Dr. Stanley and Eternal Security

[JustChristian]

Christians don't PRACTICE those things but I know many a Christian who has done them, including myself, while rejecting/grieving/quenching the Holy Spirit through "stinkin' thinkin'". And I say that because I didn't "lose my own soul" which was already saved eternally, but I did lose my reward and any earthly inheritance that comes of living a perfect life.

skypair

The New Testament doesn't emphasize "rewards." It emphasizes eternal salvation. Many here emphasize rewards because they don't want to accept what Christ said to Nicodemas. YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN. Salvation is accompanied by a change in who or what is the master of our life. You cannot serve two Masters. Familiar words? If a so-called salvation experience isn't accompanied by a radical change in a person's life it isn't genuine.

Jesus told the rich young ruler that he had to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. Why? Because money was the master of his life. This isn't works based salvation unless you want to argue that Jesus taught works based salvation. He didn't. It's genuine repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Lord of our lives.

 

[Hope of Glory]

This is just some man thinking he knows better than the KJV translators -- but he is wrong. Read it again. "we are not of them that draw back unto perdition! A "just man" canNOT draw back unto perdition. That is heresy!

Perhaps you should learn some reading comprehension and grammar. You should also learn that when you see words in italics, they are not in the text and have been added by the KJV translators. Even they realized that they are only human and not perfect, yet many (and you seem to be one) idolize them and put them on the same error-free level as the Father.

This is one passage that those who think you can lose your spiritual salvation use as a "proof" text, BTW. They at least look at what it says.

Of course you could simply say "No it isn't!"

Now, one thing that the KJV omits is the personal pronoun. It's my "just person". It's talking about someone who is his.

Now, perhaps you can explain how a just person, who belongs to him, can draw back without ever belonging to him.

BTW, the KJV (and those based on the KJV) are the only translations that I have available that don't say the just one is drawing back. I'll give you some examples at the end of the post.

"Perdition" is HELL, friend!

I could agree with that. If it were talking about unsaved people, though, it would be talking about the lake of fire, not hell.

You're just "taggin' along' with the Catholics on this one, aren't you? You meant to say "pergatory" -- as in "draw back unto purgatory."

If I had mean purgatory, I would have said purgatory.

The "man with no wedding garment" is AC! The 5 foolish virgins were "pew warmers" before the rapture! The "wicked, slothful" servant was never saved!

You mean the AC snuck into heaven unawares! Boy, God must be slipping in your mind!

The virgins are unsaved? Perhaps you can find an example in type in which an unsaved person is referred to as pure. Besides, they had oil, but they didn't supply themselves with extra. Do you think that your salvation can be forfeited?

The servant of him, whether wicked and slothful or not, is still the servant of him. Or, did God simply fib a little bit about that? Or, perhaps in your mind, God was incapable of expressing himself properly,eh?

Personally, I will take God at what he said and not put him in the position of being inarticulate.

One thing you could do now is begin to reevaluate your "soul-spirit" dichotomy. Perhaps some or all of your blasphemy and departure/"shipwreck" from the faith comes from a total confusion as to soul and spirit.

This coming from the person who fails to see that even the animals have souls.

 

[Hope of Glory]

What HoG should be saying is that they are "saved by His death" but not being "saved by His life." Rom 5:10

2 Corinthian 5:14: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

Seems a bit of a conundrum here, doesn't it? He died that all might be saved.

Aha! Romans 5:10 is future! We have been saved spiritually; we will be saved in the age to come. No conditions place on our spiritual salvation; believe on the Lord Jesus. Our future salvation is subjunctive, and based upon being faithful.

See what we can discover when we look at what the Bible says instead of what someone has told us that it says?

And the correct interpretation of this is that their SOULS are saved in eternity but their mind, emotion, and wills are being tested day-by-day as to whether they will 1) choose God's way or 2) choose their own way. See, in the realm of our minds/spirits, we have decisions to make that will either sancitify us or cause that at the Bema we will lose rewards. HoG merely replaces "today" with some mystical 1000 years in which we "pay off" our sin (much like Catholic "purgatory").

Let's see, I've given pages and pages of Scripture, yet you seem to be a bit skimpy on Scripture. Mind posting some to prove your point?

Or, perhaps you can simply continue throwing out the "blasphemy" and "purgatory" insults. That's what usually happens when someone has no defense of their position, so that's what I expect.

What she DIDN'T do was perish. What an utterly foolish interpretation!

Perhaps you could also work on your reading comprehension.

I not one time said that she perished.

I said the coin perished. Well, technically, she perished the coin.

By the same token, you can't lose (perish) your life if you don't have it.

