A Question: Eternal Life, Kingdom of God, Saved?

[Allan]

I agree that most stumble over simplicity, especially over the simplicity of salvation by grace through faith.

Apparently.

In baptist terminology, there are 3 ways to be saved...justification, sanctification, and glorification...that would be the salvation of the spirit, salvation of the soul, and salvation of the body 1Thess 5:23

Sorry, but BAPTIST terminoligy DOES NOT accomidate your opinion of 3 ways to be saved . There is only one way to be saved in common Baptist terminology.
The Jewish people were already a saved nation. so their understanding of these matters would reflect their current state...They had no need of spirit salvation...Christ's message to the Jew was to Repent...change your mind...for the kingdom of heaven is at hand...Christ was offerring the kingdom of the heavens to the Jew when he first began his ministry.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying ALL Jews are saved? Is that REALLY what you are saying?

 

[KSeeker]

Apparently.

Sorry, but BAPTIST terminoligy DOES NOT accomidate your opinion of 3 ways to be saved . There is only one way to be saved in common Baptist terminology.
.

Are you saying ALL Jews are saved? Is that REALLY what you are saying?[/QUOTE]

What i meant to say is that even Baptists (or at least the ones i've spoken with) believe that a person is saved (justification), is in the process of being presently saved (sanctification), and will one day be saved (glorification) ...(As HOPE OF GLORY has said previously)

Romans 11:26 "And so all Israel shall be saved...."

 

[J. Jump]

Are you saying ALL Jews are saved?

Can you show any evidence that ALL Jews were NOT in possession of everlasting life (saved - spiritually alive) during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry?

 

[KSeeker]

If I am not looking at this passage correctly, then how is this passage explained in light of eternal life? How can you prove that this rich young ruler was an unsaved person beyond the shadow of a doubt?

1. The rich young ruler calls Jesus --- MASTER

2. v.21-Jesus answers the young ruler's question from v.17 "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." JESUS TELLS THE YOUNG MAN TO DO SOMETHING...in order to inherit eternal life...???

3. The only fault of this young man , that i can see, is that he was rich (?) The passage does not say explicitly that he was an unsaved person.

I can't understand how this passage could be in reference to eternal life...Works cannot be added to the free gift given to those who believe.

 

[Faith alone]

If I am not looking at this passage correctly, then how is this passage explained in light of eternal life? How can you prove that this rich young ruler was an unsaved person beyond the shadow of a doubt?

1. The rich young ruler calls Jesus --- MASTER

2. v.21-Jesus answers the young ruler's question from v.17 "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." JESUS TELLS THE YOUNG MAN TO DO SOMETHING...in order to inherit eternal life...???

3. The only fault of this young man , that i can see, is that he was rich (?) The passage does not say explicitly that he was an unsaved person.

I can't understand how this passage could be in reference to eternal life...Works cannot be added to the free gift given to those who believe.

You know, KSeeker is making some good observations, as have others here. When the RYR asked Jesus about inheriting eternal life, I do not think that he was confident that he was saved and was wondering about inheritance in the kingdom. Jesus' response shows what He understood to be the real problem of the RYR.

First, Jesus responded with asking him why he called Jesus "good" when only God was good. So I think this young man had an issue with who Jesus was, Hence, he wasn't saved IMO.

Now it appears that Jesus asked him about some of the 10 commandments to reveal his real issue - he was rich. Now it was not that he needed to give up his money IOT enter the kingdom, but that he was trying to earn his way there. Jesus was trying to help him understand his problem.

WHen we are self-sufficient, and those with money typically are, we do not see our need to rely upon Christ alone. That's why Jesus saw it as a difficult thing for the rich.

Now I'd like to also comment that the word "inherit" is used in various ways in scripture. OTOneH, when we trust in Christ we are guarenteed to inherit certain things, such as eternal life, a new body, etc., but other opportunities are earned by our faithfulness. Romans 8:16, 17 refers to being "heirs of God" and also "joint-heirs of Christ." The 2nd one is conditional upon us "suffering with Him."

FA

 

[skypair]

Can you show any evidence that ALL Jews were NOT in possession of everlasting life (saved - spiritually alive) during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry?

Are you implying that the Pharisees "possessed everlasting life?"

skypair

 

[Allan]

Romans 11:26 "And so all Israel shall be saved...."

So are you saying that All Jews are saved?

Remember also that Rom 9-11 deal with Israel as people in the national sense and not regarding every single person bar none.

