Not Believing and still Get to Heaven?

[Hope of Glory]

This is not a scriptural justification but makes for a good sermon illustration. The Bible refers in many places to our new life in Christ as having been adopted. Being an adoptive parent, I can tell you there is something very different about adopted children and their relationship to their parents and biological children (aside form the obvious). An adopted child is from the time of adoption a legal heir to his or her adoptive parents. Assuming I had biological children as well, I could simply remove their inheritence with a will. Not so with our adopted son, because he is made an heir by the court adoption decree.

In other words, from a legal standpoint, an adopted child has more security in his inheritance than a biological child.

Happy to be an adopted child of God,
Aaron

This is a problem with understanding the concept of adoption as being placed into a family. When you are born into a family, do you have to be placed into a family through adoption?

Adoption has to do with position within the family. It is literally son-placement. ("Son" and "child" are not synonymous.) It has to do with acceptance and finding a child approved.

In fact, according to WordNet from Princeton, the placing into a family is a secondary definition of "adoption", and this does not even take into account that the Greek word had absolutely zero to do with placing into a family.

adoption

n 1: the act of accepting with approval; favorable reception; "its adoption by society"; "the proposal found wide acceptance" [syn: acceptance, acceptation, espousal] 2: a legal proceeding that creates a parent-child relation between persons not related by blood; the adopted child is entitled to all privileges belonging to a natural child of the adoptive parents (including the right to inherit) 3: the appropriation (of ideas or words etc) from another source; "the borrowing of ancient motifs was very apparent" [syn: borrowing].

This approval or son-placement is what we need to be seeking. By "we", I mean those who have already been born from above into the family of God.

 

[Martin]

Well just like his gospel John is not speaking of eternal salvation, because of the language structure eternal security is an impossibility becuase he speaks in the present sense.

Eternal salvation is not the context of his gospel of his first epistle.

So that eliminates (Jn 8:31, Jn 10:27)

==Well let's see. I can believe your theory or the Gospel of John itself which says..."these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His Name" (Jn 20:31). So your theory falls apart right there. Even though, I must admit, what you have said above makes little sense.

Colossians is addressed to the faithful, so that eliminates at least some Christians, because not all Christians are faithful Christians, so that can not be used as evidence.

==Colossians 1:21-23 is talking about the fact that true believers continue in the faith. You have been reconciled if you continue in the faith.

The I Th. passage uses a subjunctive verb, which means that this may or may not happen before the coming of the Lord.

==No, that is incorrect. The verse directly states that, "Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass" (vs24). Bring what to pass? Verse 23. We could also look at John 6:37-40 and Hebrews 12:2 (Phil 1:6, 2Cor 1:21-22, etc).

Since you claim some level of knowledge of greek grammer, maybe you can share with us what level of study you have in greek. How many semesters, graduate or undergraduate, etc.

 

[J. Jump]

Well let's see. I can believe your theory or the Gospel of John itself which says..."these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His Name" (Jn 20:31). So your theory falls apart right there. Even though, I must admit, what you have said above makes little sense.

Well let's see if the theory falls apart here. John says so that you may believe (subjunctive - you may or may not believe) that Jesus is the Christ (the King - the Messiah), the Son of God (the one Who is going to rule) and that by believing (present tense - one must continue to believe in order for the next part to be true) you may have life in His name.

Okay again eternal salvation is a one-time event not a continual believing. That right there tells us it's not eternal salvation. But He is asking them to continually believe that Christ is the King. And he says that the life comes in His name.

So does eternal salvation come in Jesus name or Jesus' death and shed blood? That would be "b" eternal salvation comes via His death and shed blood not His Name and His Kingship. That comes AFTER eternal salvation is taken care of.

So it doesn't look like Scripture failed at all.

Colossians 1:21-23 is talking about the fact that true believers continue in the faith.

No it doesn't. This letter was written to saints that were currently living a faithful life and it says IF you continue what you are presently doing then . . . But guess what...if they didn't continue in the faith then . . . wasn't going to happen.

That's why it says IF instead of you will continue in the faith, because there is a possibility that they wouldn't, just as there is a possibility today that we won't, but it's not even talking about eternal salvation faith, it's speaking of the faith necessary after eternal salvation. For by faith the righteous shall live!

No, that is incorrect.

Yes it does. The verb is subjunctive. Go look it up. I'm not making this stuff up. Subjunctive verbs mean the action may or may not happen.

Since you claim some level of knowledge of greek grammer, maybe you can share with us what level of study you have in greek. How many semesters, graduate or undergraduate, etc.

Again I would caution you as I cautioned someone else. I would not put all my eggs in the basket of the educational elite, because Jesus came to make the fool wise and the wise a fool.

Greek grammar is something that anyone can learn without having to go to seminary. There are tons of helpful study aids and such.

Now I do not claim to be a Greek grammar expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the basics of Greek grammar are easy to learn and I do have friends that have studied the language, so I consult them if need be.

 

[Martin]

John says so that you may believe (subjunctive - you may or may not believe) that Jesus is the Christ (the King - the Messiah), the Son of God (the one Who is going to rule) and that by believing (present tense - one must continue to believe in order for the next part to be true) you may have life in His name.

