Lordship Salvation? - Part Two

[EdSutton]

I'm still not sure how you can separate works and sin.

I'm not sure I ever have.

Since I wasn't 'chosen' by the Holy Spirit to write it; I'se just-a repeatin' it as how He had it to be wrote!

Ed

 

[J. Jump]

I'm not sure I ever have. Since I wasn't 'chosen' by the Holy Spirit to write it; I'se just-a repeatin' it as how He had it to be wrote!

Would you not agree that there are different words used in Scripture to speak about the same thing?

Here's one example kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven (really the kingdom of the heavens).

I agree that the words chosen by the Spirit are CRITICAL to our understanding, but I also think He chose different words to refer to the same thing.

 

[EdSutton]

Would you not agree that there are different words used in Scripture to speak about the same thing?

Here's one example kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven (really the kingdom of the heavens).

I agree that the words chosen by the Spirit are CRITICAL to our understanding, but I also think He chose different words to refer to the same thing.

Nope, I believe the kingdom of God has a wider scope than "just" the kingdom of the heavens. Sometimes they can be used interchangeably, and in fact are. But neither always the case, IMO.

Other words and terms are similarly used, as well.

But by 'limiting' this, we may well make unwaranted 'distinctions' and/or 'inclusions', depending on the instance.

Ed

 

[J. Jump]

Does anybody mind if I just preach salvation?

Everlasting life is not the "whole" counsel of God, so if you preach everlasting salvation and that alone you are selling folks way short of all that God has intended for them.

As for the "other" stuff being too complicated that is why Scripture calls it the meat and strong meat of the word. Yes it is difficult, but we must get away from the milk at some point and move on to solid food.

 

[J. Jump]

Nope, I believe the kingdom of God has a wider scope than "just" the kingdom of the heavens.

That is very true, but you said they can be used interchangeably and that is my point.

Can works and sin not be used interchangeably?

 

[mmetts]

Everlasting life is not the "whole" counsel of God, so if you preach everlasting salvation and that alone you are selling folks way short of all that God has intended for them.

As for the "other" stuff being too complicated that is why Scripture calls it the meat and strong meat of the word. Yes it is difficult, but we must get away from the milk at some point and move on to solid food.

But wouldn't Kingdom Salvation deal with peoples who are not effected in this age, but rather, the Tribulation? Looks like more John and Grudem tonight.

 

[EdSutton]

JJ:

I have to leave for the day, possibly weekend.

I have to leave with this thought: IMO there is something very odd with what you are saying here.


LM

Have a good day, and/or weekend. See you shortly?

Ed

 

[J. Jump]

But wouldn't Kingdom Salvation deal with peoples who are not effected in this age, but rather, the Tribulation?

No. All saved people are going to spend the kingdom age ruling and reigning with Christ or outer darkness. It is up to us as to where we want to spend it.

 

[mmetts]

No. All saved people are going to spend the kingdom age ruling and reigning with Christ or outer darkness. It is up to us as to where we want to spend it.

 

[Hope of Glory]

"The" sin? I would like to mention that there are most likely theologians going to hell since they do not know the Lord. The Pharisees are a great example of this. We are grateful today for the LXX (Septuagint) and the many intellectual items that the Pharisees' knowledge of scriptures have brought us, but Jesus did warn them, "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." NIV.

That's the kind of answer I expected. Scripture answers the question for us, but very few post Scriptures to support their opinion, and then a few always throw in a denigration of those who look at the rule book that God saw fit to give us. But, I know several people who don't care what the Bible says, some who know what the Bible says and "that just can't be what it really means", and several cults who come up with their own.

However, why don't we look at the answer that is given to us in Scripture even though you don't seem to care what the Bible says?

1 John 3:4 says, "Whosoever committeth [the] sin transgresseth also the law [anomia; lawlessness]: for the sin is the transgression of the law [lawlessness].

The sin is doing what is right in your own eyes. It's trying to justify your behavior in spite of what God says. "Well, if God didn't want me to do this, he wouldn't have made me this way." "Well, I'm not under the law, so I can do whatever I want with no consequences."

Know any saved people who do this?

 

[Hope of Glory]

The wages of the sin is death? What translation are you getting this from? I was not able to find one that said "the".

And I have posted tons of scripture, but you always say my interpretation is wrong. I can't help that.

You're one of the few who does actually post Scripture, and for that, I commend you.

However, here is Romans 6:23: τα γαρ οψωνια της αμαρτιας θανατος το δε χαρισμα του θεου ζωη αιωνιος εν χριστω ιησου τω κυριω ημων

For whatever reason, many translations have chosen to omit many words that don't "flow" well in English. But, it behooves us to at least know they are there. Robertson points them out in his commentary in most instances.

It's the sin. The wages of the sin is thanatos.

Now, does thanatos apply to unsaved people and/or does it apply to forever and ever and ever?

