#2 Two Salvations? #3 Kingdom Exclusion

Thanks Tim for actually debating and not slinging rhetoric. And please, by all means . . suggest!

Lacy

 

Jason, quit acting like a child.

 

We were doing good until we got to post 142 and you quit on me. No hurry, but I am curious as to your answers, because you said no Christian was ever warned of hell. It seems to me that these questions raise some serious problems with that position.

?????Does the phrase "ye belong to Christ" in Mark 9:41 mean that John was eternally saved?

??????In verse 9:50, who is Jesus addressing?

????In Mark 9:38, John is speaking. When the Lord answers him, who does the "thy" (second person singular) refer to in Mark 9:43?

Lacy

ps. goodnight all. May God bless your studies.

 

SFIC you are a riot. Your posts just keep getting better and better. That's great. I can't wait for the next one.

 

You're stupid and heretical and obviouly blind to the truth!

Well, I tried the Diggin method of "debate", but it just doesn't do it for me. So, I'll try Scripture and reason.

To begin with, I would suggest you educate yourself on the doctrin of Purgatory, so you will know about that of which you speak:

Purgatory

 

If this sort of argument was not so pathetic, it would be almost funny. I hear people twist Scriptures to make it fit doctrine all the time, and sadly enough, they believe it. This is a perfect example.

Let's take a look at the places that this is mentioned and let's see which one says that he was talking to Satan through Peter who had let him do so:

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mark 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

I've been searching, and the only place that I can find that he said this to Satan is in Luke 4:8, in which he is speaking directly to Satan: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your knowledge as to which verse tells us that he was speaking to Satan and not to Peter. Feel free to use the Greek if you so choose.

 

You're right, James. Of course, the Catholics are pro-life, so apparently, we need to become pro-abortion to oppose their obviously false teachings.

 

acquaint yourself with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God instead of believing the lies of the KE doctrine. You keep preaching that lie about the saved being excluded from entering the kingdom, and you will join the lost in the lake of fire.

 

Oh, yeah, I forgot to condemn you to the lake of fire for your cultish heretical beliefs! I'm falling short of the Diggin method of debate. If you don't have Scripture, gotta condemn 'em and call 'em heretics. Don't worry, Diggin, I'm a fast learner, and I'll learn to debate just like you in not time at all!

Now, back to the discussion at hand:

John 3:16: "Believe" is present tense; it's continuous action, and it can stop.

"Should not perish" is subjunctive; the ones believing might or might not perish.

"Have" is also subjunctive.

The one believing in the present tense might not (but might) perish, and might (or might not) have aionian life.

If one stops believing, what happens?

How does this verse fit in with everlasting security?

 

I had to come in here and add a post that is a bit of a non sequiter:

Diggin (and others using his method of debate), why is it that there are those who can disagree with us vehemently, yet they can debate civilly, and look at the Scripture posted, answer it, post Scripture of their own, and behave in a manner that is becoming of Christian fellowship, yet you come on here, don't confront any Scripture that is posted (in fact, you tend to completely ignore it), then spout off the seemingly hate-filled rhetoric that because you say so, we're all going to hell and we're all heretics, and we're all stupid?

I admit that I do lose my temper from time to time, particularly when people lie about what I have said. SFiC and Linda are bad about that as well; you're not alone. They have accused us over and over of teaching a works based salvation, when they claim that if you don't have works to prove you're saved, then you were never "truly saved". (Which is an anti-biblical expression that is used by many, although I'm not sure right off-hand if they have quoted it exactly, and it's not worth the effort to look it up.)

Linda comes on here and spreads lies and slander about men, but at least she posts a few Scriptures to try to support her beliefs.

Tim and WebDog are two of the few people who are participating in this debate without being hateful; they are debating in a Christian manner, and are presenting Scriptural support. They are responding to the Scriptures that we are posting, and we are responding to theirs, and it is a civil debate.

And it's much more productive than, "You're a cult (or Catholic or whatever other false accusation you want to sling) and a heretic and you're obviously not saved and you're going to hell!"

Why not simply participate in a civil manner worthy of Christian fellowship?

 

HoG,

I have given scripture over and over to prove your belief that the saved can be excluded from the kingdom is false.

The problem is, you and others are too blind to the truth.

I will pray for you. Our conversation is over. May God show you the error of your ways before it is too late.

Revelation 21:8 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

PURGATORY

(to purge; to cleanse). According to Roman Catholic theology, purgatory is a place or state where Christians go after death to suffer for sins not cleansed during their earthly existence. After an unspecified time of purgation, the soul is thought to go to Heaven. It is said to be a place of suffering. Until recent years, purgatory was described as a place of fiery pain, but many Catholic priests today teach that the fires of purgatory as taught in former days might be symbolic. Masses are said for the dead in the belief that rituals and prayers can help speed the soul's escape from purgatory. Even popes are not thought to be exempt from purgatory. When Pope Paul died, special masses were performed all over the world to help him out of purgatory.

