John 3

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Jump are you suggesting that there are two(2) salvations?

 

[J. Jump]

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.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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.

So in your view is there two(2) salvations or three(3). In what oder do they recieve redemption and what is the source of redemptiion for each?

 

[J. Jump]

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

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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

So let me get this correct. You believe that their are three(3) salvations? I do not want to misunderstand you.

 

[J. Jump]

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.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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.

Would you say they occur seperate from one another or all of them occur at the same time?

 

[J. Jump]

Would you say they occur seperate from one another or all of them occur at the same time?

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.

 

[npetreley]

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



http://www.1-heart.org

1. We believe according to Bible prophesy that the present world (including the majority of Christians) in the last days before Jesus Christ returns will become more and more corrupted with sin, compromise, and lawlessness (Mat. 24:37-38; Lk. 18:8; 21:34; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 4:3-4; Rev. 3:17).


2. We believe that all the world governments presently under Satan shall soon culminate into a one-world kingdom under Antichrist (Dan. 2:44-45; Rev. 13; 1 Jn. 2:18). We believe this future time to be called the tribulation period (Mt. 24:21,29).


3. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will return to rapture the church, to resurrect the dead in Christ and to judge and to reward (Dan. 12:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:1; 1 Thes. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-55; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thes. 1:7-10; Rev. 22:12).


4. We believe that at the second coming Jesus Christ will establish His Kingdom as King on the earth for a literal period of “a thousand years” and put all enemies under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25; Rev. 20:1-6).


5. We believe that by comparing Scripture with Scripture, “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven” are synonymous (Mt. 19:23-24) and that they refer to the future millennial Kingdom age before the eternal ages.


6. We believe that in order to enter into the millennial Kingdom age and reign with Christ, a chosen disciple must be qualified in this age by suffering faithfully (Mt. 5:10-12; Lk. 9:62; 2 Thes. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:11-12; Acts 14:22; Rev. 20:4-6).


7. Therefore, we believe that not all of God’s people will enter into the blessing of the Kingdom of God, but instead, many will suffer exclusion or a disinheritance for the full “thousand years” because of a disobedient and unfaithful lifestyle in this present evil age (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5; Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 8:11-12; Mt. 25:26,30; Lk. 13:24-29).


8. “The thousand year” exclusion is a temporary loss that will not extend beyond “the thousand year” Kingdom. All disobedient children of God shall be restored after the Kingdom in the eternal ages (Rev. 20:5; 1Cor.3:15).


9. We believe that the reward of the millennial Kingdom, to reign with Christ on the earth, is the promised inheritance of the New Testament (Rom.4:13; Col. 3:24; Mt. 25:34; Jam. 2:5) and that His disciples should obey the words of Jesus Christ by seeking first the Kingdom of God above all else (Matthew 6:33).

 

[Hope of Glory]

That's not quite the same as saying, "All of Christ's teachings are for me." Kind of weak.

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.

I completely disagree. The Scripture doesn't say that. It is an interpretation of what the Scripture says. I just finished reviewing our new Japanese translation of John 3, and got no millenium in the passage, either in Greek, English or Japanese. It is simply not there.

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.

The only way you can get it there is to prove that the kingdom of God is always future. Christ distinctly used the present tense for the kingdom, as I showed and you never answered.

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.

 

[David Lamb]

1

4. But I will keep it simple:"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 3:16, NASB).

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Well there you go. Nothing more I am going to say is going to convince you. As a missionary I surprised to hear that you have never heard of aionios meaning something other than everlasting. I don't why that surprises me. It shouldn't, but it did.

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.

By the way you hit John on the head in that it is talking about the salvation of the soul. The salvation of the soul is NOT eternal salvation and can only occur AFTER eternal salvation is over and done with.

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

Unfortunatley you have gone the way of most and that is saying that it isn't true after a few minutes of looking at it.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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

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

 

[John of Japan]

If you want to read more in this teaching you can visit Arlen Chitwoods site www.lampbroadcast.org

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

http://www.1-heart.org

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:

 

[John of Japan]

Jesus has been anointed King. The Kingdom is a future reality.

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

 

[Hope of Glory]

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?

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[J. Jump]

You misinterpreted me.

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?

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

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.

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 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.