You quote would seem to assume that as long as you have some Jewish blood you have no need for faith because you bloodline saves you. Yet scripture say differently in John 3 (who were born not of blood..) and in Rom 9 (For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children

 

[Allan]

Can you show any evidence that ALL Jews were NOT in possession of everlasting life (saved - spiritually alive) during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry?

Yes, eternal life is given to all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and all who reject Him are damned. Read John for starters.

Can you show me where ALL Israel believes that God sent His only begotten Son and that ALL Israel believes in Him and has everlasting life? If not then they do not have it.

Scripture states eternal life is this:

Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

And scripture states repeatedly those who believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Christ He came as, not what they were looking/hoping for) will have everlasting life. And those who will not receive Him will perish under the wrath of God. John 3.
Notice particulary who it is worded regarding those who CAN have it and those DO NOT have it. Like this verse below for example:

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We know Jesus came to the Jews first and foremost and His wording here is not an 'implication' but a declaration. Stating infatically whosoever 'believes IN HIM' has everlasting life. This verse alone settles the issue of if the Jews ALL had everlasting or eternal life. Then this one (actually the whole of the chapter but bare with me) :

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus says those who don't believe do not have eternal life and the context here is Jesus talking with a Jew, and he had no clue (nor did the vast majority of Jews who 'claimed' to believe - just look at how many 'believers' were left in John 6 after he told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood) who Jesus really was.

And He ends chapter 3 with this:

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Appearently ALL Jews do not have eternal Life because they do not believe in/on Him. And if that isn't enough go back to John 1

Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

The Jews as a nation rejected Christ as Rom 10 states, but as Rom 11 shows us they will as a Nation receive Him whom they first rejected. Not every Jew rejected Christ but as a Nation or a people, they did.

 

[J. Jump]

Are you implying that the Pharisees "possessed everlasting life?"

I just repeat what Scripture says. And Scripture indicates that the Pharisees possessed everlasting life.

 

[David Lamb]

Can you show any evidence that ALL Jews were NOT in possession of everlasting life (saved - spiritually alive) during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry?

Yes. Jesus was speaking to Jews in John 10.24-28:

24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.
26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.​

Judas Iscariot was a Jew, so was the unrepentant robber on the cross beside Jesus at Calvary. Jews are being spoken of in John 12.37-41:

37 ¶ But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him,
38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"
39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.​

 

[J. Jump]

Yes, eternal life is given to all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and all who reject Him are damned.

Problem is the word "eternal" doesn't mean "everlasting." It means age-lasting. Jesus wasn't here offering life for the endless ages. He was here offering life for His coming kingdom. So if you equate "eternal" life that the gosepls speak of then your everlasting life is really only life for 1,000 years not much of an eternity if you ask me.

Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom. His kingdom will last 1,000 years.

But just to show what I'm talking about let's start at the beginning. How were people saved 10 years prior to Jesus' birth? It would be the same way that people 200 years prior to Jesus' birth were saved right? Right. And how was that?

By grace through faith apart from works.

So what were these people supposed to believe in? Well God had given them instructions on animal sacrifices that He accepted as substitutions on their behalf as the sacrifices pointed to The Sacrifice that was to come.

So their faith in what God had told them regarding this matter allowed them to receive everlasting life, because these sacrifices were offered continually as God had instructed.

The pharisees would be the best example of the spiritually saved, because they most certainly believed what God had said regarding the sacrifices.

As for believing in Christ you have to remain in the context of what He was talking about. Jesus came as the Christ, the Messiah, the King of Israel.

They were to believe in Him as their King. That is not what gives someone everlasting life. It was to be a life-long faith, not a one-time faith, which is more evidence that this wasn't speaking of spiritual salvation.

The Jews as a nation rejected Christ as Rom 10 states, but as Rom 11 shows us they will as a Nation receive Him whom they first rejected. Not every Jew rejected Christ but as a Nation or a people, they did.

Exactly! This goes even further to prove my point. Jesus came as the King to establish His kingdom. It wasn't the physical kingdom that they were expecting, but He was offering them a place of rulership in His spiritual kingdom, the kingdom of the heavens where Satan and his angels are currently ruling from.

That is what they rejected, not spiritual salvation. They were spiritually alive or they would not have been able to even understand the offer that was before them.

Scripture tells us they were spiritually blind, not dead. There's a HUGE difference there.

 

[Faith alone]

Problem is the word "eternal" doesn't mean "everlasting." It means age-lasting. Jesus wasn't here offering life for the endless ages. He was here offering life for His coming kingdom. So if you equate "eternal" life that the gosepls speak of then your everlasting life is really only life for 1,000 years not much of an eternity if you ask me.

