved. (Even if they quit believing, they have believed in the aorist.) If they quit believing, what do they lose?

 

Would you mind showing the scriptural proof for this?

 

How can I show Scriptural proof for a "what if" statement?

 

I think that was the whole point. I may be wrong. But if we can support it with Scripture then the idea has to go, becuase it is not Truth.

 

It's an idea about interpretation in the same sense ME is. I'll take your advice that it needs to go.

 

The Bible is not open for interpretation. There is only Truth and untruth. You either believe the Truth that is says what it says and means what means or you believe something false about what it says or what it means, and that goes for ALL doctrine.

If ME is the Truth and which I believe the Bible shows that it is then its not an interpretation is is just the hard Truth. The Bible is not left to our own interpretation.

Just like if ME is wrong and your every saved person will be okay doctrine is right then it is not an interpretation it is Truth.

The Bible doesn't speak in what if's and interpretations. It speaks in absolute Truth.

Hope that makes sense.

 

What you have just done is interpreted what you believe truth to be, so I guess it is open for interpretation. I'm not talking about what is truthful or not, but interpretation of that truth.

 

There is no interpretation of Truth. It is either Truth or it's not. If what I believe is right then it's not a right interpretation it is just plainly believing the Truth. If what you believe is right it's not a right interpretation is just plainly believing the Truth.

There is just Truth. The Holy Spirit will guide us into all Truth, not all truthful intepretations.

 

I don't know what you are saying. Truthfully interpreting the truth...is truth. False interpretation of the truth...is not truth, so yes, there is interpratation of the truth, albeit falsely or truthfully.

 

I guess you could call it that if you wanted to, but what it is is believing a lie or believing an untruth.

 

I have read some, not all, of these threads.
Reading this in context of your other statements, you seem to be taking a very traditional Catholic approach to this.
That you better have some version of forgiveness right at the very last of your life. Otherwise, dying in a car wreck right before you confessed your one remaining sin that had not been confessed, you are in deep trouble.
On the other hand, you also seem to imply that you have to live long enough after that confession of sin to show you mean it.

How easy for someone to become wrapped up in agonizing worry over if they have confessed all their sins or confessed them enough rather than trusting in the shed blood of Christ.

 

You said somewhere that you belong to an SBC church and that you recently came to these ideas.
Please consult with your pastor.

 

I don't understand this statement. There are several kingdom believers that have been posting and not a single one of us are ridden with worry about things.

I guess if you didn't have a complete understanding then one might worry, but if you understand the doctrine there is nothing to worry about. If I have by eyes fixed on Christ there is nothing to worry about. Now if I don't have my eyes fixed on Christ, but fixed on myself and I'm living a life of open, blatant rebellion, then yes I have something to worry about.

Why would I want to do that

I was basically ran out of the previous church that my family and I attended. I have discussed these matters with numerous pastors, but why not just consult Scripture and see what it says instead of what a pastor has to say about Scripture?

 

Pastors are set up in authority over the flock. Do you have problem with submitting to authority?

 

Just shows more of the self-righteous attitude.

I don't need your advice. I don't need your guidance.

 

Sure do if that authority is telling me something that is outside of Scripture! If they are within Scripture then I have absolutely no problem with submitting to pastoral authority.

 

Reject the pastor and follow a false doctrine of Kingdom Exclusion?

Jumping out of the boat to sink in a sea of garbage.

 

Boy you people need to take a class in humor. It was called a JOKE . . . that's J O K E . . . hence the JOKE - you know where people go ha, ha, ha, ha afterwards.

Now this is not a joke - do I need to make that disclaimer everytime now?

I actually had a four-hour meeting with the pastor of the church we were attending. And we continued to share email back and forth and is basic argument is you are wrong and you need to believe me because I am a pastor and have gone to seminary.

I was even told at one point that he didn't have time to deal with me and this issue.

So how's that for consulting a pastor. The guy didn't even have time for a member of his own flock. I have my ideas why, but that's neither here nor there.

Just because someone is an SBC pastor doesn't make them right 100% of the time. I am a licensed minister myself, and have been considered for numerous pastoral positions and even called to pastor a church, but all that doesn't mean a hill of beans if I am outside of Scripture.

Do I think we should consult those that are in authority over us. Sure we should, but ultimately I have to trust the Holy Spirit to lead me and guide me into all Truth, for it is not the pastor that I am going to have to answer to in the final analysis.