Eternal Salvation?

[Chris Temple]

Abraham was saved by faith, but was Abraham a member of the Lord's body? Absolutely not!Was Daniel or Job a member of the Lord's body? Absolutely not! Was John the Baptist a member of the Lord's body? Absolutely NOT!!

Yes, they were, and are. If not, then neither are you, for all believers are sons of Abraham, saved by grace and justified by faith as was Abraham, and heirs to the promise.

Was the thief on the cross a member of the Lord's body? Yes! Because the thief died AFTER Jesus did.

Yes, he was, and is, for he was saved in the very same manner: by grace, justified by faith.

There are not different modes of biblical salvation, nor different people who are saved, some "outside teh church" and others "within" the church, but all the saved are the Israel of God (Gal 6:16).

 

[word_digger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes, they were, and are. If not, then neither are you, for all believers are sons of Abraham, saved by grace and justified by faith as was Abraham, and heirs to the promise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, then. WHEN did Abraham become part of the Lord's body?
a. The moment he believed those many years before the Lord was crucifed.
b. At the moment Abraham died.
c. At the Moment the Lord died.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.
f. I don't really understand the question.

Since the Lord's body, the Church, was not created until AFTER He was crucified and raised from the dead....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
.....your argument does not seem to have any sound theological basis in scripture to place Abraham into the Bride of Christ, the Church.

There are saved people who will not be part of the Bride. John himself called himself a friend of the Bridegroom.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joh 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if there is to be a marriage of the Lamb, then WHO are those guests and friends that are invited to the wedding????? People that are invited to a wedding don't all marry the Bride (at least not where I was brought up and raised)

 

[Gina B]

I believe they came to be a part of the Lord's body after hisdeath, after they were preached to in the holding place for souls until that sacrifice was made.
Gina

 

[Chris Temple]

I'm really not sure how to make it much clearer

Gal 3:6 ¶ just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"),
14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It couldn't be any clearer that ALL who believe the promise are sons of Abraham, sons of God, justified by faith, one people of faith, and united in Christ. OT saints are in the church as assuredly as the NT saints.

 

[spudgin]

Crystal clear, bro. Chris.

 

[word_digger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It couldn't be any clearer that ALL who believe the promise are sons of Abraham, sons of God, justified by faith, one people of faith, and united in Christ. OT saints are in the church as assuredly as the NT saints.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, so Adam and Noah, who were the fathers of Abraham and were born and died before Abraham, had to become the sons of Abraham in order to be saved? That makes a lot of sense, Chris.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: word_digger ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OT saints are in the church as assuredly as the NT saints.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is true, then how is Paul right when he calls the church, the body of Christ, a mystery? It seems hardly a mystery in your understanding. Furthermore, you keep quoting Galatians as if we are going to disagree with you on that point. We are not so save the space. The issue is not what we agree on. The issue is what about the other two provisions of the Abrahamic covenant that Paul does not address in this passage? Everyone agrees that Christ was a part of the blessing promised in teh Abrahamic covenant. However, there was much more than that: there was the land and the seed as well as relational blessing (Gen 12:1-3). You cannot keep on (I guess you can but you shouldn't) just ignoring 2/3 of the covenant as if only 1/3 of it was really serious.

Word-digger -- I would urge you to avoid the caustic responses. It is not conducive with the biblical approach whether CT or DT. I disagree with Chris as much as you do. However, let us try gentle discussion.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[spudgin]

Pastor Larry,

Having at one time been an Arminian dispensationalist, and now Reformed, but still a very young Christian, with much to learn, I certainly see some of your points. However, is not the word for church--"ekklesia"-- or congregation or assembly of GOD's people? It would seem that Stephen had that in mind when speaking of Israel in the wilderness in (Acts 7:38.)

In light of Eph.5:25: wouldn't that apply to all of those for whom Christ died to redeem both Old and New Testament. I mean there is no redemption outside of Christ. It would appear that GOD has had a singular purpose for a people to be "one" (Eph 2:14), members of "GOD's household,"(v.19) as I believe our brother Chris has succesfully shown.

 

[Man of Sword]

Quote:

For All of Those Who Said I Was Wrong

I cannot possibly comment on everything that each one of you said. I will say however, that many of you
missed my point completely. I said right at the beginning, that losing salvation was not something that a born
again believer, during the age of the church, had to be concerned about...because we cannot lose our
salvation. You all commented as if I said otherwise. Thanks for paying attention.