I do not know if we want to go down this path, but I would be interested in the Greek on this one. I have researched it, and I am not convinced that it is that simple. We need to distinguish between singular and plural expressions of AIWN; between the various complex AIWN expressions, and between AIWNIOS/AIWNION and AIWN expressions. For example, an expression that essentially is translated as "into the age of the age" would and is used to express the idea of eternity, IMO, and also in the opinion of many Greek exegeticists (is that a real word? )? (Don't get me wrong. I agree that AIWN in general means "age," and we should not assume "eternity" in a simple, singular usage. When Jesus spoke of the kingdom age, we should distinguish that from eternity. I am asking about other uses.)

Comments? (Mine will have to wait until I get home tonight.)

Thx,

FA

 

[Amy.G]

Problem is the word "eternal" doesn't mean "everlasting." It means age-lasting. Jesus wasn't here offering life for the endless ages. He was here offering life for His coming kingdom. So if you equate "eternal" life that the gosepls speak of then your everlasting life is really only life for 1,000 years not much of an eternity if you ask me.

Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom. His kingdom will last 1,000 years.

But just to show what I'm talking about let's start at the beginning. How were people saved 10 years prior to Jesus' birth? It would be the same way that people 200 years prior to Jesus' birth were saved right? Right. And how was that?

By grace through faith apart from works.

So what were these people supposed to believe in? Well God had given them instructions on animal sacrifices that He accepted as substitutions on their behalf as the sacrifices pointed to The Sacrifice that was to come.

So their faith in what God had told them regarding this matter allowed them to receive everlasting life, because these sacrifices were offered continually as God had instructed.

The pharisees would be the best example of the spiritually saved, because they most certainly believed what God had said regarding the sacrifices.

As for believing in Christ you have to remain in the context of what He was talking about. Jesus came as the Christ, the Messiah, the King of Israel.

They were to believe in Him as their King. That is not what gives someone everlasting life. It was to be a life-long faith, not a one-time faith, which is more evidence that this wasn't speaking of spiritual salvation.


Exactly! This goes even further to prove my point. Jesus came as the King to establish His kingdom. It wasn't the physical kingdom that they were expecting, but He was offering them a place of rulership in His spiritual kingdom, the kingdom of the heavens where Satan and his angels are currently ruling from.

That is what they rejected, not spiritual salvation. They were spiritually alive or they would not have been able to even understand the offer that was before them.

Scripture tells us they were spiritually blind, not dead. There's a HUGE difference there.

Jhn 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am {He,} you will die in your sins."


Jhn 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? {It is} because you cannot hear My word.
Jhn 8:44 "You are of {your} father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own {nature,} for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jhn 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus said that just being the children of Abraham (in the flesh) was not enough.

Jews were not saved just because they were Jews.

He came to preach eternal salvation (the sacrifice of the Messiah that the OT sacrifices pointed to) and those who believed would be in the Kindgom.

They did expect an earthly ruler who would conquer Rome and set Israel free, which is why they didn't understand or accept Jesus. Their hearts were hardened because of their refusal to see.

 

[Allan]

Problem is the word "eternal" doesn't mean "everlasting." It means age-lasting. Jesus wasn't here offering life for the endless ages. He was here offering life for His coming kingdom. So if you equate "eternal" life that the gosepls speak of then your everlasting life is really only life for 1,000 years not much of an eternity if you ask me.

Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom. His kingdom will last 1,000 years.

But just to show what I'm talking about let's start at the beginning. How were people saved 10 years prior to Jesus' birth? It would be the same way that people 200 years prior to Jesus' birth were saved right? Right. And how was that?

By grace through faith apart from works.

So what were these people supposed to believe in? Well God had given them instructions on animal sacrifices that He accepted as substitutions on their behalf as the sacrifices pointed to The Sacrifice that was to come.

So their faith in what God had told them regarding this matter allowed them to receive everlasting life, because these sacrifices were offered continually as God had instructed.

The pharisees would be the best example of the spiritually saved, because they most certainly believed what God had said regarding the sacrifices.

As for believing in Christ you have to remain in the context of what He was talking about. Jesus came as the Christ, the Messiah, the King of Israel.

They were to believe in Him as their King. That is not what gives someone everlasting life. It was to be a life-long faith, not a one-time faith, which is more evidence that this wasn't speaking of spiritual salvation.


Exactly! This goes even further to prove my point. Jesus came as the King to establish His kingdom. It wasn't the physical kingdom that they were expecting, but He was offering them a place of rulership in His spiritual kingdom, the kingdom of the heavens where Satan and his angels are currently ruling from.

