Colossians 1:23

Man is material and immaterial. The Bible uses the terms soul and spirit interchangeably, which you can find simply by doing a word search. The image of God is not connected to the trichotomy or dichotomy of man. Howeveer, that is a minor point.

Not sure what Gen 2:7 has to do with this but 1 Thes 5:23 is talking about the whole man, complete sanctification and preservation, which interestingly enough disproves your whole thesis. Salvation does bring sanctififcation to the entire man.

1 Thess 5:23 almost makes me a trichotomist, and I have no real issues to it. What sways me the other way is that the terms soul and spirit are used to refer to the same thing. Soul is sometimes used to refer to the body (material), and sometimes used to refer to the spirit (or immaterial). But again, that is pretty irrelevant here.

So does our eternal life end after the thousand years? Or does aionious also mean eternal when connected with humanity as well?

Of course, it is obvious that eternal life means without end, not just in the millennial kingdom.

Notice how your predetermine conclusion ruled your reading of the text. You essentially said "John can't be talkign about that because I don't believe that." That is a bad way to do theology.

So far, I have yet to find any, but feel free to point out what you think are some contradictions. If I have time I will address them.

I think you are changing the use of guarantee. Works are guaranteed to be in teh life of a believer. Works are not a guarantee of eternal life. You started using the second usage, apparently; and now have switched. Being more careful with your words would stop a lot of the confusion. If you talk about what I say, then use the words I use. That will be the easiest way to handle this.

Yes, works are guaranteed in the life of the believer. Paul makes that clear; Jesus makes that clear; Peter makes that clear; John makes that clear. If you don't believe them, then you certainly won't believe me.

When you said that I made salvation conditional on works, you did not tell the truth about what I said. You made it up. I have explicitly denied that. The fact taht you don't understand what I am saying does not mean that I have a works based salvation. In this case, what it indicates is that you have no grasp on the historical doctrine of justification by faith alone that the church has always believed.

But remember, you are being unclear in your use of guarantee. And your lack of clarity led to confusion on your part because of my response. Hopefully we have settled that matter.

Actually you are making it all up. You are making up what I said, and worse, you are making up theology.

 

You get funnier with every post.

It was a simple yes or no question based on what you believe. Either works are a guarantee and this person is not saved, or works are not a guarantee and this person is saved.

But instead you give some philosophical answer of what does believe really mean.

Well there are a couple of problems with this statement. First there is no Scriptural evidence that Satan believes Christ died on his behalf. Second salvation is not open to Satan, so what he believes doesn't make a hill of beans.

Amen! I believe that as well. What I don't believe and which is unScriptural is this:

That is your theological spin on the passage. Now you can say the same thing about what I'm about to say, but I believe it is far more in line with what Scripture says when you compare Scripture with Scripture.

All things become new and the old things have passed away is talking about the person becoming a "new" creation in that they are no longer Jew or Gentile, no longer male, nor female. They are just a part of the one new man in Christ.

The old flesh is still around. The old sin nature is still around. It's not talking about a life change, it's talking about your identity. The changed life is not a guarantee. It's one of those things that is supposed to happen, but it may or may not. That's why works are not a guarantee.

 

Larry whether or not one sees a human as a two-part being or a three-part being has HUGE implications on Scripture.

I Th is speaking of the whole man, so what parts make up the whole man? It says body, soul and spirit. If we are two parts why doesn't it say material and immaterial. Why is it so explicit to use three parts if there really is two.

And by the way it doesn't disprove what I believe about the sanctification process, because again the verb used is a subjunctive verb which means it may or may not happen. It's not a guarantee because eternal salvation does not insure sanctification.

Again if it was a guarantee why didn't the Holy Spirit guide Paul to use an indicitive verb (by the way I made a mistake in an earlier post, because I said imperitive, and should have said indicitive). Indicitive means it's an absolute assurity.

Do you think the Holy Spirit made a mistake?