Okay again eternal salvation is a one-time event not a continual believing. That right there tells us it's not eternal salvation. But He is asking them to continually believe that Christ is the King. And he says that the life comes in His name.

==So you would argue that passages such as John 3:16 and 5:24 do not deal with eternal salvation since they also can be rendered "believing"? I would also ask the same about 1John 5:13. Those verses clearly are talking about eternal salvation.

John 20:31 is talking about eternal salvation. John is saying that he wrote his Gospel (good news) so that those who read it would believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be (8:24, 20:29) and thus have life, eternal life (3:16, etc). Trying to pick apart the greek without paying attention to the context of the verse is, to put it mildly, self defeating.

So does eternal salvation come in Jesus name or Jesus' death and shed blood? That would be "b" eternal salvation comes via His death and shed blood not His Name and His Kingship. That comes AFTER eternal salvation is taken care of.

==Those are not two different things. What did Paul and Silas say to the jailer? Believe "in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). Peter says that it was "faith in His name" that gave the cripple the ability to walk (Acts 3:6,16). In Acts 4:10 the Apostle Peter puts the Name of Jesus with His work, "by the Name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead". So you can't seperate the two. Believing in the Name of Jesus is to believe in the Person of Jesus. To believe in Him is to believe in His death, burial, and resurrection from the grave. Romans 10:9 says that we must confess Jesus as "LORD" (master) and believe in order to be saved. So yes, you must believe in Jesus' kingship in order to be saved.

No it doesn't. This letter was written to saints that were currently living a faithful life and it says IF you continue what you are presently doing then . . . But guess what...if they didn't continue in the faith then . . . wasn't going to happen.

==Well clearly you have not examined the greek, or english, text here very well. What does the text actually say?

"And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast..." Col 1:21-23a

Does Paul say that they will be saved only if they continue? No. He says that they have been saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) if they continue. What does that mean? If they don't continue they were not saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc). The greek here is the "first class condition" or "simple condition". What is that? It is simply affirming the reality of the condition. The verse affirms that if they are saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) they will continue in the faith. If, on the other hand, they are not saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) they will not continue. Paul does not say that salvation is conditional upon perseverence, rather perseverence is a sign of salvation (Jn 8:31).

Yes it does. The verb is subjunctive. Go look it up. I'm not making this stuff up. Subjunctive verbs mean the action may or may not happen.

==It is a bit more complex then that (see above).

Again I would caution you as I cautioned someone else. I would not put all my eggs in the basket of the educational elite, because Jesus came to make the fool wise and the wise a fool.

==That is nothing but a bad excuse to avoid education. Jesus trained his disciples for two or three years before he allowed them to go out. Why? Because proper Christian ministry requires training. Not just training on the "how to" but also training on the theology (etc). They knew greek, they did not need to study it. We don't know greek, we need to study it. Why? Because Greek is the language God inspired the Apostles to pin the New Testament in. The english translations, no matter how good, can never capture the full meaning of the greek texts. Seminary, graduate school, is where the church trains men/women for whatever "offical" ministry God has called them to. The Bible is not opposed to education, and it certainly is not opposed to advanced learning in the Scriptures. The Bible condemns worldly wisdom, not Scriptural/Godly wisdom.

Greek grammar is something that anyone can learn without having to go to seminary. There are tons of helpful study aids and such.

==Some people might be able to, but not most. Most people who try to train themselves on greek learn just enough to be dangerous. They don't get into the complex issues (etc). Going to Bible College or Seminary to learn greek/hebrew forces a dedicated student to deal with both the simple ideas and the complex ideas. In other words it forces a person to get into the details. I know, I have been to seminary.

 

[J. Jump]

So you would argue that passages such as John 3:16 and 5:24 do not deal with eternal salvation since they also can be rendered "believing"?

I would not argue, but say that's exactly what the text says. And the Bible tells us that eternal salvation is a one-time event, not an ongoing process.

I would also ask the same about 1John 5:13. Those verses clearly are talking about eternal salvation.

Yes John uses the same verbage in his first epistle. And no they can not clearly be talking about eternal salvation, because if they do then the Bible is contradicting Itself. And that is an impossibility.

John 20:31 is talking about eternal salvation. John is saying that he wrote his Gospel (good news) so that those who read it would believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be (8:24, 20:29) and thus have life, eternal life (3:16, etc).

I dealt with this Scripture in another thread, but I can't remember where it is, so I'll have to re-do it

Let's see what the text says: but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Okay I think we can both agree that eternal salvation is based on the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God as payment for our sin debt if we believe He died and shed His blood on our behalf.

That's not what John is talking about at all. John says I write so that you may believe (subjunctive - you may or may not believe) that Jesus is the Christ (the King-Annointed-Messiah), the Son of God (sonship has to do with inhertiance and rulership) and that believing (a continual process of believing) you will have life in His name (not His death and shed blood that secures eternal salvation).

Believe "in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

I see by your next statement I must have already explained the above to you.

Notice here they are not told to believe in His name.

Peter says that it was "faith in His name" that gave the cripple the ability to walk (Acts 3:6,16). In Acts 4:10 the Apostle Peter puts the Name of Jesus with His work, "by the Name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead".