That is what they rejected, not spiritual salvation. They were spiritually alive or they would not have been able to even understand the offer that was before them.

Scripture tells us they were spiritually blind, not dead. There's a HUGE difference there.

The bulk of your argument is refuted by the scriptures which tell the Jews WERE NOT SAVED because Christ CAME to seek and to SAVE that which was lost. Jesus couldn't offer them Kingdom rulership unless they there part of the Family whereby they being heirs and joint-heirs COULD rule and riegn. The Jews were not saved. You CAN NOT prove ALL Jews are saved. Please one scripture where it states ALL Jews are saved (spiritually alive). You are bring SO MUCH baggage in the form of presumption and assumtion it is no wonder you can't distinguish what scirpture is speaking of.

BTW - Jesus also remarks that (speaking to Jews) that they were of their father the devil and not His Father in Heaven. No family ties, no life, therefore no salvation so there is absolutely no way He could offer anything of His kingdom to them. They were not of it.

 

[David Lamb]

I just repeat what Scripture says. And Scripture indicates that the Pharisees possessed everlasting life.

I seem to have overlooked those parts of scripture. Could you help me by giving the references for the passages that you say indicate that the Pharisees possessed everlasting life? Thanks.

Were you perhaps thinking of John 5.39, where Jesus is addressing some Jews (not particularly Pharisees, though of course they may have been)?

39 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."​

If so, the following verse shows that they were not saved:

40 "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."​

 

[Allan]

I do not know if we want to go down this path, but I would be interested in the Greek on this one. I have researched it, and I am not convinced that it is that simple. We need to distinguish between singular and plural expressions of AIWN; between the various complex AIWN expressions, and between AIWNIOS/AIWNION and AIWN expressions. For example, an expression that essentially is translated as "into the age of the age" would and is used to express the idea of eternity, IMO, and also in the opinion of many Greek exegeticists (is that a real word? )? (Don't get me wrong. I agree that AIWN in general means "age," and we should not assume "eternity" in a simple, singular usage. When Jesus spoke of the kingdom age, we should distinguish that from eternity. I am asking about other uses.)

Comments? (Mine will have to wait until I get home tonight.)

Thx,

FA

Yes, but what is the 'age'. We can divide up many ages in scripture which (many of us) call dispinsations. Or do we state that a thousand years is an age, or just a year. The OT and the NT can be considered different ages. The fact of the matter is that dispite the 'age' argument, they are hard pressed to state where the age (of eternal life) actaully ends and begins. If eternal life is only speaking of the 'age' of the thousand years, where is the scripture to support the paramiters of eternal life being only a thousand years and not the coming of the kingdom first unto you (spiritually) and through out eternity. I say eternity because there is no scripture that states the kingdom ends at the 1000 year mark, thus the reason it is translated 'eternal'. It states that Jesus turns it over to the Father. But it is the Kingdom of God is it not. Could this 'age' where God rules the Kingdom be the age in stead of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

See what I mean. If we can apply ANY meaning we want to the 'age' agument, then we are left with the falisy of man inventing it own truth. Everlasting means age lasting. But where does scripture say this age begins and where is its ending. I haven't found anywhere in scripture its determind ending, and thus as said before it is translated Eternal - an age without end. Though scripture does state its beginning - if we will believe we will have eternal life. The ME assumes it is the 1000 years of Christs reign but nothing in scripture says such, it must be brought to the text.

PS... I do recongnize the specific Kingdom age but it has nothing to do with eternal life being the Kingdom age.

 

[J. Jump]

Comments? (Mine will have to wait until I get home tonight.)

Faith Alone yes the Hebrew and Greek langauage had a "phrase" that related to the idea of eternity. As you have correctly pointed out it is a multimple use of the plural aion meaning from the ages to the ages or something along those lines.

However I can find no Scriptural reference to aion ever being used to describe anything that is outside of time or that is never ending. It is always used to describe a period of time. And that period of time can differ. Therefore since the root word means age the adjective can not mean something beyond that.

Jesus came preaching the kingdom. That was His message. So the life that He speaks of was life for this kingdom age. Aionios life is age-lasting life. Or life for the age.

Again if people want to equate the message of the kingdom and everlasting life together they are going to come up with an eternal salvation plan that only lasts a 1,000 years. That's just another of many reasons why these two messages aren't the same thing.