You don't even have to go to the Greek to see this. It's actually right there in the English "and may." May means it may happen or it may not.

No the life that we are guaranteed at the very moment of salvation by grace through faith is a life that will have no end. However aionios life in connection with faith/believing will have an end, because it is in view of the coming reign of Christ (1,000 years).

Now who's making stuff up? That's not what I said at all. I said look at what John says and then determine your theology. You on the other hand have your theology made up and force that into what John says.

John can't be talking about eternity, not because of what I believe, but because of the context that he speaks in. Context tells us what he is talking about and his context is not eternity, becuase if it is then he is contradicting other parts of the Bible that say what man does has not part in eternal salvation.

What I believe is immaterial, unless it lines up with what Scripture teaches.

Okay now we are starting to get somewhere. So how do you square this statement of what you believe with Ephesians 2:10 which says that works are subjunctive which means they may happen or they may not. It says we SHOULD do works, not we WILL do works.

How do you square that with Romans 10 which says we SHOULD NOT be a slave to sin. Notice it does not say we WILL NOT be a slave to sin.

Your statement and those Scriptures do not mesh. Works are not a guarantee in the life of a believer according to Scripture.

Please show me where they state this and then show me how that meshes and not contradicts Ephesians 2:10 and Romans 10.

 

...perfect example is the thief on the cross...

 

That’s because it is an important issue. The devil believes. Is he saved? Of course not. So the nature of saving faith plays a huge role in this discussion.

IT makes a huge hill of beans in the discussion of the nature of saving faith. Apparently you have never thought about this that much if you are unfamiliar with the role that this discussion plays.

If you don’t believe Paul, then you will have to discuss that with God. 2 Cor 5:17 is a promise I believe.

That’s certainly a part of it. But clearly not all of it, as we can tell from reading the context.

According to Romans 6, the old man died. The sin nature we still have, but it no longer rules.

No, it doesn’t either. f

Because of Hebraisms that were commonly used. Study the topic.

So we may or may not be preserved? I think we will definitely be preserved.

Not necessarily. Your grammar is weak.

No of course not. That was a silly question.

Is that what John 3:16 means? That a person who believes may or may not have eternal life? That’s a subjunctive too.

That life that we are guaranteed at salvation is aionios life. And it has no end.

I said that is essentially what you said, meaning it’s not what you said, but it is the implication of what you said. Again, please know what words mean.

No, your theology is a denial of John’s teaching. I pointed that out and you tried to make John talk about something else.

Now here is a contradiction. You say that John can’t be talking about eternity because of “context” and then say that he would contradict other parts of the Bible. First, that’s not true. Second, context means what’s around it. Contradicting other parts of the Bible is not context. 1 John 1-5 is the larger context; 1 John 2 is the immediate context. And in 1 John he is talking about how we can know that we have eternal life, the life that is in his Son.

Exactly. That is why I have been pointing out Scripture that contradicts what you believe.

So again, plug your understanding into John 3:16. Do you really want to place that much weight on the subjunctive? I don’t, and I doubt you do. I rather imagine you will conveniently find another meaning for the subjunctive in John 3:16. On top of that, the subjunctive is really not the key argument here. The rest of Scripture is clear that God’s intent of good works is realized in the life of the believer to at least some extent.

That’s Romans 6 so far as I know, and I have no problem with that. Paul is telling the believers what they should do.

Then you have a different Bible than I have.

All over. Paul said it in 2 Cor 5; 2 Cor 13; Col 1. John said it in 1 John 2; 3; 4. Peter said it in 2 Peter 1. The Author of Hebrews said it in Heb 3, 10. There are so many passages that clearly indicate that true salvation will result in works.
Interact with those. It seems that you have fallen prey to some inadequate teaching and have not taken the time to really study the issues. I can find no other reason for why you would say what you do. You have taken clear passages and muddied them in order to support your view. I cannot find that to be an acceptable way to handle Scripture.
So on that we will disagree. Since we don't see eye to eye on the use of Scripture, there probably isn't much reason to continue. .

