Eternal or kingdom Salvation Mt. 24:13

If viewed from a very narrow definition of "saved", of course it would be a monster. It would be doublespeak.

Let me explain it a different way. The phrase "lose your soul" is used to describe the seriousness of a very specific period of chastening. It is very akin to Esau's "losing his birthright" without losing his sonship.

The spirit of the reborn man is eternally saved.

However there are still temporal dangers.

Being reborn in of itself doesn't save us from chastening. We can't plead the blood of Christ when God the father deems familial chastening upon us, his sons, necessary.

Likewise, we cannot expect reward based solely upon our sonship. Rewards are conditional. Scripturally, the loss of rewards (life, soul) is always directed toward Christians and always associated with works and obedience.

So our "backside" is "saved" from a whipping only when we are obedient.

1000 years in Hell (Not the LOF!) is a long time but it is nontheless temporal.

I see no difference (other than a sustantial difference of degree) between God's chastening a man in this life for a season in order to attempt to inspire holiness in the man and in God temporarily chastening a Christian (In the next life for 1000 years) who refuses to "bear" the chastening attempted in this life.

Lacy

 

These questions show to me that you have little understanding of the ME doctrine. We don't believe that your soul is ever in one place while your spirit is in another.

We just believe that eternity officially starts for some a bit early, while some have to go to "detention hall" during the wedding feast and lose out on the double portion, promised to all, but only earned by those who are obedient, and who do not despise their birthright.

Might I suggest a couple of places for you to study without all the emotional trappings of a debate forum.

The Dualism of Eternal Life bt SS Craig

The Judgment Seat of Christ by DM Panton

Believers SHARING or FORFEITING Christ’s Glorious Reign! by WF Roadhouse


Happy reading my dear Brother

Lacy

 

I believe that there is evidence to suggest that Judas was indeed a born-again man and thus died eternally saved.

Judas, if he ever was born again, will probably not sit on a throne in the Kingdom. His unrepented sin will more than likely cause him to forfeit thet reward.

I cannot say one way or another. What he did was evil. (Howbeit, no more evil than what Peter did hours later - Peter repented.)

Lacy

 

Absolutely. But, if you look at the beginning of the letters that Paul wrote, to whom is he writing?

1 Corinthians is written to the called out ones (church) in Corinth, who are called saints (based upon their lifestyles), and those in every place who are invoking the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Not unsaved people. These warnings are written to saved people.

2 Corinthians is written to the called out ones (church) in Corinth, and the saints in Achaia. Also, written to saved people.

So, what are they in danger of losing?

Middle voice: to cause for one's self. They are perishing; they are losing their lives.

Tell me, how do you lose something that you don't have?

Can you lose your everlasting salvation?

And that's exactly what it says. But, it doesn't say those who have never been saved, against those who are being saved.

Remember, in Acts 16:31, we're told that if we believe (punctiliar; mental assent), we will be saved, with no doubts about it, unless God is a liar.

Yet, in many other places, pointed out to by Lacy (among others), salvation is conditional.

If they are one and the same, then there's a major contradiction, and the Bible is worthless.

The soul is the life. Even the animals have souls.

The saving of the soul, or the saving of the life, is in the instances we are talking about, the saving of the life in the age to come.

You, a saved person, can also perish, just as the children of Israel, already in the Promised Land, perished in the wilderness.

Matthew 16:25-26: For whosoever will save his life [soul] shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life [soul] for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

The word "soul" is used four times in these two verses, although it's translated two different ways. "Soul" and "life" are interchangeable. If you save your life now, you will lose it in the age to come. (Not forever; "age" is limited in duration.)

Although "perish" is found twice in verse 25 (translated as "lose" both times), the word "lose" in verse 26 is not the word "perish". It’s the same word as found in 1 Corinthians 3:15, which says, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." "Loss" is the same word; suffer loss. And, that’s what will happen. If a man gains the whole world; the world system; everything the world offers, he will lose; he will have no profit; his p&l will be lacking at the Judgment Seat of Christ; it will not be in the black, it will be in the red.

I highlighted the pertinent part. That's exactly what it says. "Soul" is "life".

That's what you lose.

How can you lose it if you don't have it?

Then show me in Scriptures where they are synonymous.

I can tell you this, if you're using the KJV, there are four completely different words that are translated as "hell", and none of them are "lake of fire". Two of them are synonymous, in that one is the Hebrew "sheol" and one is the Greek "hades", which is nothing more than the unseen world of the dead. Another one is Tartarus, which is found once in the NT and once in the Apocrypha, and in both instances used in reference to angels who are being bound for chastisement.

The fourth word is "gehenna". The gehenna warnings are aimed at saved people.

Do you think a saved person has to worry about going to the lake of fire forever and ever?

Then show it.

I will tell you that it refers to fire, but so does the Judgment Seat of Christ. Is the Judgment Seat the same thing as the lake of fire?

That's a very telling statement.

Reminds me of an elder who recently stated to me, "I don't care what the Bible says, this is what we believe."

 

Unless we earn our everlasting salvation, then this has to be talking about something else.

