Lordship Salvation?

Not to mention, if mankind is saved in the same manner, what happens to those who died 3000 year ago? Since they have had their 1000 year run, what happened to them for the next 2000 years?

 

LOL, I know the tenses. I just made the subjunctive obvious in English with the word "would", and it still didn't help your case at all.

Look, it's obvious that you'll always see "1,000 years" wherever it fits your doctrine. It's obvious to me you're self-deceived. We're never going to agree on this. I also agree it's heresy, and I try to avoid that word. But that's what works-based salvation is. Heresy. IMO, you just look incredibly silly trying to make this case, but go for it. It's all yours.

 

My head is still spinning from the eternal life=1000 years statement. I can't imagine how they will twist scripture to explain that one.

 

It's an a-priori decoder ring. Wherever it fits the doctrine, the meaning must be 1,000 years. Wherever it doesn't, it means eternal. That's what happens when you start with a conclusion and then apply it to scripture.

 

The subjunctive is already made "obvious" in the English with the word "SHOULD."

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

These statements always amaze me. You say you believe in a certain eternal salvation, yet you try to use texts that don't have certainties in them, but possibilities and yet we are the ones that are silly. Okay. Good is bad and bad is good. That is the times we are living in. Right is wrong and wrong is right.

The bottom line is the text doesn't say what you want it to say. It didn't in the other passage we talked about. It doesn't in this one and yet we are the ones that are spouting heresy. Yeah right.

You are entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. You have no foundation to support it.

 

You know this line of nonsense gets old after awhile. You would think you "smart" folks could come up with something more original every now and then to slam us "heresy spouters."

Aionios NEVER means without beginning or end. So once again you just spread falsities instead of showing that we are wrong or better yet showing you are right.

 

This question isn't even logical. No one has "had their 1000 year run." The 1000 years refers to the coming reign of Christ. That hasn't happened yet for anyone.

 

Aionios means forever, without end, but you don't like or trust our resources.

And we're not debating the the words "should" or "would", we're debating the word "eternal".

You are going to believe this man made doctrine no matter what scriptural proof you are shown.

 

Okay, now let's apply kingdom eternal life to this passage.

There you go. The new concept of eternal life applied.

 

Again why is Strong's the infallible authority on definitions? Why is it that Strong's is impossible of being wrong? And how is it that you can explain away an etemological dictionary and shows the word didn't mean that when the word is chosen?

Just curious?

Actually net was, and I asked you a question regarding the words, but you have yet to answer it. Let's ask it again.

Do you believe eternal salvation is a certainty or a possibility? If certainty then how do you explain away the "subjunctive" verbs is John 3:16 which DO NOT mean certainty, but possibility?

Actually I'm going to believe Scripture over you or Strong's until you can show me otherwise. And you haven't even come remotely close yet.

By the way what are you doing with those warning passages to believers? Are they not to believers or can a believer lose his salvation?

 

Absolutely. Let me ask you a question. Is eternal salvation something that you possess now? Or do you have to wait for it?

 

Netreply I found this quote of yours rather curious in light of this discussion:

So obviously you realize there are words that have changed meanings from then to this point in history. So why is it that "eternal" has remained a constant over these hundreds of years despite what etemological dictionaires say to the contrary?

 

One does not use the etymology of a word in order to understand it. That's a logical fallacy. The etymology of the word "energy" is from a Greek word meaning "work". One does not then drop the word "work" into places where we use the word "energy". While energy does involve work from a physics perspective, one would not call an "energy crisis" that arises from a lack of gasoline a "work crisis".

Strongs is more accurate because it defines how the word was used, not the history of the word.

I don't get your whole subjunctive argument. I suspect this points to one of your biggest problems. Someone somewhere said, "This word is in the subjunctive" and you thought that was some sort of key to unravelling a mystery, snatched up that argument, and are pepetuating it here. The fact that it's subjunctive is perfectly logical in the obvious context of the verse. It doesn't lend any credibility to your argument at all.

IMO, this is the "wow, I'm really brainy" payoff to these bizarre doctrines. You get to use cool words like "subjunctive" and reference "etymology" and Greek, and that makes you think you've got a unique perspective on the verse. You can impress other pseudo-intellectuals, but you won't get far with the rest of us.