 

Yes a good example. He died with faith in Christ. His works were immediately evident as he called the other thief to repentance. I hadn't thought of this one, but it shows the immediate change that takes place in a person's life when they are saved. They will begin to be different.

 

Do you believe the thief was saved before he called on Christ? The thief rebuked the other thief before he turned to Jesus, meaning his "works" weren't a result of salvation.

 

It's not an important issue, becuase salvation is NOT available to Satan nor any of the fallen angels, so what they believe makes ZERO difference. Faith only matters as it applies to humans, and the Bible says we only need to believe that Jesus Christ died in our place and shed His blood to clense us from sin.

That's all the Bible says. If we believe that then we are saved.

Not it doesn't becuase again Satan's faith doesn't even have the possibility of saving faith, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

Again I fully believe what Paul said via the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What I don't believe is your interpretation of what he said.

Really...how do you square that with we SHOULD NOT be slaves to sin, instead of we will not be slaves to sin. There is no certainty there that the sin nature no longer rules us.

The Truth of the matter is the sin nature doesn't have to rule over us, but it still can.

Oh my we can't just let the text say what the text says. Or only in certain parts

Spiritually you are preserved, because it's not based on what you do. Soulically it is a may or may not, because that is based on what you do or do not do.

I would agree with you about one's spirit, but the Bible teaches otherwise regarding one's soul. By the way if you want to listen to a great study on body, soul and spirit you can do so on my website, just go to www.1-heart.org/developing_perspective.htm.

See this right here shows exactly what it is important to understand that we are tri-part beings and not bi-part beings.

Really...please show me in either the Greek or English where a subjunctive verb can mean an absolute or were in English SHOULD can mean will.

My grammar is weak. :laugh:

Then I guess Paul meant to use a subjunctive verb which means it may or may not happen instead of making sure we understood it was a guarantee.

No that's a present tense verb which means as long as I am believing I have aionios life, which means as soon as I stop believing then I don't have aionios life.

Now there are only two ways to interpret that. Either the secruity of the believer is conditional or it is unconditional. Now if you believe in unconditional secruity you can not view John 3:16 in the context of eternal salvation, becuase then you would be contradicting yourself.

The only other way to view this Scripture is that one that continues to believe will have aionios (age-lasting) life, because whether or not you continue to believe or fall away from believing is in regard not to eternity, but to the coming reign of Christ.

That's the only way to view Scripture that does not make a contradiction with other Scripture. You can dance around it or wish it away or ignore it, but that's the plain and simple Truth of the matter.

And that's exactly what I've been doing with you, but you seem to think it's a problem when someone does it to you.

Please show me how I deny John's teaching. I have done no such thing.

That's a real laugher. So the Bible can contradict itself and it's okay See now that's not what you said, but that is the implication of what you said.

Sorry you have shown nothing of the sort.

Yes I do. The Bible says that there is life in every word that has come from the mouth of God. That means our understanding of every word is criticial. There is a reason there is an indivicitive verb and a subjunctive verb and it is critical for us to know which is used, so that our understanding can come from it.

Again I already addressed the John 3:16 issue.

Then again you are placing contradictions into Scripture, because there are several places that show some of God's children will not have anything to show for themselves when they stand as the judgment seat of Christ. Just look at the parable of the talents and pounds.

I may have a different translation than you, but the same Scriptures I used can be found in whatever translation you have.

But yet to failed to show how these mesh with Ephesians 2:10 and Romans 10 which say it SHOULD happen, but it's not a guarantee that it's going to happen. How do these mesh with the parable of the talent and the pounds?

Really it seems as though the Thessalonians passage was pretty clear that we are three parts, but you insist that we are two. Hmmmm???

 

When he said that to the thief, it is obvious that he was already believing. Otherwise, he would not have said it. So yes, his works were the result of salvation.