This is dealing with an offer of the kingdom not an offer of eternal salvation. Two separate messages that must be kept separate for a complete understanding of Scripture.

To believe in Him is to believe in His death, burial, and resurrection from the grave.

Not for eternal purposes. Burial and resurrection are never required by God for dealing with sin. Only death and shed blood. That's it.

Now burial could go along with death and I have no problem with that, but resurrection has to do with walking in a new life, which has to do with works, which does not have to do with eternal salvation.

Does Paul say that they will be saved only if they continue? No. He says that they have been saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) if they continue. What does that mean? If they don't continue they were not saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc). The greek here is the "first class condition" or "simple condition". What is that? It is simply affirming the reality of the condition. The verse affirms that if they are saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) they will continue in the faith. If, on the other hand, they are not saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) they will not continue. Paul does not say that salvation is conditional upon perseverence, rather perseverence is a sign of salvation (Jn 8:31).

Yes its a conditional statement that's why IF is used, but you are giving it an imporper context. The context is not eternal salvation, because he was already speaking to saved individuals. We can't just assign a context to prove our point.

That is nothing but a bad excuse to avoid education.

And this is the same lame thing that all seminary students say, because they want everyone to spend the gazillion dollars to go to seminary like they have. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a person has to go to seminary to be educated. And for you seminary people to think that you are above everyone else that is a student of the Scriptures is absolutely arrogant, but most of you are like that.

Seminary education doesn't equal the end of all of Scriptural education. The Pharisees and the Saducees are closely related to seminary. Wonder why Christ didn't send His disciples to the seminary of the day? Wonder why Paul discipled Timothy instead of sending him to formal seminary training.

Seminary training does not make you superior, as one can educate themselves by reading and studying and sitting under Godly teaching. And to be perfectly honest I think that is much closer to the Biblical model than seminary. But you have a biased view, because you are a seminary student.

Because proper Christian ministry requires training.

And no where does it say that it has to come from a seminary.

We don't know greek, we need to study it. Why? Because Greek is the language God inspired the Apostles to pin the New Testament in. The english translations, no matter how good, can never capture the full meaning of the greek texts.

I totally agree with that.

Seminary, graduate school, is where the church trains men/women for whatever "offical" ministry God has called them to.

No that's just were SOME training goes on. It's not the only place of training.

The Bible is not opposed to education, and it certainly is not opposed to advanced learning in the Scriptures.

Absolutely agree, but it doesn't condemn those that train under men such as the disciples with Christ, Timothy with Paul, etc.

The Bible condemns worldly wisdom, not Scriptural/Godly wisdom.

Unfortunately the world has crept into the church and is spreading rampantly and the same can be said for seminary. So I would rather ask God to surround me with Godly individuals than have to muddle through all the junk in a seminary. Plus I don't have to spend a gazillion dollars.

Funny that no one was ever charged an arm and a leg in the Bible for wanting to learn it's Truths. Hmmmm...

I have been to seminary.

And that is exactly what taints your persception.

 

[Martin]

I said:
So you would argue that passages such as John 3:16 and 5:24 do not deal with eternal salvation since they also can be rendered "believing"?

I would not argue, but say that's exactly what the text says. And the Bible tells us that eternal salvation is a one-time event, not an ongoing process.

==So, what are you saying about those verses? Does John 3:16 deal with salvation or not? Your right the Bible does not contradict itself.

I said:
Peter says that it was "faith in His name" that gave the cripple the ability to walk (Acts 3:6,16). In Acts 4:10 the Apostle Peter puts the Name of Jesus with His work, "by the Name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead".

This is dealing with an offer of the kingdom not an offer of eternal salvation. Two separate messages that must be kept separate for a complete understanding of Scripture.

==So you are saying that the cripple man did not have faith in Christ? Are you saying that a person can have true faith in Christ's death and resurrection and yet not have eternal life? Btw, I don't agree with the kind of seperation you are making. But that is another issue.

Not for eternal purposes. Burial and resurrection are never required by God for dealing with sin. Only death and shed blood. That's it.

==Scripture says that the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1Cor 15:1-8, Rom 10:9, Jn 3:14-15, etc). So again I don't agree with your hyper-seperation view.


I said:
Does Paul say that they will be saved only if they continue? No. He says that they have been saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) if they continue. What does that mean? If they don't continue they were not saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc). The greek here is the "first class condition" or "simple condition". What is that? It is simply affirming the reality of the condition. The verse affirms that if they are saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) they will continue in the faith. If, on the other hand, they are not saved (reconciled, holy, blameless, etc) they will not continue. Paul does not say that salvation is conditional upon perseverence, rather perseverence is a sign of salvation (Jn 8:31).

Yes its a conditional statement that's why IF is used, but you are giving it an imporper context. The context is not eternal salvation, because he was already speaking to saved individuals. We can't just assign a context to prove our point.

==What? Of course it is talking to Christians (vs21-22). We are looking at the condition in verse 23. Does it say that unless a person continues they will cease to be saved, or does it say that if a person does not continue they were not saved (ie..perseverence is a sign of salvation). My statement above deals with the grammer and the context. So I am unsure of what you are now saying about this verse.