 

[Hope of Glory]

But, works after everlasting life sounds like some kind of conundrum. We will be glorified at that point, and won't our works be as Christ's works himself? Of course, He is always the pre-eminent Son. My point is, our works won't be works in Heaven anymore, right? We'll be perfect beings. How could they?

Works after you are born from above into the family are what are being judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ. It doesn't determine whether you are in the family or not. That has already been determined at that point by whether or not you believed in the Lord Jesus.

However, our glory is not an assurance. Colossians 1:27: "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

We don't have to hope that we are saved. We can know that.

But, just like Paul, we hope that we have run the race well. We hope for glory.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The Greek language does have the definite article, here, according to the five Greek versions I have or can find, but I disagree with the rendering offered, as have apparently most, if not all, translators. The inclusion or exclusion of the article in the Greek language, does not necessarily demand the same insertion or exclusion into the English, if I remember correctly, for the accurate sense.

An example would be John 1:1. The intended sense is not that "the Word was 'a god'", as per the Jehovah Witnesses, but that "the Word was God", the absence of the article, notwithstanding. f For its inclusion into this construction, here, would make the sense something the writer (and the Holy Spirit) was not trying to convey, by limiting the meaning.

Omission of the definite article does not necessarily make the noun indefinite, as you are saying. "Anarthrous" is the correct word for it. To use an English example of it, [FONT=&quot]it is much like when a person says, “I’m going to town”, and he’s referring to a specific town. For example, if I were out east and needed to go to the store and buy a piece of rope and were to say, "I'm going to town", the person to whom I'm speaking would know that I'm referring to Homer. However, if I needed to go to Anchorage because the rope is not available in town, I would have to specify that I'm going to "the town of Anchorage".[/FONT]

However, inclusion of the definite article does make it so that it cannot be indefinite. If I say I'm going to "the town of Anchorage" I cannot be going to Shungnak in the context of what I'm saying.

Here, the rendering into English of "the sin", would limit the "wages of sin" to Adam's sin only, theologically, and that is clearly not what Paul intends, IMO.

What scriptural support do you have that this would be the sin?

 

[Amy.G]

You're one of the few who does actually post Scripture, and for that, I commend you.

However, here is Romans 6:23: τα γαρ οψωνια της αμαρτιας θανατος το δε χαρισμα του θεου ζωη αιωνιος εν χριστω ιησου τω κυριω ημων

For whatever reason, many translations have chosen to omit many words that don't "flow" well in English. But, it behooves us to at least know they are there. Robertson points them out in his commentary in most instances.

It's the sin. The wages of the sin is thanatos.

Now, does thanatos apply to unsaved people and/or does it apply to forever and ever and ever?

I find it hard to believe that all the translators over the past several hundred years have all come to the wrong conclusion. And if we are going to be this picky over just one article, I dare say we can trust any translation.

But, what do you believe "the" sin is?

 

[Hope of Glory]

I find it hard to believe that all the translators over the past several hundred years have all come to the wrong conclusion. And if we are going to be this picky over just one article, I dare say we can trust any translation.

But, what do you believe "the" sin is?

The brief answer to that is up in post #250. The lengthy answer, if you're interested, will have to wait, because I'm already going to have to skip lunch as it is.

Edited to add: Not all translators have skipped, and very few have ignored it. Many have determined that it's unimportant, but aren't all the words of God important? I don't mean the ones that can be argued to be legitimate or not, since every manuscript that I've seen, and all the major texts have the definite article there, but many translators simply determine that it's unimportant. (A person can speculate as to why it's unimportant: Maybe it contradicts what they already believe, maybe they think it can't be meshed, or maybe they think that God didn't really mean to use a definite article; I don't know.)

 

[mmetts]

That's the kind of answer I expected. Scripture answers the question for us, but very few post Scriptures to support their opinion, and then a few always throw in a denigration of those who look at the rule book that God saw fit to give us.

That hurts peoples feelings, HoG, and as for denigrations, all I can say is, if you are so full of truth, how can you be so rude? Do you really intend to demonstrate your understanding of scriptures with these angry words? How can you possibly demonstate Christian ethics in this way, or hope to edify, with such an exalting mentality?

However, why don't we look at the answer that is given to us in Scripture even though you don't seem to care what the Bible says?

There was a time I didn't care what the Bible said and had many fears, problems, and addictions. There was also a time when I had nothing in my heart accept a recognition of what my sin had done to me. There was a time in my life I had no family, friends, or perhaps, hardest of all, no hope.

Then, through God's grace I reached a time in my life where I did care for His Word - not because it had a lot that I could learn to impress my friends on BaptistBoard, but because I could teach others about Him after learning more about Him; my own way of hoping for glory. Now, his Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Now I have no want. I have green pastures and a strong passion and desire to see this same grace He has shown me, to occur to others who are lost.

 

[Amy.G]

HoG, what is "the" sin?

 

[mmetts]

Works after you are born from above into the family are what are being judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ. It doesn't determine whether you are in the family or not. That has already been determined at that point by whether or not you believed in the Lord Jesus.