 

[skypair]

The New Testament doesn't emphasize "rewards." It emphasizes eternal salvation. Many here emphasize rewards because they don't want to accept what Christ said to Nicodemas. YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN. Salvation is accompanied by a change in who or what is the master of our life. You cannot serve two Masters. Familiar words? If a so-called salvation experience isn't accompanied by a radical change in a person's life it isn't genuine.

Jesus told the rich young ruler that he had to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. Why? Because money was the master of his life. This isn't works based salvation unless you want to argue that Jesus taught works based salvation. He didn't. It's genuine repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Lord of our lives.

Everything you said is true. Unfortunately, our temporal lives are not "eternally" changed until we also have a celestially glorified bodies. We still struggle with our flesh. But I have no doubts about my eternal destiny and am NOT teaching lawlessness nor giving license to sin by any far stretch. But the truth is that, while our souls are saved eternally, our spirits and flesh may not always refelct it before our glorification.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hope of Glory.

Before I deal with your post, I was in church and thought about John 1:12-13. Here is a perfect example of what John would have been thinking about there. Do you remember Simon Magus? He is one who "believed" but wasn't "regenerated" (no one was until Peter and John came to Samaria). At that time, Simon "proved" the reason for his profession -- he really wanted to have the Spirit indwelling and power (1:13) without the life-changing commitment of "receiving" Christ (1:12). Therefore, when John penned 1:13, he was thinking about those like Simon who would think that it was by their own desire that one could receive "regeneration" (which is what 1:13 is talking about).

The point would be that you MUST commit to Christ (1:12) -- THEN it is God's will that we receive the Spirit of regeneration.

skypair

 

[JustChristian]

Everything you said is true. Unfortunately, our temporal lives are not "eternally" changed until we also have a celestially glorified bodies. We still struggle with our flesh. But I have no doubts about my eternal destiny and am NOT teaching lawlessness nor giving license to sin by any far stretch. But the truth is that, while our souls are saved eternally, our spirits and flesh may not always refelct it before our glorification.

skypair

I agree that we will continue to sin after being saved. My belief is that the whole focus of our lives changes and having slipped back into our sinful ways we will recognize that and repent. Many believe in a so-called carnal Christian, one whose life is indistinguishable from that of the unsaved. I don't accept that. Trying to push the idea of a carnal Christian is like trying to "eat your cake and have it too."

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I was working in my shop and realized suddenly that I forgot to post the verses from the other translations. But, everything except the KJV and those derived from it have "any man". They all have "he", referring back to "my righteous one":

ALT: "But the [one] righteous by faith will live [or, the righteous will live by faith]; and if he draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him." [Hab 2:3,4]

ASV: But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.

CLV: Now My "just one by faith shall be living," and "If he should ever be shrinking, My soul is not delighting in him."

ESV: but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him."

NASB:

aBut My righteous one shall live by faith;​

And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.​

a Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11

NET: But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I46 take no pleasure in him.47

NIV:

But my righteous onec will live by faith.​

And if he shrinks back,​

I will not be pleased with him.”d​

c One early manuscript But the righteous

d Hab. 2:3,4

REV: But, my righteous one, by faith, shall live, and, if he draw back, my soul delighteth not in him.

WNT: BUT IT IS BY FAITH THAT MY RIGHTEOUS SERVANT SHALL LIVE; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL TAKES NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

YLT: and `the righteous by faith shall live,' and `if he may draw back, My soul hath no pleasure in him,' http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn1

 

[skypair]

You should also learn that when you see words in italics, they are not in the text and have been added by the KJV translators. Even they realized that they are only human and not perfect, yet many (and you seem to be one) idolize them and put them on the same error-free level as the Father.

I know about italics, HoG. I purposely avioded the italicized words and skipped to the 'them.'

This is one passage that those who think you can lose your spiritual salvation use as a "proof" text, BTW. They at least look at what it says.

They would be wrong, too, for not reading the CONTEXT! They, like you, wouldn't admit the "them" were Jews.

Now, perhaps you can explain how a just person, who belongs to him, can draw back without ever belonging to him.

Certainly! The Jews were God's, as a nation, "elect." They "drew back" from Christ, like I said. Maybe you could at least explain why I am wrong.

I could agree with that. If it were talking about unsaved people, though, it would be talking about the lake of fire, not hell.

Not necessarily. Hell is still in existence. The lake of fire is post-MK for the lost.

If I had mean purgatory, I would have said purgatory.

But instead you have a "purgatory" alternative. Splain that.

You mean the AC snuck into heaven unawares! Boy, God must be slipping in your mind!

No. In that parable, the wedding supper is on the earth, dear. The OT saints are the "invitees."