We're not saved forever by our works, even if you try to backload them onto it by saying, "Well, a really and truly saved person will do those works". There's no such thing in Scriptures, but the doctrines of men (and demons) abound with works being required to be saved forever.

But, we are expected to be obedient after we're born from above, and we should be obedient after we're born from above, and the salvation of our souls is dependent upon obedience after we're born from above.

But, those works can only be performed under grace. Hebrews 12:28 tells us, "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: "

If we do good works of our own volition, we'll be just like those men in Matthew who cast out demons in the name of the Lord, but their works were works of lawlessness.

Obedience is much more important than doing good works. I know plenty of atheists who do plenty of good works.

AFAIK, the only sin that Judas was ever personally directly accused of, and not repentant of, was being a thief.

 

Act 4:12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

We don't have any of the Christians around here that have lost their soul, their Spirit or their Salvation. Must be a Northern thing, or big city.

 

It seems to me that you are of the position that your interpretation of a particular passage is the correct one, despite the able efforts of much more learned men than yourself.

In the history of the church, men of God have always differed on what a passage means, and I am not going to sit at my pc, thinking I have figured it out on at every turn. I am sure that your elder is a good man, but please don't equate me with him because, I happened to disagree with you.

I respect your positions on what you think the bible says, but I don't have to agree with them. Call me simple and traditional, but I am going to side with those who for hundreds of years have espoused some of the things that I believe.

If they are wrong according to your standards, then I am wrong as well. I respectfully at this point wish to discontinue my participation in this particular discussion.

 

This argument has always baffled me. You know it's one thing to take a fresh look at Scripture and say hey I might be wrong and study the matter out, but you just fall back on tradition and what a bunch of others have said in the past is just repeating what those folks did while Jesus walked the earth. Many looked to the "more learned" leaders of that day and to those traditions instead of heeding the Truth that was before them.

Granted you don't have Christ in the flesh standing before you, but He has left His Word with you and the Holy Spirit to lead you and guide you.

Falling on the traditions of man and the majority I am afraid is going to lead a great number of people where they don't want to go.

I taught a Bible study about a year or so ago and one of the atendees left and said that he was going to heed the pastor's word over mine because he had a seminary degree and said what I was teaching was incorrect. No Scriptural backing for it or anything, just because the guy had a "degree" and said don't believe it.

Unfortunately we have a lot of that going on as well. And we saw the "exact" same thing taking place when John the Baptist, Jesus, and the other apostles and disciples preached the message back then.

It's sad, but it comes as no surprise. People of all walks of life didn't want to believe the message when God Himself made it know, why in the world would times change when mere men are the instruments of the Truth.

 

What if I could give you a list of very respected men in history who have held my position on salvation. (Not all Millennial Exclusionists believe the "hell" part, but they have salvation rightly divided.) Read up on some of these men.

Robert Govett
SS Craig
DM Panton
GH Lang
GH Pember
RE Neighbour
AE Wilson
JA Seiss
WF Roadhouse
Eric Sauer
GNH Peters
J. Hudson Taylor
Watchman Nee
Paul Radar
AG Tinley
Oswald J Smith
William P Clark
WH Griffith Thomas
Jessie Penn-Lewis
Phillip Muaro
JR Graves
Anthony Norris Groves
Joseph Mede

 

If you want a few hundred of AE Wilson's audio messages in mp3 format, let me know.

 

Scripture fundamentaly showing that Judas will have a throne?

Luke 22. Particularly verses 14, 28-30.

Verse 14 proves that Judas was one of the 12 with whom Jesus was speaking of and to.

Be aware that Judas is still with them. He has yet to betray Christ. Either Judas, one of the 12 sitting and listening to Jesus as Jesus says "That YE may eat and drink at my table in MY KINGDOM, and SIT upon thrones judging the !@ tribes of Israel

I take God at His Word. Neither adding nor taking away. Sometimes we can see the forest from the trees. I have yet to show this verse to a Baptist Brother who had a Biblical answer to another view. Another view cannot exist without wavering on the Word.

 

I agree my brother, Judas was saved. You state though that you doubt that he will sit on a throne, with this you remind us of Peter.
You mentioned Peter and his repentance.
Remember that Judas too repented of his actions, and carried out the (as he considered) just penalty.

Also look at my reply to Bro. Bob.

Keep up the Good Fight in Texas. You may not remember me but we pray for you often. Preach His coming Kingdom my Brother!

 

Well, I've shown it to plenty who have another view: "No it isn't".

Of course, that doesn't meet your "biblical" criteria.

But, maybe it's a bit harsh to expect a biblical stance in the face of tradition.

 

Good thing Satan wasn't standing close enough to hear!!!!! Jesus knew who all of the Apostles were, their weaknesses and their strengths.

He told them who would betray Him before it happened.



1Cr 11:27¶Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.



damn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): damned; damn·ing /'da-mi[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English dampnen, from Anglo-French dampner, from Latin damnare, from damnum damage, loss, fine
transitive verb
1 : to condemn to a punishment or fate; especially : to condemn to hell

Luk 24:44¶And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

 

To All:

I wrote the following to address how Lordship Salvation advocates find the Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount. I believe this is related to the discussion under way.