And this is the same lame thing that all seminary students say, because they want everyone to spend the gazillion dollars to go to seminary like they have.

==Bitter? Not all seminaries cost "gazillion dollars". Many are, in fact, cheaper than most regular graduate schools.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a person has to go to seminary to be educated.

==Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to go to high school either, but I am sure you went. Nor does the Bible say anything about Sunday School, but I am sure you go. So what is your point?

Anyway your point is not valid since they did not have Christian seminaries at the time. But I would argue that walking and learning from the Lord (in person) for three years is a great education.

And for you seminary people to think that you are above everyone else that is a student of the Scriptures is absolutely arrogant, but most of you are like that.

==I don't know, but that seems like a pretty arrogant statement. You are assuming all seminary students are alike. That is incorrect. Nobody said seminary people were better than everyone else. I am just pointing out the need for higher education in the Christian community.

Seminary education doesn't equal the end of all of Scriptural education. The Pharisees and the Saducees are closely related to seminary. Wonder why Christ didn't send His disciples to the seminary of the day? Wonder why Paul discipled Timothy instead of sending him to formal seminary training.

==Strawman alert! Jesus NEVER, not one time, condemned the Pharisee (etc) for their schools. He condemned them for their errors in doctrine.

Seminary training does not make you superior, as one can educate themselves by reading and studying and sitting under Godly teaching. And to be perfectly honest I think that is much closer to the Biblical model than seminary. But you have a biased view, because you are a seminary student.

==And you have a bias view because you are not a seminary student. See, I can drop to that level as well.

Most seminary students, btw, do both (personal study, Godly mentors, preachers, and seminary).

No that's just were SOME training goes on. It's not the only place of training.

==Did I say that seminary is the "only place of training"? No. The fact is there are some things you are not likely to learn in a church. Things like church history, greek grammer, hebrew grammer, hermeneutics, etc. O a preacher may touch on those things but he will not have the time to give detailed lessons. Sure a person can go out and read books on the subjects and learn a great deal. I know I do that as do most other seminary students/alumni that I know. But there is something about going to school and doing detailed, in depth study that adds so much more to it. Maybe it is the amount of time and the level of study, I don't know. But I know that I learned alot, and I mean alot, in seminary. Whether that was in class, or just personal readings (books that I would not have known of outside of seminary), or from fellow students and teachers, I learned alot. Should everyone attend seminary? No. People should only do what God has called them to do. If God has called someone to be doctor, they should go to medical school. If God has called someone to be a teacher, they should go to the needed school(s). If God has called someone to be a preacher, they should follow the path that God calls them on. For many preachers that will include some sort of formal education (institute, Bible College, maybe seminary).

Unfortunately the world has crept into the church and is spreading rampantly and the same can be said for seminary. So I would rather ask God to surround me with Godly individuals than have to muddle through all the junk in a seminary. Plus I don't have to spend a gazillion dollars.

==Clearly you don't know much about the many fine, Godly seminaries out there. Has the world crept into some schools? Yes. Has the world crept into some churches? Yes. But that does not mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. There is a great deal to learn in seminary. Not just from the books, but mainly from the Godly men/women who are students and teachers.

 

[J. Jump]

So, what are you saying about those verses? Does John 3:16 deal with salvation or not? Your right the Bible does not contradict itself.

Yes it does talk about salvation, but not eternal salvation. Christendom has fallen into the trap of every verse that talks about salvation, saved, faith, believe etc. must be talking about eternal salvation. What most folks do is come up with a meaning and then automatically place their meaning onto the words instead of letting the context tell us what is being talked about.

Salvation can mean different things in different contexts. Eternal salvation is not the context of the gospel of John, nor his first epistle. Nor for his other two I would suspect, but it's been a long while since I have read those and my memory is not so good anymore

So you are saying that the cripple man did not have faith in Christ?

We are not given a lot of details about the lame man. There were some folks that were healed in the NT that didn't believe, but were healed for a Higher Purpose.

It seems from the text that his faith came after the healing and not before.

Are you saying that a person can have true faith in Christ's death and resurrection and yet not have eternal life?

That's the ONLY way they can have eternal salvation!

Btw, I don't agree with the kind of seperation you are making. But that is another issue.

What we think is of no matter unless it lines up with Scripture, and Scripture makes the distinction, so I believe it.

Scripture says that the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1Cor 15:1-8, Rom 10:9, Jn 3:14-15, etc). So again I don't agree with your hyper-seperation view.

But what you are doing is lumping all of it into one gospel. The gospel simply means good news.

The only good news that a dead man needs to hear is that Christ died for him and shed His blood and if he believes he did that on his behalf he is saved.

Then and only then does he need to hear that Christ rose again, because the fact that Christ rose again has nothing to do with eternal salvation, but with the ability that this man can walk in a newness of life in Christ.

There is a much more detailed explanation, but there is no need in going further, if you are going to deny what has been said so far.

What? Of course it is talking to Christians (vs21-22). We are looking at the condition in verse 23. Does it say that unless a person continues they will cease to be saved, or does it say that if a person does not continue they were not saved (ie..perseverence is a sign of salvation). My statement above deals with the grammer and the context. So I am unsure of what you are now saying about this verse.