 

But it’s important because it defines the nature of saving faith. It helps us understand the different ways that “faith” or “belief” is used. The fact that Satan is not able to have saving faith, and yet still has faith has great implications for this discussion.

No one disputes that here. The question is “What does it mean to believe?”

You can’t really pull the interpretation card here. Your explanation is without merit in the context. There is no hint of Jew Gentile issues.

The sin nature still exists. The old man died. Sin no longer has power over you (Rom 6:6-7). You are no longer slaves to sin. That means it is not your master. So don’t act like it is your master.

So if someone says it is raining cats and dogs, will you let the text just say what it says? Or will you understand the metaphor being used? Of course you will understand the metaphor. You won’t look for canines and felines coming from the sky. In the same way, you must understand the figures of speech in Scripture.

This is true.

Apart from the offense of making up your own words, this is confusing at best. It is unclear as to what you mean.

Then you will have to demonstrate this from the Bible.

John 3:16 for starters. There are numerous other places. Get our your Greek and look them up.

Um, no.

Conditional security is an oxymoron. If it is conditional, then it is insecurity. John 3:16 is clearly eternal salvation, and it is an unconditional promise. If your eternal life can be taken away, then it isn’t eternal.

No it’s not.

No it’s not.

I have. John says if you say that you know him and do not keep his commandments you are a liar. YUou say if you claim to know him and do not keep his commandments, you still know him.

No it’s not. You have distorted my words and been dishonest with what I said.

Sure I have. I notice you wont’ even interact with Scripture. You keep ignoring the verses under discussion. You completely rape John 3:16 in order to try to make your point. You gloss over 1 John 2 and 2 Cor 5 without even a serious attempt to make an explanation. You are simply ignoring the verses.

No you didn’t address it. Your explanation was faulty.

Those people are unbelievers. They are cast into outer darkness. That’s hell.

Yes, but your interpretation is foreign to all of them.

Yes because I understand the issues and the language used. Why is that hard for you?

You still aren’t dealing with Scripture. You are ignoring it, or forcing it into your interpretation.

 

You contradict yourself in the same post.

Either you have to show fruit or you don't. (BTW, fruit is singular, not plural.)

We don't have to "accuse" you of anything.

Your statement: "Scripture is clear that saved people will have fruits of salvation."

 

Not to mention, aionios life, is tied directly to works, whereas everlasting life is not.

 

A former seminary professor taught me that any text out of context is nothing but a pretext, and the context is Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. Every single verse has to fit into the context of the entire Bible; there can be no errors. Otherwise, the Bible is flawed, and you should simply toss it out, because it's useless.

 

Here we go again.

Do you understand the difference between certainty and necessity? If you do, then you will very clearly see that there is no contradiction. Salvation is not conditional on works. Works are conditional on salvation. Obedience is a certain result of salvation. Obedience is not the cause of salvation.

So, turns out, there is no contradiction. There are only people who are not familiar with the issues of the debate and way that terms are used.

Would you mind telling us what words Scripture uses to talk about “eternal life” vs. “everlasting life.” Your Strong’s will be fine if you can use nothing stronger. But I am interested in the Greek words that designate “eternal” life vs. “everlasting” life.

He is correct. But in exegetical terms, we speak of larger contexts and nearer contexts, and then we talk of theological correlation. Your professor probably taught you this as well. The word “context” is generally not used of the whole Bible, but rather the words, sentences, and paragraphs surrounding the verse in question.

The entirety of Scripture is one reason why we must adamantly reject Jump’s view. It simply will not stand up. A few isolated verses will make it look good, but when we view the whole teaching it very quickly falls apart. You will note already how many times he has been forced to strain a verse in order to work his interpretation into it. Scripture is not that difficult.

 

It wasn't obvious he was believing. He was only scolding the other thief because he knew that Jesus did nothing wrong. It's eisegesis to claim that the thief was saved before asking Christ, and his "works" of scolding the other thief was a result of salvation. If the thief believed before...then when? An hour? Before crucifixion? Why didn't Christ say that he would be with Him in paradise before he asked Jesus to remember him? It takes an awful lot of reading into the text to conclude he was saved prior to asking Christ.