The virgins are unsaved? Perhaps you can find an example in type in which an unsaved person is referred to as pure. Besides, they had oil, but they didn't supply themselves with extra. Do you think that your salvation can be forfeited?

Forget "extra" -- the "had NO oil." Example? 2Cor where Paul says that he has espoused "all" of the Corinthians to Christ. Well, it is abundantly clear that ALL the Corinthians are not saved but they ARE virgins --- PROSPECTIVE brides!

The servant of him, whether wicked and slothful or not, is still the servant of him. Or, did God simply fib a little bit about that? Or, perhaps in your mind, God was incapable of expressing himself properly,eh?

Christ used the term "servants" to refer to JEWS. Again, you don't know your referrants so how can you understand the lessons of the parables?

Personally, I will take God at what he said and not put him in the position of being inarticulate.

Same here. Too bad you DON'T understand the parables.

This coming from the person who fails to see that even the animals have souls.

Where did you get that?

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Sure Bro. Bob.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
"Shall reign" is a future tense verb. It hasn't happened yet. But that day is coming.

Is that enough to show that the 1,000-year reign of Christ has not yet come?

1Cr 15:20¶But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Jhn 11:24Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Jhn 11:25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Mat 27:52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Mat 27:53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many

1Cr 15:25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
He is reigning now.

Do you agree that Christ is the first resurrection, and if He is the first resurrection, then it was speaking of an event yet to come at the cross.

You must be eternally saved (become a child of God) before you are in a place to receive an inheritance. But we see that not all saved folks will receive that inheritance. Those that will receive the inheritance of the kingdom are the ones that obey.

Luk 17:21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mar 10:17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

Eph 1:11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (already ours and not enough devils to take it away.)


Scripture teaches that they both are the same and come through inheritance.

Rev 20:5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

One of these scriptures say the thousand years and then the first resurrection, the other scripture says the first resurrection and then a thousand years. How do you explain that.

 

[J. Jump]

Do you agree that Christ is the first resurrection, and if He is the first resurrection, then it was speaking of an event yet to come at the cross.

Well whether you think that Revelation was written early or late it matters not, because at best Revelation was written some 30-40 years after the cross and as many as 60 years post-cross, so no this is not a reference to the cross.

Context simply doesn't allow it.

Scripture teaches that they both are the same and come through inheritance.

Sorry, but gift and inheritance aren't the same thing. Again the gift of eternal salvation is offered to anyone that would receive it, but inheritance is a family matter and only involves those in the family.

They are two separate matters.

He is reigning now.

Okay I'm confused now. First you said the 1,000 year reign was over and now you are saying that He is reigning now. Which is it? It can't be both.

One of these scriptures say the thousand years and then the first resurrection, the other scripture says the first resurrection and then a thousand years. How do you explain that.

It doesn't say the thousand years and then the first resurrection. It talks about those that live during the thousand years that IS the first resurrection. Those that were dead did not live until after the thousand years was complete. And since it is yet future according to the next text you quoted we have a more complete picture.

 

[Brother Bob]

Do you agree that Christ is the first resurrection, and if He is the first resurrection, then it was speaking of an event yet to come at the cross. Well whether you think that Revelation was written early or late it matters not, because at best Revelation was written some 30-40 years after the cross and as many as 60 years post-cross, so no this is not a reference to the cross.

Context simply doesn't allow it.
So you believe that Revelations speaks only to what has and will happen after the cross? What about Gog and Magog, for starters?

Quote:
Scripture teaches that they both are the same and come through inheritance.

Sorry, but gift and inheritance aren't the same thing. Again the gift of eternal salvation is offered to anyone that would receive it, but inheritance is a family matter and only involves those in the family.

They are two separate matters.
The two scriptures I gave you both say inheritance, neither one says gift.

Quote:
He is reigning now.
Okay I'm confused now. First you said the 1,000 year reign was over and now you are saying that He is reigning now. Which is it? It can't be both.


Quote:
You seem to believe that Jesus will reign during the 1000 years and then His reign will end?



One of these scriptures say the thousand years and then the first resurrection, the other scripture says the first resurrection and then a thousand years. How do you explain that.

It doesn't say the thousand years and then the first resurrection. It talks about those that live during the thousand years that IS the first resurrection. Those that were dead did not live until after the thousand years was complete. And since it is yet future according to the next text you quoted we have a more complete picture.__________________

Rev 20:6Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


Rev 20:5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

It is very plain that one says, those who have a part in the First resurrection shall reign with Him a thousand years.

The other plainly says:

Those who lived again AFTER the thousand years that this is the First resurrection.

 

[J. Jump]

It is very plain that one says, those who have a part in the First resurrection shall reign with Him a thousand years.