A few simple questions, that I would like to see your responses on (especially Pastor Larry):

1. How does one receive eternal life during Christ's earthly ministry? during the tribulation? during the 1,000
year reign of Christ after the tribulation?

2. Can salvation be lost during any of those three different time periods?

Please show your scripture proof for your answers.

Your brother in Christ,
David

End Quote:

Why is it that no one responded to this? Not even a negative post. I think if you guys answered these questions it would "shed some light" on this subject.

 

[Don]

Actually, I see no further light needed on the subject.

Pretty much there's an agreement that salvation is eternal, and cannot be "lost."

One or two might still think differently, but I leave it up to them to present their questions.

All that's happening now is that this has become a dispensationalist topic instead of answering the original question.

 

[word_digger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Word-digger -- I would urge you to avoid the caustic responses. It is not conducive with the biblical approach whether CT or DT. I disagree with Chris as much as you do. However, let us try gentle discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have edited out the caustic comment and I publically apologize to Chris for making it.

"Man of Sword" reminded the forum of an un-addressed question: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1. How does one receive eternal life during Christ's earthly ministry? during the tribulation? during the 1,000
year reign of Christ after the tribulation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can not address those questions unless we get into dispensational issues. There are some here who do not believe in a literal 1,000 year future reign of the Lord Jesus Christ on the earth in the future, following the coming great tribulation.

I would like to ask Chris a question. Do you believe in the literal 1,000 year reign of the Lord on the earth, from Jerusalem, in the future?

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Having at one time been an Arminian dispensationalist<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never been an Arminian dispensationalist. At one time, I was kind of on the edge but I just couldn't get around God's sovereigntly. Arminianism has nothing to do with DT except that some people hold both. You can be a Calvinist and a dispensationalist. The exegesis that leads to one also leads to the other. The association of arminianism and dispensationalism is an unfortunate and unnecessary connection.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, is not the word for church--"ekklesia"-- or congregation or assembly of GOD's people? It would seem that Stephen had that in mind when speaking of Israel in the wilderness in (Acts 7:38.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this has anything to do with the point. You will have to further explain why this is significant. Ekklesia is a called out group. In most cases in the NT, it has taken on a technical meaning for the church, which (I am sure to the chagrin of some on here) is not limited to the local church. Interpreting Scripture in context helps to decide what it means where. I think there are some uses of it and some theological reasons why that it is not always a local church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In light of Eph.5:25: wouldn't that apply to all of those for whom Christ died to redeem both Old and New Testament. I mean there is no redemption outside of Christ. It would appear that GOD has had a singular purpose for a people to be "one" (Eph 2:14), members of "GOD's household,"(v.19) as I believe our brother Chris has succesfully shown.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it does not apply to the OT. It clearly says so when it says the church, referred in Eph 1:22 as his body. National Israel in the OT is never called the body of Christ, indeed it would be anachronistic to do so since Christ had neither come nor died at that point. However, this verse does not at the same time preclude that Christ died for the OT saints as well. It simply does not speak to it. To use this verse to teach that Christ died for the OT saints would be "right theology from the wrong text." The passages you quote in Eph 2 are also talking about the church. As I previously said, CT fails to realize certain distinctions that are clearly made. I don't think Chris has shown any passage that says that OT saints are in one body with the NT saints. The OT saints are never called a body, certainly not the body of Christ. The success of Chris's points depend on the theological framework that Chris has, not on the exegesis of the relavant texts. I think if we get to the texts, that can be shown.

You simply cannot use a text to say something that the author did not intend for it to say.

To man of sword:

Salvation is always by grace through faith. Rom 4 makes it clear that both ABraham and David (under Promise and Law) were saved by faith not works. It is heresy to claim that salvation in any time is by works (Gal 2:16; Rom 3; Rom 4; etc (too many too list here). It contradicts Scripture, it devalues the glory of God in salvation being all from him. Furthermore, at no time can anyone lose their salvation because God is the saving and keeping God, because Christ's atonement secured (not merely made possible) the salvation of the elect. I didn't answer these questions because I don't really have time to get into a discussion that most people have no problem with. I would recommend that you study Scripture instead of some of the people you are studying you will see the futility of such a statement.

 

[HankD]

The Septuagint (LXX) uses the term ekklesia (translated church in the NT) about 50-100 times of the Congregation or the Assembly of Israel or the Congregation or Assembly of the LORD(YHWH).