Well let's look again at what exactly the text says.

yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Paul tells us that He saved us by His death for a purpose. What is that purpose? to present us before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

And if we continue in the faith then we will be presented before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach. But guess what if we don't continue in the faith we won't be presented to Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach. This has to do with the judgment seat of Christ and only saved individuals will stand at the judgment seat of Christ.

Christ wants us to standy before Him blameless, holy and beyond reproach, but if we don't continue in the faith (not eternally saving faith), but faith that should lead to obedience, the faith that James talks about the faith that saves the soul, then we will stand before Him ashamed.

Bitter?

What in the world would I have to be bitter about? I believe I have received and continue to receive and education from God through His direct teaching and through those that He appointed as pastors and teachers. Why would I be bitter?

Not all seminaries cost "gazillion dollars". Many are, in fact, cheaper than most regular graduate schools.

Gazillions of dollars is relevant depending on a person's financial situation. For some $5 a credit hour would be a gazillion dollars at that moment. Just because you can afford it doesn't mean everyone can. And just because you went doesn't mean everyone has to.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to go to high school either, but I am sure you went. Nor does the Bible say anything about Sunday School, but I am sure you go. So what is your point?

The point is that the Bible doesn't demand a seminary education, but your lead on as though that is the only way someone can be properly trained.

If people can afford and desire to go to seminary then by all means let them make it happen, but demanding it of everyone as if it is the one and only way to be properly educated is not Biblical. That was my point.

Anyway your point is not valid since they did not have Christian seminaries at the time.

You don't think the Pharisees and Saducees had some sort of formal training arrangment set up? I think they probably did.

I don't know, but that seems like a pretty arrogant statement. You are assuming all seminary students are alike. That is incorrect. Nobody said seminary people were better than everyone else. I am just pointing out the need for higher education in the Christian community.

I apologize for lumping all seminary people into the same group. I try to catch myself when I make statements like that, but sometimes slips happen.

But what is funny is you make the statement that seminary people don't think themselves better than others, and you follow that up with "I'm just point out the need for higher eduction in the Christian community."

Insinuating that seminary is the only way someone can get a higher education in the Christian community. And that's just not so. Someone can be highly educated on the meat of the word and the strong meat of the word without ever stepping foot into a seminary!

Jesus NEVER, not one time, condemned the Pharisee (etc) for their schools. He condemned them for their errors in doctrine.

I thought they didn't have seminaries back then? No He didn't condemn them, but He didn't send any of His disciples there either, and neither did any of the disciples send their students there.

Again my point is seminary while it may be okay for some does not make it a necessity for all to be "highly educated."

Did I say that seminary is the "only place of training"? No.

Not directly, but it's hard to miss from your insinuations!

The fact is there are some things you are not likely to learn in a church. Things like church history, greek grammer, hebrew grammer, hermeneutics, etc. O a preacher may touch on those things but he will not have the time to give detailed lessons.

Who said one is limited to learning inside the church's four walls? I never said that. Besides I know a pastor in North Carolina that teaches his people Greek on a Tuesday night if they so choose to come.

A great number of books have been written on the subject. That's what personal mentoring and disicipleship is all about. And if we would return to that way of doing things we would all be a lot better off I think!

Clearly you don't know much about the many fine, Godly seminaries out there. Has the world crept into some schools? Yes. Has the world crept into some churches? Yes. But that does not mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. There is a great deal to learn in seminary. Not just from the books, but mainly from the Godly men/women who are students and teachers.

Actually the Bible teaches the closer we get to the end of this dispensation the more corrupt each is going to get. And there may be a number of Godly men and women in some of these seminaries, but there are probably a LOT more Godly men and women that don't teach in the seminaries that people are just as able to learn from.

 

[Martin]

Yes it does talk about salvation, but not eternal salvation.

==So your position is that John 3:16 does not refer to eternal salvation? Right? I want to make sure because I am still not 100% sure I understand your position. If that is correct, and I don't want to misrepresent your position, you are saying that "perish" does not mean destruction and "eternal life" does not mean salvation (in John 3:16)? Again just trying to get a grip on your position so I can properly respond.

Salvation can mean different things in different contexts. Eternal salvation is not the context of the gospel of John, nor his first epistle.

==Considering that John himself talks about "eternal life" and salvation from perishing, and considering that he makes "life" his theme I have a very difficult time accepting your position as Biblical (Jn 3:16, 20:30-31). In the Epistle of 1 John, the Apostle directly states that the purpose of writing the Epistle was, "that you may know that you have eternal life" (5:13). So again, based on the text alone, I can't agree with your conclusion.

We are not given a lot of details about the lame man. There were some folks that were healed in the NT that didn't believe, but were healed for a Higher Purpose. It seems from the text that his faith came after the healing and not before.

==While I agree that not everyone who is healed is saved (though I think most are) the crippled man certainly did have faith before his healing (Acts 3:4-6, 4:9-10). Peter, btw, connects this to salvation (Acts 3:11ff).

What we think is of no matter unless it lines up with Scripture, and Scripture makes the distinction, so I believe it.