 

And what's the defintion of "is"?

That's not entirely flippant. Words mean things. But, you can either play a game with semantics (such as the famous, "What's the definition of 'is'") or look at what teh words actually mean.

"Believe" in the aorist, means that it's an event, just like squeezing the trigger of a gun. You either believe or you don't. Just as you cannot unsqueeze the trigger of the gun, you cannot un-believe.

Now, you can become unbelieving, but you cannot change the fact that you believed.

The aorist tense is what is used in Acts 16:31: What must I do to be saved? Believe (punctiliar) on the Lord Jesus and you will (indicative; it will happen) be saved. (It's also used elsewhere, but this is the only passage in the Bible in which the question is both asked and answered.)

"Believe" as a present, active, participle is synonymous withe the noun "faith". "Believe" in the present tense implies continuing in believing, and fruit will follow if you are believing in the present tense.

The problem is that we often insert English metaphors into the Greek (and Hebrew) text. Greek has a metaphor for "everlasting", and it's not aionios.

I agree with you about the concept of conditional security being an oxymoron. But, the grammar of John 3:16 says explicitly that it's something that may or may not happened and it's conditioned on believing in the present tense. (It's a present, active, participle.)

So, since this is conditional, how does it relate to spiritual salvation?

In other words, you disagreed with him.

Oh, really? Many literal translations simply transliterate the word "aionios", but many others also realize that it cannot, under any circumstances mean "eternal" or "everlasting". (Eternal, by definition, means without beginning or ending, or existing outside of time, and only God is eternal; Everlasting means without ending, and in the Greek, there is clear language for both.)

This word was never assumed to mean either eternal or everlasting until the KJV translators went to the Latin Vulgate, in which the word had been translated "aeternus". This was based on Latin theology; Roman Catholocism.

"It was absolutely essential to Augustinian theology with its blightening emphasis on the doctrine of predestinarianism to mistranslate the Greek adjective aionios, and put on it a meaning which the Greek will not for a moment allow in its respective applications to salvation and judgment.

And that was essential to Augustinian theology was equally essential to Latin Christianity from the days of Augustine to those of Calvin and Luther. And the same exists in the Reformed Theology from then till the present.

To say nothing of other words, the Calvinist simply cannot, dare not, face an honest and truthful interpretation of the two frequently occurring words with which we are now dealing with, namely 'eternal life'." (From Dualism of Eternal Life by S. S. Craig.)

 

Well, I rarely use Strong's, except as a search tool, because it's only a concordance, not a lexicon. It only compiles words the way they are used in the particular translation for which it's compiled. (In this case, the KJV.)

However, "eternal" is found in only two places in the Bible: Romans 1:20 and Jude 6.

"Everlasting", which is the Greek phrase, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων is found in several places in the Bible: Galatians 1:5, Philippians 4:20, 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 13:21, 1 Peter 4:11, and several places in the Revelation: 1:6 & 18, 4:9 & 10, 5:13, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 19:3, 20:10, and 22:5.

If you want a list of all instances of "aionios", right click and save: age-lasting

The entirety of Scripture is exactly why we need to accept the teaching that JJump is presenting. Look at all the types and pictures presented throughout Scripture.

For example, the children of Israel were already in the Promised Land when they left Egypt. (Genesis 15:18) Then, they were baptized in the Red Sea. Then, they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years on their journey to the Land Flowing with Milk and Honey, which is a picture of the Kingdom; it was the better part of their inheritance. Many of the perished in the wilderness; they lost their lives; their souls.

This is a picture of a man's life in his journey from being saved, through obedience and works. Many will perish in the wilderness, but they are already in the Promised Land.

 

Once again how do you get this statement to mesh with Ephesians 2:10 which says obedience is not a certainty.