For example:

KJV Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation (LXX - ekklesia) of the LORD for ever:

KJV 2 Chronicles 6:3 And the king turned his face, and blessed the whole congregation (LXX - ekklesia) of Israel: and all the congregation of Israel stood.

It was not an unfamiliar term to the people of Jesus' day.
The Hebrew word it translates is QAHAL (to gather, collect, assemble).

BTW, The word ekklesiates (from the Book of Ecclesiates) has this word as its root.
Ecclesiates (LXX) translates QOHELETH (which has QAHAL as its root).
The KJV translates QOHELETH as "preacher" a collector or assembler of words, people, etc.

KJV Ecclesiastes 1:12 I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.


HankD

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by word_digger:

I would like to ask Chris a question. Do you believe in the literal 1,000 year reign of the Lord on the earth, from Jerusalem, in the future?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I do not. I am a Reformed Amillennialist, like Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Paul and Jesus. I believe the church age is the millennium which began at Christ's first advent, when he bound the strongman Satan. (Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27; Rev 20:1-3)so the gospel could proceed to all the nations.

See http://members.aol.com/twarren13/amillennial.html http://members.aol.com/twarren11/rev20.html http://members.aol.com/twarren11/amil.html http://members.aol.com/twarren13/amil5.html http://members.aol.com/twarren28/millennialperiod.html

 

[John Wells]

Chris,

If we are in the millennium (referred to as "thousand years" in scripture) now for 2000 years, who is deceiving the nations in this present age? It is painfully obvious that Satan is "the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient (Eph 2:2).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. (Rev 20:3 NLT)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[John Wells]

Dear Man of Sword,

I, like everyone else, assumed Chris' 7/7 1:16PM response said it all! You seem to want to debate what has been very successfully debated, although it's not what you want to believe.

In addition to evidence that faith saved Abraham (Hebrews), take a look at: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. (Psa 51:12-13 KJV)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we see no change in the requirements of salvation from OT to NT: Faith (that God will answer the request) and repentance.

As for OT saints who knew nothing about Jesus as in "no one comes to the Father except by me," they did place their faith in the atoning sacrifices of the priests for the remittance of their sins, which was a type and foreshadow of the ultimate perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Again, faith and repentance was key. The priest's atonements were temporary until Jesus made the final atonement for all sins: past, present, and future!

Thus, Jesus was "the only way" even for OT saints as well!

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
Chris,

If we are in the millennium (referred to as "thousand years" in scripture) now for 2000 years, who is deceiving the nations in this present age? It is painfully obvious that Satan is "the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient (Eph 2:2).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear wellsjs:

Oh, he certainly is, as your quote described. He also "prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour." (1 Peter 5:8) But he is not free in the sense that he was prior to Christ coming. Remember in Job, Satan was free to approach God in heaven (opposed to traditionalism which has Satan "falling" from heaven) and speak with God. In the NT the Gospel of Luke tells us "The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!" 18 And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Lk 10:17,18) This occurred at teh Incarnation.

Satan is now on a long chain, but still dangerous, like a junk-yard dog.

I wish I had more time to discuss but I don't. This is not a new view but rather it is historical. Check out the links I posted for more detail on this view.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It seems like this "historical" view of yours doesn't quite match up with the text. Rev 20 presents Satan as being bound following a great battle between antichrist and Christ. Yet you have him bound at the coming of Christ. When was the battle? Furthermore, "prowling about like a roaring lion" seems a far cry from "locked up in the Abyss." How do you reconcile the description of Revelation with your own view?

YOu have the fall of Satan at the incarnation based on Luke, yet you provide no exegetical defense of that. On what basis do you suggest such a thing? Are you suggesting that Satan was a permanent fixture in heaven until the incarnation when he was suddenly cast out and bound? Luke 17:18 seems to be a statement of Christ's pre-existence, not the casting down of Satan at the incarnation.

 

[Chris Temple]

Larry:

Are you prepared to state that the amil view is not a historical view of the church, alongside later historic premil and postmil positions?
http://members.aol.com/twarren10/eschatology.html

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[John Wells]

Chris,

I'm quite aware of the "amil" theory. Pastor Larry did a good job on the "prowling" issue. How does an amillennialist reconcile this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Rev 20:4 NIV)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we have resurrected OT saints running around us who are two thousand years old? Boy would the National Enquirer like to get a hold of that one!

And didn't the mark on the foreheads thing happen during the tribulation? Has the tribulation happened already also? Pardon me, but trying to think amillennialist has confused me greatly.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]