The other plainly says:

Those who lived again AFTER the thousand years that this is the First resurrection.

Brother Bob you and I have talked in the past about cherry picking verses to make a doctrine stick. This is an example. You are quoting two texts and saying see what I believe is correct. However if you will look at verse four, while leads into verse five you will see that the dead living after the thousand years is NOT talking about the first resurrection. The first resurrection is those that are living DURING the 1000 years.

Hope that helps.

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Bob you and I have talked in the past about cherry picking verses to make a doctrine stick. This is an example. You are quoting two texts and saying see what I believe is correct. However if you will look at verse four, while leads into verse five you will see that the dead living after the thousand years is NOT talking about the first resurrection. The first resurrection is those that are living DURING the 1000 years

4: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

It also says: "the rest of the dead lived" (past tense), not again until the thousand years was finished.

5: But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

J. Jump;

I don't know what to say. When I give you scripture showing something you call it "cherry pickin". I in no way want to offend you.

If you will look at verse four, it says; "souls OF THEM", and the souls is what lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. It says: "lived" past tense and "reigned", past tense. I am not adding or taking away, I am giving you the exact wording. Verse four even makes what I was saying stronger.

You did not answer if Christ is the "First Resurrection"?

Also, is the entire book of Revelation after the cross?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Just as a quick interjection, when we are born from above (born into the family) it's not referred to as a gift.

Now, it is a gift in the sense that it's not something that we earn, but nowhere in the Bible is anyone being born called a gift to them. (Perhaps, they are a gift to their parents, but being born is never referred to as a gift.)

 

[skypair]

I was working in my shop and realized suddenly that I forgot to post the verses from the other translations. But, everything except the KJV and those derived from it have "any man". They all have "he", referring back to "my righteous one":

ALT: "But the [one] righteous by faith will live [or, the righteous will live by faith]; and if he draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him." [Hab 2:3,4]

What's your point?? That it is talking about Jesus?

No, "perdition" is hell. No saved person goes to hell ---- and neither did Jesus.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hope,

Please see my post #108.

I can see where you would be easily confused. You're looking at perdition as some sort of purgatory and you think soul is the aspect of man that is not eternally kept. Both are incorrect. Perdition is hell until the lake of fire is "open for business" --- postMK (except for Satan's angels.

And the soul is the conscience, not the ever-changing mind, emotions, and will. Therefore, the soul (Heb 10:39) cannot draw back to anywhere but heaven and the soul is saved eternally by belief (no "purgatory").

I am a bit disturbed about your misunderstanding of parables which seems to mightily have influenced your conception of inheritance and kingdom consequences.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Do you agree that Christ is the first resurrection, and if He is the first resurrection, then it was speaking of an event yet to come at the cross.

No, do you??

Christ was the first fruits of the first rapture, 1Cor 15:28.

skypair

 

[J. Jump]

When I give you scripture showing something you call it "cherry pickin".

Well Brother Bob that is what you have done here. You have taken verse five and tried to make it stand on its own to prove a point that isn't true. Because when you take verse four and five together we can clearly see that the first resurrection is not the dead coming alive again, because there are already some people have have been resurrected. The first resurrection is the one that come to life and reign during the 1000-year period.

It also says: "the rest of the dead lived" (past tense), not again until the thousand years was finished.

Actually the verb is "lived again" and it's not a past tense verb.

EDIT: I forgot to address a couple of your other questions. Christ is the first fruits as Skypair has said. Yes I believe that the vast majority if not all of Revelation deals with things well after the cross.

And what about my question to you? You said in one post that the 1000 year period was over and then in another post you said it is happening now. Which is it? Over or current and what is you Scriptural support?

 

[Brother Bob]

No, do you??

Christ was the first fruits of the first rapture, 1Cor 15:28.

skypair

Yes I do. He arose with many of the bodies of the saints. I think that is what is called a resurrection.

Rapture to me is the Resurrection and if it was the first rapture (of which is not in the Bible), then it was the first Resurrection.

Do you call the second rapture a resurrection?

 

[Brother Bob]

4: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Verse 4 deals with the souls.

5: But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

J. Jump;

Verse 5 deals with their bodies being resurrected which is the first resurrection when Christ arose, many of the bodies of the saints arose with Him and went into that Holy City.

I never said the 1000 year reign is going on today. I said that Christ is still reigning over His children of which He said that His Kingdom was and is within them.

You seem to believe that His reign will end when the thousand years is finished.

I don't think you or me or anyone else can measure God's thousand years.

Psa 90:4For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

2Pe 3:8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Actually the verb is "lived again" and it's not a past tense verb.

So according to you, it would be proper to say that: "Joe will lived again in the end."