However, our glory is not an assurance. Colossians 1:27: "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

We don't have to hope that we are saved. We can know that.

But, just like Paul, we hope that we have run the race well. We hope for glory.

Thank you for this. I can appreciate helpful teaching. My only concern is that Paul wasn't hoping for glory. He knew he'd ran the race well, and kept the faith.

 

[Hope of Glory]

HoG, what is "the" sin?

OK, in my last post, I pointed out to you that the answer was back up in post #250. Did you look at post #250? Oh, well, I'll do it for you!

1 John 3:4 says, "Whosoever committeth [the] sin transgresseth also the law [anomia; lawlessness]: for the sin is the transgression of the law [lawlessness].

The sin is doing what is right in your own eyes. It's trying to justify your behavior in spite of what God says. "Well, if God didn't want me to do this, he wouldn't have made me this way." "Well, I'm not under the law, so I can do whatever I want with no consequences."

Know any saved people who do this?

[Matthew 5:6 tells us that the hungry will be satisfied. It says, “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.”] Living in the United States we don’t really get hungry of thirsty very often. Maybe we get sort of thirsty sometimes, but we have not really experienced the hunger that some countries have. These two basic elements in a human’s life will drive him to do most any thing. If you are hungry enough, you will steal to get something to eat. If you are thirsty enough, you will drink polluted water to satisfy your thirst, even though it may kill you. The point is this, though: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after the righteousness.” Not just any righteousness, but the righteousness which is of faith. “They shall be filled” or better “they shall be satisfied”. If you are pursuing the righteousness which of faith, that satisfaction will be realized in the age to come. The crown of righteousness is that satisfaction. You don’t get the crown of righteousness if you don’t fight, if you don’t finish, and if you do not live by faith. You don’t get it unless you do these things!

The Lord loves righteousness! If you live a righteous life, and you do that by living a life that pleases God, the rewards are beyond comprehension.
God loves righteousness, but he hates what? He hates iniquity; he hates lawlessness. [Hebrews 1:9; “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity [anomia; lawlessness];”] The Lord hates lawlessness. It says, “Thou has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity. The word “iniquity” is the word “lawlessness”.

We have already looked at lawlessness a little bit, but let’s look at it a little more. [Judges 17:6; “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”] “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes”. That is lawlessness. There was no king. What does that mean? God was not in charge of them any more. Between the book of Judges and 1 Samuel, there was no king; there was no authority. God was not their king and they began to do that which was right in their own eyes; they did what they wanted to do. We find that taking place today.

These things concern the end of this age. [Matthew 24:3; “And as he sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [age]?”] His disciples were gathered around Him and Jesus was talking about the temple being torn down. The disciples came and asked, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?” He told them many things but one thing in particular is found in verses 11 and 12 of Matthew 24.

[Matthew 24:11-12; “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many (who say Lord, Lord). And because iniquity [lawlessness] shall abound, the love (obedience) of many (who say Lord, Lord) shall wax cold (to disobedience and lawlessness).”] These false prophets are the ones who are going to deceive many people. They are the ones who are going to say, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” These that make this defense are lawless. “Why did you do something?” What’s the answer? Well, it usually starts with, But…”, or “Because I wanted to”. Lawlessness shall abound. It is not only abounding in our world and in our government, it is abounding in the Church. The Word of God has no authority in the Church. They are taking away “thus saith the Lord.” They are making their own opinions and ignoring what the Word of God says. This happened in the days that Matthew lived and it is happening today. When it says, “The love of many shall wax cold”, this is talking about obedience. The Lord said, “If you love me, you will obey me”. If our love for the Lord is waxing cold, it simply means that he is losing authority in our lives. When our love for him waxes cold, we are becoming disobedient, and disobedience leads to lawlessness.

We are also told there will be a falling away. [2 Thessalonians 2:3; “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin [lawlessness] be revealed, the son of perdition [destruction];”] “Let no man deceive you.” Even though he may say he is a prophet, don’t let him “deceive you by any means”. The word “sin” in this verse is “lawlessness”.

 

[Hope of Glory]

That hurts peoples feelings, HoG, and as for denigrations, all I can say is, if you are so full of truth, how can you be so rude? Do you really intend to demonstrate your understanding of scriptures with these angry words? How can you possibly demonstate Christian ethics in this way, or hope to edify, with such an exalting mentality?

You denigrate those who actually study the words that God has given us, and you complain about "hurt feelings" when I comment on that? It's OK not to care what the Bible says, but it's not OK to say something about that?

Here, let me repost your quote so we don't forget it:

"The" sin? I would like to mention that there are most likely theologians going to hell since they do not know the Lord. The Pharisees are a great example of this. We are grateful today for the LXX (Septuagint) and the many intellectual items that the Pharisees' knowledge of scriptures have brought us, but Jesus did warn them, "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." NIV.