==I don't see such a division in Scripture.

The only good news that a dead man needs to hear is that Christ died for him and shed His blood and if he believes he did that on his behalf he is saved.

==The Holy Spirit inspired Apostle Paul disagrees with you...

"Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,...For I delievered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" -1Cor 15:1,3-4

Jesus Himself said...

"Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day and that repentance afor forgivness of sins would be proclaimed in His Name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem" -Luke 24:46-47

Then and only then does he need to hear that Christ rose again, because the fact that Christ rose again has nothing to do with eternal salvation, but with the ability that this man can walk in a newness of life in Christ.

==Again Scripture disagrees with you. Notice again in 1Corinthians 15:1-2 what Paul says, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received", Paul had already made known to them the Gospel which they received and by which they were saved (vs3). What Gospel was that? What did it include? The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (vss4-5). In Romans 10:9 Paul tells us that you must "believe in your heart" that God raised Christ from the dead in order to be saved. And yes, the context is eternal salvation (10:1-9,10-13). In Acts 26:19-23 the Apostle again includes the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as part of the essential Gospel message that he proclaimed (vs23).

Now to Col. 1:21-23

Paul tells us that He saved us by His death for a purpose. What is that purpose? to present us before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

==Agreed.

And if we continue in the faith then we will be presented before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach. But guess what if we don't continue in the faith we won't be presented to Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

==You totally ignored what I said about the grammer. This is a first class, simple, condition. The point is that true believers will persevere.

This has to do with the judgment seat of Christ and only saved individuals will stand at the judgment seat of Christ. Christ wants us to standy before Him blameless, holy and beyond reproach, but if we don't continue in the faith (not eternally saving faith), but faith that should lead to obedience, the faith that James talks about the faith that saves the soul, then we will stand before Him ashamed.

==The Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin view I see. I am very familiar with that. The verse is talking about being reconciled to God through the death of Christ (vs22) for the purpose of presenting us blameless before Him. This is refering to salvation, two reasons:

1. In 1Thess 5:23-24 Paul tells us that God will do this for believers.

2. Verse 23, of Col 1:21-23, is the first class condition. Agreeing with 1Thess 5:21-23.

So if a person is not presented to God as described in Col 1:22b then that person is not saved, not reconciled to God through Christ.

We can't go any further on this point until you address the condition issue.

Gazillions of dollars is relevant depending on a person's financial situation. For some $5 a credit hour would be a gazillion dollars at that moment. Just because you can afford it doesn't mean everyone can. And just because you went doesn't mean everyone has to.

==Actually I could not afford it. I had to borrow money from my parents, use other forms of credit, and work in order to pay for my education.

You don't think the Pharisees and Saducees had some sort of formal training arrangment set up? I think they probably did.

==They did have such schools, but they were not Christian schools. Christian seminaries did not exist for many years. But again, Jesus never condemned school.

But what is funny is you make the statement that seminary people don't think themselves better than others, and you follow that up with "I'm just point out the need for higher eduction in the Christian community." Insinuating that seminary is the only way someone can get a higher education in the Christian community. And that's just not so.

==What?

Saying that there is a need for higher education in the Christian community is not saying that everyone has to attend a seminary. There is a need for Christian schools, colleges, universities, and yes seminaries.

Someone can be highly educated on the meat of the word and the strong meat of the word without ever stepping foot into a seminary!

==I have never denied that. I am saying that those who are going into offical ministry will usually need some form of offical training. There are Bible Institutes, Bible Colleges, and Seminaries for those people.

I thought they didn't have seminaries back then? No He didn't condemn them, but He didn't send any of His disciples there either, and neither did any of the disciples send their students there.

==Jesus did not send His disciples to the Jewish schools because they were Jewish schools. Jesus wanted His disciples to learn His message so they could preach/teach it to the world.

Who said one is limited to learning inside the church's four walls? I never said that. Besides I know a pastor in North Carolina that teaches his people Greek on a Tuesday night if they so choose to come.

==That's great, I know of pastors who do the same thing. However they are in the minority and not the majority. For most people the only place they can get offical training in the languages is school. Also, while I admire the pastors who attempt to teach those subjects, they will not always be as educated as someone who spends their entire life learning and teaching those languages. So for someone going into offical ministry I would strongly urge an actual course.

And if we would return to that way of doing things we would all be a lot better off I think!

==We have to live in the real world my friend. What could be, might be, or would be will not do. Certain people need offical training that churches (etc) cannot often give. That is why many churches have sponsered, supported, or started seminaries. Examples?

Thomas Road Baptist Church....Liberty University, Liberty Theological Seminary.

Southern Baptist Convention....6 Major Seminaries.

Temple Baptist Church....Temple Baptist Seminary

etc, etc

Other times these schools are started by Godly men who see a need for them.

Other churches have Bible Institutes or Colleges on site.

Actually the Bible teaches the closer we get to the end of this dispensation the more corrupt each is going to get. And there may be a number of Godly men and women in some of these seminaries, but there are probably a LOT more Godly men and women that don't teach in the seminaries that people are just as able to learn from.