"The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in Purgatory, the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who have not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions, are cleansed after death with punishment designed to purge away their debt" (Vatican Council II, p. 75).

Way of Life Encyclopedia

 

Brawwwwwwk! Bawk bawk bawk bawk:tongue3:

Bacawk!

 

Well Linda the difference between what the Bible says about missing out on the kingdom and the Catholics purgatory is that the Bible says it is for a specific time. It is 1,000 years not a day longer and not a day shorter. And there is nothing that anyone can do to cut their time short.

And so I will ask a question back to you in light of what you have posted, and that is if all of our sins have been cleansed and there is nothing that we can be held accountable for then why do I have to confess my sins? If God has already dealt with my sins then He says the have been removed as far as the east is from the west never to be remembered again, but yet if I confess I am reminding God of something that He is not supposed to remember anymore.

If my sins are already forgiven why am I confessing for forgivness that already exists. There would be not need.

 

Sorry I couldnt get back on last night, I went to bed early,
And I can only post this today, gotta get some stuff done....

But here is my Question/comment concerning Peter...

At what point was Peter, and the rest of the disciples saved?

Once we are saved, the Holy Ghost comes in, and seals our salvation.

But since Peter and the rest were following Jesus before Pentecost, they had no way of sealing their salvation.

And why did Jesus breathe on them for them to receive the Holy Spirit?


I was thinking last night, (dangerous for me, but oh well)
some of the stuff Jesus said to the apostles, may applied to them because they were not sealed with the Holy spirit yet.

And maybe Satan was allowed to enter Peter, the way he entered Judas, because the Holy Spirit wasn't in Peter's heart to keep him out....

That is the reason we can't get possesed by demons... We have God in us keeping them away. But the disciples would not have had the Holy Spirit in their heart...

Sooooo were they saved before Jesus breathed the Holy Ghost into them? if not, that changes a dynamic.

 

Matthew 16:15-17
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

If he wasn't saved by this time, then I don't know the Gospel and I'm probably not saved either. I'm sure there are some that would agree.

But this is really the crux of the matter. How does one become a child of God, and what must they do to stay a child of God? In my understanding, I did nothing to become a child of God and I'll do nothing to stay a child of God. Nobody had to lay hands on me or annoint me with oil. I believed on the Lord and I was saved.

 

I tend to agree and had prepared this post on the “cast away” thing but decided not to bother; but since you found the word I was looking for (sealed) I’ll give my 2 cents.

In 1Cor 9:27 when Paul speaks of himself being a castaway he is referring to being unapproved when preaching to others by a poor example in the struggle to gain the weak; he could not be talking about losing salvation as he just got finished saying he was “incorruptible” in verses 25.

G862
ἄφθαρτος
aphthartos
af'-thar-tos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G5351; undecaying (in essence or continuance): - not (in-, un-) corruptible, immortal.

Then brought up is a comparison of cast away in Luke 9:25 which is not even the same word in the Greek.

In Luke 9:25 Jesus is instructing these men in discipleship, to pick up their cross and follow Him. Jesus had just commanded His disciples not to tell anyone as the crucifixion was yet to come, then resumed teaching that a man must lose his spiritual life meaning following Him and not being ashamed of His words.

The subject is “whom” do they, both the people and His disciples, say He is? His disciples were learning who He was and what it meant to follow Him.

You are far from it if trying to proving a second salvation or loss of salvation as these men were just learning and understanding who Jesus was. Before the understanding of Who He was and what it meant to be in Him by believing and dying to self spiritually the point about being “cast away” is groundless as it would apply to some that did not yet have that belief or knowledge.

Furthermore the scripture suggest that God would not cast away His people that were election of grace and not by works.

(Rom 11:1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


(Rom 11:5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

 

Ok, I thought of that also.... but was he sealed with the Holy Ghost at that point?

It has been my understanding that the Holy Ghost would come and go to individuals in the OT, but resides with a saved person now, since pentecost.... IOWS, He is not going to leave me.. He indwells me permanently.

Now, it was before pentecost when Peter made the above statement....
So, is it possible that Peter could have lost his salvation before pentecost, but after the HS came and indwelt the believers at pentecost it is now not possible to lose salvation.

I guess what I am asking is, "what kept Peter saved between the time of making his statement of belief, and the indwelling of the HS?"

 

I think this is a question every man has to work out in his own heart.

 

Again, I tend to agree about the indwelling of the HS and look to the ministration of the Spirit difference between the OT and NT. 2Cor 3