By the way I addressed your other post, but something faulty happened with the system and wouldn't let me post and then I lost all of it, and I'm not going to re-type it as it would be a waste of my time. You are going to continue to believe what you want to believe anyway despite being shown already that your views contradict the plain reading of Scripture.

What a load.

I have not strained any verse to work an interpretation in. If anyone has done that it is you. You say you believe in eternal security, bet you believe John 3:16 is about eternal secruity when the present tense of the verb believe is there which means when one stops believing they lose their salvation. Yet you won't admit it and just keep on believing what you want to believe even though there is no way in the world you can get your two views to mesh.

And you say I am straining Scripture. Please.

It certainly is. So the question is why are you trying to make it so difficult?

 

This is exactly where you are at. You accuse me of this, but the Scripture rests firmly on my side. You are unable to deal with the Scripture as a whole.

As for the distinction between everlasting and eternal, the reason I asked was to see what you would say. It isn't there. The same Greek word (aionion) is translated both ways in the KJV. There is no distinction in the Greek language. So any distinction must come from the context. (The reason I said you could use Strong's is because most on here cannot use the original language concordances, and a concordance search on two differnet English words would not show you that the same word is used. On BibleWorks, I can pull up all the uses of all forms of aionios in .07 seconds and compare them.)

Hope of Glory, you also attempted to discuss the nature of saving faith by mocking at the definition of is. I notice amongst all your tense and aspect ramblings that you never actually got to the definition of belief. You want to talk about pisteuo in different forms and say what the forms communicate (which was not entirely accurate) but you didn't get to the actual definition of what believe means. And that matters. When you tell someone to believe, what are you telling them to do? You can't answer that by talking about punctiliar aorists, or present participles.

But even at that, consider your discussion of John 3:16 where you say the conditional subjunctive is related to the present tense believing: you shall have life if you are believing presently. I agree with that since I think continuing in belief is one of hte marks of salvation. If you turn away from belief, it is because you were never saved, never actually believed (once you get the defintion of believe right).

But your explanation doesn't work anyway because the subjunctive is based on the present tense believing. It says (given your understanding of hte conditional), that you may have life if you continue believing. You have tried to say you will have life if you are believing. That's not what the text says. You changed it. You tried to make the conditional out of the present tense participate (believing) and make the subjunctive an indicative based on the preesent tense condition. That won't work.

In the end, this appears to be a difference of opinion about the authority and meaning of Scripture. We don't appear to share a common view on that. I hoold the words of Scripture in the highest regard and do not believe it advantageous to the faith to adjust it to fit my personal views. I believe my views should be adjusted to fit Scripture. In this case, all of Scripture can be reconciled to my position. I have yet to see any verse that cannot be. If such a verse can be shown, I will gladly rethink. However, there are verses that cannot be reconciled to your position without doing great damage to the integrity of words. So on that, we are probably at an impasse.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

Actually it is not. I just changed my views from the traditional teachings of man to the way Scripture lays things out about six months ago, so that is not where I am at.

Scripture does not in fact rest on your side, but quite the opposite and you have not been able to show otherwise.

The view that I am sharing with you is the really the only view that deals with Scripture as a whole and eliminates the contradictions that man has placed on the Bible, such as your understanding of continual belief is the only thing that saves.

Which totally goes again Scriptural teaching that we are saved (done deal) at the very moment we believe. According to your errant belief that one must continue to believe until they die people aren't really saved until the last breath they breathe, and if they stop having faith five minutes before they die then they are unsaved.

Sorry, but that's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we are saved the very moment we believe. And when we do it is a done deal never to be reversed.

But you go on continuing to believe in your works based salvation if you want to.

Well you haven't brought up any yet. So please put one or more of these verses on the table and let's deal with them.

By the way you haven't reconciled this contradition yet:
Quote:
Obedience is a certain result of salvation.
Once again how do you get this statement to mesh with Ephesians 2:10 which says obedience is not a certainty.