==Are you really familiar with the evangelical seminaries? It does not sound like it. It sounds like you are taking liberal seminaries and using them as a model to generalize about all seminaries.

 

[Martin]

J Jump,


I will tell you what. I am not going to respond to anything further on the seminary/education issue. I believe education is something people need to take very seriously regardless of the field of study. After reading your website I am sure we can fully agree on that point. I am also sure we agree that Christians should take personal Bible study, evangelism, and church fellowship very seriously as well. For those who are called to it seminary provides a graduate level education, a chance to study (in depth) the Scriptures, church history, languages, apologetics, and hermeneutics in an academic setting. The same is true for Bible Institutes and Colleges. All Christians do not need to attend formal Christian education. However those who feel called to do so should. There are no short cuts.

 

[J. Jump]

So your position is that John 3:16 does not refer to eternal salvation? Right? I want to make sure because I am still not 100% sure I understand your position. If that is correct, and I don't want to misrepresent your position, you are saying that "perish" does not mean destruction and "eternal life" does not mean salvation (in John 3:16)? Again just trying to get a grip on your position so I can properly respond.

Yes my position is John 3:16 is not speaking of eternal salvation, for it can not be speaking of eternal salvation, becuase it contradicts other Scripture in two ways. It contradicts a one-time salvic event and it contradicts security.

Perish means to die or be destroyed. Eternal life should be translated age-lasting life or life for the age.

Considering that John himself talks about "eternal life" and salvation from perishing, and considering that he makes "life" his theme I have a very difficult time accepting your position as Biblical (Jn 3:16, 20:30-31). In the Epistle of 1 John, the Apostle directly states that the purpose of writing the Epistle was, "that you may know that you have eternal life" (5:13). So again, based on the text alone, I can't agree with your conclusion.

But you are accepting the translation of the Word as accurate, when in fact it has been mistranslated. Again aionios life should be translated age-lasting life or life for the age.

While I agree that not everyone who is healed is saved (though I think most are) the crippled man certainly did have faith before his healing

That certainly could have been the case, but he didn't praise God until after He was healed. The only picture before the healing is that of him begging.

Either way the healing of the lame man as we see in chapter 4 was a sign for the Jews. Signs, wonders and miracles have to do with the Jews and the kingdom, not eternal salvation.

I don't see such a division in Scripture.

Genesis 1 talks about God dividing the light from the darkness. Hebrews 4:12 tells us that God separates the spirit from the soul via the Word of God which it is through the hearing of the Word of God that faith comes.

Our soul is separated from our spirit, because our spirit has passed out of the darkness into the light (from death to life) and the soul remains in darkness.

There's a lot more two the last two responses and if you want to study the matters out further than I would be happy to point you in the direction of some great resource material.

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

That's the first part and with no belief or understanding of that the second part is of no matter.

and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

And that is the second part just as I have stated. You can't go straight to the second without first understanding and believing the first.

Paul brought both messages to them.

The point is that true believers will persevere.

I don't ignore grammar you just keep pushing this point onto the text, despite the grammar. It's a conditional statment. If this....then that...If no this....then no that...

That's what a conditional statement means.

The Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin view I see. I am very familiar with that.

Not exactly. These two (I know Hodges, but pretty sure Wilkin) believe that the JSOC has to do with eternal rewards or lack of rewards, so I would not put myself in their camp.

So if a person is not presented to God as described in Col 1:22b then that person is not saved, not reconciled to God through Christ.

No that's what you want the text to say. His reconciling us to God is an indicitive verb which means it is a certainty. It has happened. The verb would need to be subjunctive to prove your point.

Actually I could not afford it. I had to borrow money from my parents, use other forms of credit, and work in order to pay for my education.

That's awesome that they were able to help you and you were able to be in a position to help yourself. But not all people are as fortunate as you!

There is a need for Christian schools, colleges, universities, and yes seminaries.

See you are proving my point again. You are implying that unless someone goes through some sort of formal institutional training it's not good enough.

I am saying that those who are going into offical ministry will usually need some form of offical training. There are Bible Institutes, Bible Colleges, and Seminaries for those people.

And what I'm saying is that the Bible never makes this a requirement. Official training does not have to come from an institution.

Jesus wanted His disciples to learn His message so they could preach/teach it to the world.

And that's exactly what He desires today. And this can happen in a seminary (although that is becoming more questionable each year), or it can happen through personal mentorship/discipleship and personal study and learning directly from the Holy Spirit and through reading and studying other Godly men and women. You don't have to sit in an institutional classroom with 20 other folks to get this training. You can, but you don't have to.

We have to live in the real world my friend. What could be, might be, or would be will not do. Certain people need offical training that churches (etc) cannot often give. That is why many churches have sponsered, supported, or started seminaries.

No that is the defeatist attitude of this is the way it is so let's go along with the flow, which does not lead to change. Unhappiness with the status quo is what leads to needed change.

It doesn't start on a mass scale, but little by little it could take hold, but too many people think like you do and settle for what's available instead of doing what's best.

Are you really familiar with the evangelical seminaries? It does not sound like it. It sounds like you are taking liberal seminaries and using them as a model to generalize about all seminaries.