DOES THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT CONTAIN “PURE GOSPEL”?​

Dr. John MacArthur says the Sermon on the Mount contains, “pure gospel.” In the Sermon on the Mount you find overtones to salvation, and Matthew 7:13-14 would be an example.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.​

Dr. MacArthur specifically cites Matthew 7:13-14 as, “…the Savior’s own presentation of the way of salvation…In fact, these closing verses are pure gospel.”1

In the revised and expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus Dr. MacArthur addresses Matthew 7:13-14 through several subheadings titled, Two Gates, Two Ways, Two Destinations, Two Crowds. In each section he is speaking of the way or entrance to Heaven: “a narrow path that leads to life.”2 He is speaking in terms of receiving the gift of eternal life. The theme of his message is that choosing the right road leads to Heaven; the wrong road leads to Hell.

Easy-Believism message is shallow and void of vital truths. MacArthur's answer, however, is a message of commitment to walk the narrow path of obedient Christian living in order to be saved. MacArthur says, “Salvation is not easy.”3 Living for Christ as a disciple is not going to be easy. Coming to Christ, however, does not require a man-centered upfront commitment to fulfill the “hard demands” and to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ.

Blending together the results of salvation, i.e. Discipleship, and the requirements for Salvation is a recurring theme in Dr. MacArthur’s interpretation of the gospel. Dr. MacArthur speaks of salvation producing a changed life. He wrote, “This is the whole point of salvation: it produces a changed life.”4 No responsible Bible believing Christian would disagree with that thought.

A “changed life,” may not be the “whole point,” but it is an important point, and should be an expected result of salvation. In the same chapter, however, we also read that lost men must “understand the commitment that is required.”5 Dr. MacArthur continues to explain the commitment he believes is required for and should be the result of salvation.

In Hard to Believe Dr. MacArthur has a chapter titled, Highway to Heaven. In that chapter he addresses Matthew 7:13-14. Dr. MacArthur says obedience to the conditions in the Sermon on the Mount is the requirement for entry into Heaven. For example, he wrote, “Hell will be full of people who thought highly of the Sermon on the Mount. You must do more than that. You must obey it and take action…. You must also enter the narrow gate in utter surrender to Christ.”7

In my opinion the gospel might be best defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand…For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.​

The gospel, therefore, according to the Scriptures is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Dr. MacArthur says the Sermon on the Mount is “the way of salvation.” For Dr. MacArthur obedience and action to what is found in the Sermon on the Mount is the road that must be chosen for a lost man to be born again and ultimately reach Heaven. Is Dr. MacArthur suggesting the Sermon on the Mount be presented to a lost man as though the message of salvation by grace through faith can be shown? Do we find any mention of His death, burial and resurrection in the Sermon on the Mount? Do we find the cross, justification by faith, or new birth? Do we find any clear John 3:16 messages in the Sermon on the Mount?

The Sermon on the Mount can reveal to a lost man his sin condition. The Sermon on the Mount will show all men that they are not righteous and fall short of the glory of God. The Sermon on the Mount may bring some level of conviction. Where, however, in the Sermon on the Mount do we find, as Lordship advocates claim a “pure gospel” message?

At the Sharper Iron Pastor Bob Topartzer filed this helpful observation on.

ENDNOTES:

1. The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 203.
2. Ibid., p. 208.
3. Ibid., p. 206.
4. Ibid., p. 207.
5. Ibid., p. 208
6. Hard to Believe, pp. 208-209.
7. Ibid., pp. 81, 86.
8. Sharper Iron: In Defense of the Gospel: Martuneac Responds to Wood’s Review., p. 2, post #10.

 

The Sermon on the Mount is directed toward believing disciples and concerns reward. See Matt 5:1,2,12

I don't think the sermon ever addresses eternal salvation at all.
​

Lacy

 

Great definitional blog Brother Bob. Now please go back to the scripture given and tell me how can Judas not have a throne and the Words of Christ be true.

Are you trying to now say that only eleven will judge the twelve tribes? Paul wasn't sitting among them when Jesus said YE.

 

Acts 1:

16: Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17: For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19: And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21: Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22: Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23: And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24: And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25: That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26: And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

He would have a hard time sitting on a throne from eternal damnation.

 

The sermon was addressed to the crowd of those following. To state the entire sermon was only to the handful is not correct. Jesus (and others throughout the Bible) would go partly up a mountain while the crowds stayed below so the voice of the speaker could be heard by everyone.

 

Again Brother Bob, You have quoted beautiful Scripture. Nobody argues that Matthias is in Acts 1 but he was not in Luke when Jesus said YE.

Again I ask you to directly deal with the Scripture given to you. If I am misinterpreting a certain Scripture, please enlighten me on the correct interpretation.
Is what Jesus said true or not?

I must also add that God used two different words when dealing with time that many group together as one. Those words are eternal and everlasting. If they are the same, why do you believe that we have two different words? It would be less confusing to use the one or the other.