John 3

If you want to characterize it like that I guess I don't have a huge problem with it. We are three parts and we are to have all three parts "saved." If you will. And despite what Christendom teaches it doesn't all happen at the same time.

 

Spirit - by grace through faith apart from works - it is immediate and unchanging
Soul - by faith that works (and these aren't your own works, but Christ's works done through your members and credited to your account - gold, silver, precious stones) this is a life-long process and the realization comes at the end of your faith according to Peter - it is not guranteed
Body - result of grace through faith apart from works - this happens in the future

 

Well seeings that we are three-part beings and God wants every part to be saved if you want to characterize it like that I guess I don't have a huge problem with it. I wouldn't necessarily say they are different salvations. Salvation is of the Lord. God is Three-in-One. Salvation is three-in-one. There is a plan of salvation that has different facets if you will.

 

Sorry if I did not make that clear. Spiritual salvation is immediate and unchanging.

Soulical salvation is a life-long process and the realization comes at the end of your faith according to Peter.

And from what I understand our bodies aren't saved as much as we are getting a glorified body that will contain the essence of who we are in it in the future.

 

Here is a more detailed description of what J. Jump believes (from his web site).



http://www.1-heart.org

 

Well, you can't prove a negative. Are there teachings of Jesus that aren't for saved people? I don't think so. But, there are a few verses in the Bible that are for unsaved people. But, I would agree that they are still important, because if a person teaches that our spiritual salvation can be forfeited, then one of those passages lies. So, in that sense, they still apply to us, even if we are saved.

The Scriptures say "aionian" life. If you think that means "eternal", then there are contradictions in Scriptures that we have spent page after page after page on, with only a couple of people doing anything more than slinging invective and using untruths.

I posted several pages on this, that directly confronted the five exceptional passages that people try to use to ignore the fact that the Kingdom is future and literal. Which is ironic, since the phrase “kingdom of God” appears in 68 verses of the NT and the single word “kingdom” appears 158 times in 150 verses, and the majority of passages on the kingdom can be easily proven by plain reading to be something that is literal and future and will last a thousand years.
But, there are five main passages in the NT that are used by those that believe that the kingdom of God is spiritual and in the hearts of men rather than a physical, literal, and future kingdom that shall last one thousand years. These passages are: Luke 17:20-21; Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13; and Revelation 1:9.

These are exceptional passages, yet people use them as the standard. A basic rule of Bible interpretation is that if the majority of texts teach one view and there is an apparent exception to the rule that seems to contradict the others, then the proper approach is to consider possible interpretations of that exception that harmonizes with the clearer texts. One thing is certain: God does not contradict Himself in the Scriptures.

 

I assure you I'm not trying to be pedantic, or nit-picking, but should the reference not be John 3.17? I agree with the rest of your post though.

 

You misinterpreted me. I did not say that aionios never means anything but everlasting. It means a number of things, and there is a complete column on it in my BADG. What I said was that the combination of zoen aionion never means anything else but everlasting life. (Dan. 12:2 in the LXX is significant.) Since yours is the view that is contrary to the rest of evangelical interpretation, I suggest that the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Where in Scripture do you get that the salvation of the soul is not eternal salvation?

Actually, I've studied the kingdom of God in Scripture extensively in the past, including taking a grad class on it. (I highly recommend The Greatness of the Kingdom, by Alva McClain.) So though this may seem like a quick rejection to you, it is one based on much previous study.

Frankly, you've given me so little interaction with the objections I've made that I can't see how you can expect me to be convinced.

 

Well, I wasn't in on that, and this thread is rapidly going sour, so I'll just have to check out the links given on this thread to learn the view. :type:

Actually, I believe that the kingdom is both present and spiritual, and future and physical. This is the view that fits all of the data.

But you don't have just one apparent exception. You have a few. So your rule of interpretation doesn't quite apply.

A similar study is the meaning of "disciple." Since Christ seems to use it differently than the book of Acts, what you have is not simply a few exceptions, but two bodies of evidence. It is then necessary to construct a view that covers all the bases.

Take care.

 

Which is something that I covered there. Sort of, "It's a present possession, but a future reality."

We're given a picture of this with David as a type of Christ. Saul was rightly king. David was anointed king. David surrounded himself with faithful Israelites who endured hardship and danger to be faithful, but Saul was still on the throne. David had been anointed, but did not yet rule and reign. When the time was right, he ascended the throne, and those who had been faithful were rewarded with positions of glory and honor. But, the rest of the Israelites were still in Israel, but they were subjects.

Jesus has been anointed King. The Kingdom is a future reality. We currently are commanded to be faithful so that one day when he ascends the throne (Satan is currently the god of this age), he will give those who have been faithful positions of glory and honor. Saved people who were unfaithful in this life will still be saved, but they will be subjects.

We can currently possess the Kingdom, just as David and those around him did, but it's a future reality, just as it was for David and those around him.

 

Actually, using both context and grammar, only one of them is an "exception", and it's not a contradiction.

 

Thanks, gentlemen. I'll check these out.

I think I am going to bow out of this thread unless directly queried. I find myself reacting too strongly to the interpretations here, maybe because they are so similar to hyper-/ultra-dispensationalism, a heresy of the past. I do not mean by this that the view of JJump and Hope of Glory is heresy--it doesn't go as far as hyper-dispensationalism, since that doctrine teaches that Christ's teachings are not for us.

God bless, all. :type:

 

Christ presently rules in my heart. Therefore He is my "once and future King." :jesus:

 

And that is precisely what we are saying. Even though he hasn't ascended the throne, you have joined yourself to him and are being faithful. Just as those made David their king, even before he ascended the throne.

But, I have to ask, is every saved person being faithful? Does every saved person make him Lord of their life?

 

You are not explaining John 18:36 with this view. According to that, He is currently a King, though His kingdom is not yet physical.

It doesn't matter if they "make Him Lord" or not. He is Lord. It is not the subject who makes the king what he is.

 

My apologies!

[quoteWhat I said was that the combination of zoen aionion never means anything else but everlasting life.[/quote]
How can an adjective derived from a noun (aion) that means age (specific amount of time with a beginning and an end) mean without end?

There are many places that reveal this Truth. James 1:21, I Peter 1:9 and Hebrews 10:39 speak directly to the matter though. The other references are by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Well the more I learn and grow the more I am seeing that it is an exercise in futility when such strong statements as I simply don't believe it are made right from the get go.

So there really is not a whole lot of need to go much further when the wall immediately goes up. To me it sounds as if you mind is already made up on the matter, so addressing each objection is rather moot.

Some days I'm better at sticking to this than others. But each time we have gone very far the conversation just turns into mud slinging, lies, mischaracterizations, etc. so I'm trying to learn to stop before that starts.

And I know there are certain members that I shouldn't address or that type of stuff starts, but I let my flesh win out on too many occasions.