I grew up in a southern Baptist church. I have friends that attended Oklahoma Baptist University (I actually went to a rival school in the same athletic conference, but that's another story) and I have had friends that attend the seminary in Ft. Worth and the seminary in California and the seminary in New Orleans.

Am I an expert? No, but I've heard stories from them and others.

 

[Corry Cox]

I would wager that's a newer BF&M. The SBC has been moving further and further from the truth for many years, and this is just one example. I'd also wager that most people are not aware of this statement in the BF&M and how it contradicts Scripture.

I don't know who Charles Stanley is, but he's right on the money on this one.

Actually the 1925, 1963 and 2000 BF&M all have this clause in it:

1925
Article 6 Perseverance:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT]All real believers endure to the end. Their continuance in well-doing is the mark which distinguishes them from mere professors. A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.[/FONT]

1963
Article 5 God's Purpose of Grace:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT]All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the cause of Christ, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.[/FONT] ​

2000
Article 5 God's Purpose of Grace:
All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. ​

The 1925 BF&M was an adaptation of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, as the preamble of the 1925 BF&M reads, "revised at certain points, and with some additional articles growing out of present needs"
Article 11 of the NHCF reads:​

Of the Perseverance of Saints We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end (58); that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors (59); that a special Providence watches over their welfare (60); and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (61).

58. John 8:31; 1 John 2:27-28; 3:9; 5:18
59. 1 John 2:19; John 13:18; Matt. 13:20-21; John 6:66-69; Job 17:9
60. Rom. 8:28; Matt. 6:30-33; Jer. 32:40; Psa. 121:3; 91:11-12
61. Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13; Jude 24-25; Heb. 1:14; 2 Kings 6:16; Heb. 13:5; 1 John 4:4

And if you look in the Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary, which is probably the first 'denominational' statement of faith you will read:​

"Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."​

So as you can see perserverance as proof of Salvation has always been a Baptist 'distinctive' and not an example of how "the SBC has been moving further and further from the truth for many years"​

<><
"simul justus et pecator"
cbc​

 

[J. Jump]

Thanks for the history lesson. I stand corrected and it looks as though the denomination has had it incorrect for quite some time :laugh:

 

[drfuss]

Corry Cox writes:

"So as you can see perserverance as proof of Salvation has always been a Baptist 'distinctive'".​

Most interesting.​

By default, Charles Stanley is the spokeman for the SBC to most of the non-baptist world on this issue. Yet, he doesn't agree with the SBC. ​

Having been president of the SBC (twice?), non- Baptist assume his teaching is the voice of the SBC.​

 

[Martin]

Yes my position is John 3:16 is not speaking of eternal salvation, for it can not be speaking of eternal salvation, becuase it contradicts other Scripture in two ways. It contradicts a one-time salvic event and it contradicts security.

==I find that to be an amazing position.

What passage(s) would you use to prove that salvation comes with one moment of belief?

Does your position allow for a person to believe at a point in time, be saved, and later become an atheist and still be saved?

I agree that salvation occurs at a point in time (Jn 5:24) however perseverence in the faith is a evidence of true salvation (Jn 8:31).

Perish means to die or be destroyed. Eternal life should be translated age-lasting life or life for the age. But you are accepting the translation of the Word as accurate, when in fact it has been mistranslated. Again aionios life should be translated age-lasting life or life for the age.

==So....what does that do to John 3:16 in your understanding? Give me your understanding of John 3:16.

Do you believe in eternal torment?

I don't ignore grammar you just keep pushing this point onto the text, despite the grammar. It's a conditional statment. If this....then that...If no this....then no that...

That's what a conditional statement means.

==Its not what a first class condition means though. I have not seen you deal with that fact yet.

You are really misunderstanding the text of Colossians 1:21-23.

 

[Martin]

Corry Cox writes:

"So as you can see perserverance as proof of Salvation has always been a Baptist 'distinctive'".​

Most interesting.​

By default, Charles Stanley is the spokeman for the SBC to most of the non-baptist world on this issue. Yet, he doesn't agree with the SBC. ​

Having been president of the SBC (twice?), non- Baptist assume his teaching is the voice of the SBC.​

==I think it would be error to assume that any president of the Southern Baptist Convention is a "voice" for the entire convention. Stanley's book is not in line with the various Baptist statements of faith.

 

[saturneptune]

Martin,
Truer words were never spoken. How can any one person possibly speak for all or even mosts Baptists when there is such a diversity of views right here in this forum.

 

[drfuss]

Sat. writes;
"Truer words were never spoken. How can any one person possibly speak for all or even mosts Baptists when there is such a diversity of views right here in this forum."​

Yes, I understand that. But my point was that many "non-baptist" automatically assume that Stanley speaks for the SBC since he is the most famous.​

 

[saturneptune]

Dr Fuss,
I agree with your point. I do not know a lot about Stanley, but enjoy listening to his sermons.

 

[Martin]

Yes, I understand that. But my point was that many "non-baptist" automatically assume that Stanley speaks for the SBC since he is the most famous.

==More famous than Billy Graham? Wow :laugh:

Go Stanley....

 

[Tom Butler]

I nominate Saturneptune to be the spokesman for the SBC.

He may be wrong but he's never in doubt.