Oh, and if you really want to sound impressive, spell etymology correctly.

.

 

Wow, you missed the point by about a gazillion light years. The word in TODAY'S TRANSLATIONS is "eternal". Look up eternal in TODAY'S DICTIONARY.

Main Entry: 1eter·nal
Pronunciation: i-'t&r-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus eternal, from aevum age, eternity -- more at AYE
1 a : having infinite duration :

If the meaning has changed and it SHOULD mean something else (like 1,000 years) then the English translators made a mistake by using the word "eternal". It is MORE than reasonable to assume the translators knew what they were doing when they translated it as "eternal" in order to convey the MEANING OF THE WORD WHEN IT WAS USED IN NT TIMES.

Just as English translators would border on being mistaken to use the word "terrible" today, because it no longer means what the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE meant. I say "border on" because "terrible" is at least CLOSER to meaning "awesome" even today than "eternal" is to meaning "1,000 years". "eternal" never meant 1,000 years. Never. Ever. The etymology shows it could, at one time, mean an "age", but never did it ever mean 1,000 years. Never. Did you get that yet? Never.

So you have to break the word twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. You have to bypass the obvious translation as "eternal", go to the etymology, and then add a liberal dose of speculation, after which you manage to mangle the word into meaning 1,000 years. Remember what I said about self-deception? Bingo.

 

This is how heresies get started.

1. Everyone else is wrong throughout history,

2. Accepted historical works such as strongs taken directly from the original language in the context of the passsage is incorrect.

3. The meaning in the appropriate context differs from our presupposition so we need to go back to the root word (when it is convenient) because we can twist that using intellectual gymnastics to justify a new kind of salvation.

4. And of course my favorite: "Most of christiandom is wrong".

 

The intellectual gymnastics here require a double-jointed brain.

 

You have hit the nail on the head.

All of these tactics have been used throughout this discussion. And not just the last few pages, but for several months.

 

Boy you've got a work around for everything don't you netreply. Some words mean different things now, but certain words don't. Awfully convenient when you are the one that gets to choose which ones changed and which ones stayed the same.

There has been a lot of evidence given that showed people didn't use the word aionios to mean forever and ever and ever and ever. I guess you and others will just continue to ignore that becuase Strong's can't possibly be wrong.

Subjunctive in the Greek means possibility not certainty. Eternal salvation is not a possibility but a certainty. John 3:16 speaks of possibilities not certainties. Just showing that contextually John 3:16 doesn't speak of eternal salvation, because the context is a subject that is a possibility not a reality.

Exactly. That's my whole point.

Not only does it, but it destroys your argument in the same breath. You are saying John 3:16 speaks of a certainty, when the actual langauge is speaking of a possibility.

You are talking about apples and the context of the verse is talking about oranges. This is done quite often by Christendom today, because of the traditions of man.

How about if you want to prove someone incorrect you do it with Scripture and not childish personal attacks! But you keep them personal attacks coming, because all it does is show your true colors!

And you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion does not Truth make!

 

And here we go with the same ole lame arguments. No one is saying that everyone else in history is wrong. Jesus Christ, the apostles, the 70 and the early church taught this message.

People used your same logic during the time Jesus walked the earth, because He was preaching a "new" doctrine and look where it go them.

Again you would think you folks could come up with something new and something that actually made sense.

Maybe you can try your hand at this question, since everyone else seems to not want to pony up an answer. What makes Strong's infallible and the other resources that we have cited incorrect? Do you have Scripture that says Strong's is the ONLY thing a person can believe?

Please show me a langauge expert of any kind that says an adjective can mean something other than the word it modifies. Talk about illogical. WOW.

Truth is truth no matter whether you want to believe it or not. Again your majority is right logic didn't work very well when Jesus walked the earth. Just curious as to why it is the correct mode of thought these days?

 

John 3:16 speaks of possibilities because eternal life is conditional on whether or not you believe. It has nothing to do with the length of eternal life, or whether or not you earn it through works. If you're really concerned about the rewards for your works, you better worry about how you're going to pay for adding so much garbage to the text.