 

[Faith alone]

Yes, but what is the 'age'. We can divide up many ages in scripture which (many of us) call dispinsations. Or do we state that a thousand years is an age, or just a year. The OT and the NT can be considered different ages. The fact of the matter is that dispite the 'age' argument, they are hard pressed to state where the age (of eternal life) actaully ends and begins. If eternal life is only speaking of the 'age' of the thousand years, where is the scripture to support the paramiters of eternal life being only a thousand years and not the coming of the kingdom first unto you (spiritually) and through out eternity. I say eternity because there is no scripture that states the kingdom ends at the 1000 year mark, thus the reason it is translated 'eternal'. It states that Jesus turns it over to the Father. But it is the Kingdom of God is it not. Could this 'age' where God rules the Kingdom be the age in stead of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

See what I mean. If we can apply ANY meaning we want to the 'age' agument, then we are left with the falisy of man inventing it own truth. Everlasting means age lasting. But where does scripture say this age begins and where is its ending. I haven't found anywhere in scripture its determind ending, and thus as said before it is translated Eternal - an age without end. Though scripture does state its beginning - if we will believe we will have eternal life. The ME assumes it is the 1000 years of Christs reign but nothing in scripture says such, it must be brought to the text.

PS... I do recongnize the specific Kingdom age but it has nothing to do with eternal life being the Kingdom age.

I understand. And most dispensationalists break out the 1000-yr kingdom (millenial reign of Christ) from eternity which follows based on the last couple of chaps of Revelation.

But J. Jump is making a valid assesment that the Greek words translated as "eternity" in our Bibles are making some assumptions, and simply based on the gloss of the words, they may not all mean "eternity." I have actually done some study on the Greek of this, because a close friend of mine (on another board) was investigating UR (which is not all off-the-wall) and I wanted to look at what expressions are used in the Greek. Most of this analysis is my own - I didn't find anything on it on the net, and haven't read any books on it, so I could be way off base. But it made sense to me, and when I get a chance, I'll share it later, then you guys can think about which expressions probably mean eternity and which do not.

The two professional lexicons used regarding AIWNIOS, for example, do not fully agree. BAGD says that it always refers to eternity past to the present, the present to eternity future, or from eternity past to eternity future. (I'm trying to remember how they expressed it.) But Liddell and Scott said that it essentially refers to the horizon. I think that's the root idea. But we do have to be careful about what's referred to as the "root falacy," making too much of the root idea. Now the idea of the horizon would certainly apply for eternity, but it could also just indicate some age which is so long as to be beyond the normal human grasp. So personally, though I do consider it to always be a reference to eternity in the NT, I don't say that it must always be used in that manner.

I think the key to arguments here will be the context. (As usual.)

Take care,

FA

 

[J. Jump]

Jews were not saved just because they were Jews.

Correct. And no one has made that claim.

He came to preach eternal salvation (the sacrifice of the Messiah that the OT sacrifices pointed to) and those who believed would be in the Kindgom.

Well the OT sacrifices didn't point to the sacrifice of the Messiah per se, but the Lamb of God. Once again the difference in the two messages. The sacrifice of the Messiah is not what saves, it is the sacrifice of the Lamb that saves.

OT sacrifices didn't include sacrificing kings. They sacrificed animals.

They did expect an earthly ruler who would conquer Rome and set Israel free, which is why they didn't understand or accept Jesus. Their hearts were hardened because of their refusal to see.

ABSOLUTELY! Once again you have proven my point for me. They refused to see. They didn't have an inability to see. They were spiritually alive, but spiritually blind. There is a HUGE difference there.

 

[J. Jump]

I seem to have overlooked those parts of scripture. Could you help me by giving the references for the passages that you say indicate that the Pharisees possessed everlasting life? Thanks.

David thanks for the question. It's not that there is a reference that says all Jews possessed everlasting life, or that there is a particular reference that says the Pharisees possessed everlasting life. If you are looking for a direct reference you are going to be left wanting .

However by understanding how people were saved prior to Jesus' arrival on the earthly scene as well as some of the other Scriptural references made to these people and about these people that is the only conclusion that we can come to.

Jesus told Nicodemus that he should have understood what Jesus was talking to him about. That would be IMPOSSIBLE if Nicodemus was spiritually dead. Nicodemus was a "leader" of the Jews and he told Jesus that at least several others like him new that Jesus was come from God and he understood that because of His working of the signs. He was spiritually alive, but he didn't fully understand the spiritual message that Jesus was teaching him, becuase at that point he was spiritually blind.

Again Amy said it best. The Pharisees knew Who Jesus was, they just didn't want to have anything to do with Him and/or His message. And since they didn't they didn't want the people to either and closed up the kingdom to the people they were watching over.