Salvation of the Soul (Page One)

[J. Jump]

This is why Nee and Chitwood's doctrine really means nothing to Christians like you and I who already serve our Lord out of love.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. God wants us to grow in knowledge and He want us to come into a mature understanding. If the person never gets out of the doing things out of fear stage then so be it, but God desires us to grow out of that stage.

Part of that growing is knowing what our purpose is and what our calling is. And the gospel of the kingdom is merely part of that process. We are to leave the milk behind and move onto the meat and then the stong meat of the Word. The deeper you go the more you have to work at understanding. The deeper you go the harder its gets. Where Christendom goes wrong is they believe all of God's Word is easy to understand and that's just not the case.

However Nee and Chitwood and others cannot understand, in my opinion, how some Christians do not look so Christlike and loving but still get to be in the kingdom to come.

That's just it they don't. Unfaithful, disobedient, non-overcoming Christians will not get to take part in the kingdom. If that were so then there would be no need to be faithful, obedient and overcoming.

This is interesting that you bring this back up, because at one point you said that an unfaithful, disobedient, non-overcoming Christian would get to rule and reign with Christ and then a few pages later you said that they weren't really Christians to begin with.

See you have the same struggle that all of Christendom does. What to do with those people that say they believe in the substitutionary death and shed blood of the Lamb, but don't produce good fruit. Most of Christendom takes one of two two roads. They say they can either lose their salvation or they were never saved in the first place. But neither are Biblical answers. So we have to find out what the Bible says. And Scripture tells us that there are going to be "saved" individuals that don't look "saved" at all on the outside, and then will not receive their inheritance and they will be rewarded according to their works whether good or bad.

Modern day Christendom views the word reward in an incorrect manner. Modern day Christendom says reward is something that can only be positive, but in a Biblical sense that is not the case. Reward can be either positive or negative.

So they grudge in their hearts that it is not fair and desire they be punished in some way.

So now you can judge the motives and the heart of another man. Mercy you are smarter than I am. After having studied just about all of Bro. Arlen's material I would say that he is merely letting Scripture say what Scripture says. I have only read two of Nees books and while I liked some parts of it I probably will not read any more.

But I think it is pretty presumptious, at best, of you to say what either of these two men have done and why they have done it.

So I believe satan put this doctrine in their hearts in yet another attempt to divide God's children and tie up their time in condemnation of each other rather than spending their time teaching to those babes in Christ that obedience equals love.

Again I have read and listened to almost everything that Bro. Arlen has written or preached (sermons that are available to listen to that is) and I have not heard him condemning anyone. He has merely stated what Scripture says. It is not his job or my job or anyone elses job to condemn, but it is our job to share the Truth as it has been revealed to us by the Spirit.

Do you believe that if a Christian obeys with a grudge in doing so, like I hate doing this but God's word says I have to, that Christian will still receive the reward?

Yes I believe one will be rewarded for obedience whether out of fear or whether out of love. My child is rewarded for staying out of traffic whether he liked staying out of traffic or not.

And Scripture is never worthless to pursue!

 

[J. Jump]

I have stated that salvation is presented in scripture as past tense, present tense, and future tense ever since page one.

I understand that. However the past, present and future are different parts not all the same thing.

The spirit is saved in the past. It is not being saved right now, because it doesn't have need of being saved. The soul is being saved right now, because it wasn't saved in the past and needs to be saved now, and the finality of the salvation of the soul is in the future at the end of our faith according to I Peter 1:9.

The body was not saved in the past. The body is not being saved now. The body will be saved in the future when we receive our glorified bodies.

So while one can correctly look at the totality and overall picture of salvation as past, present and future, there are individual distinctions within that term that must be correctly looked at as well.

God is one, but God is also Three Distinict Personalities with different purposes. So salvation can be looked on as signular, but must also be understood in its three parts if a correct understanding is to be had.

That's where the difference lies and that is why I believe your statements to be mis-statements. You are only seeing salvation as the totality and failing to see its separate components.

 

[steaver]

(Jump)....This is interesting that you bring this back up, because at one point you said that an unfaithful, disobedient, non-overcoming Christian would get to rule and reign with Christ and then a few pages later you said that they weren't really Christians to begin with.

There are disobedient Christians and there are false Christians. Both truths are taught in scripture.

(Jump)...See you have the same struggle that all of Christendom does.

I honestly have no struggle with this at all. I have studied and I have prayed and I am very secure that God has led me into the correct teaching.

Quote; (steaver)
So they grudge in their hearts that it is not fair and desire they be punished in some way.

(Jump)....So now you can judge the motives and the heart of another man. Mercy you are smarter than I am. After having studied just about all of Bro. Arlen's material I would say that he is merely letting Scripture say what Scripture says. I have only read two of Nees books and while I liked some parts of it I probably will not read any more.

But I think it is pretty presumptious, at best, of you to say what either of these two men have done and why they have done it.

I presume this only because I have personally spoken with my brother and his pastor and this is what they told me they felt. Seeing how they love what Nee and Arlen say I then presume the same from them, maybe it is not true.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

There are disobedient Christians and there are false Christians. Both truths are taught in scripture.

Scripture does teach there are disobedient Christians. I'm glad that you see that. A lot of Christians don't. So what happens to them?

Scripture does not teach a "false" Christian. Such a person is merely unsaved. Scripture has really very little to say about unsaved folks, because the only thing to say is that they are going to spend eternity in the lake of fire. That's pretty much the end of the conversation or should I say

I have personally spoken with my brother and his pastor and this is what they told me they felt.

So your brother's pastor and your brother want to see people punished? Am I reading this correctly?

Seeing how they love what Nee and Arlen say I then presume the same from them, maybe it is not true.

I think presuming and assuming kind of go along the same lines if you know what I mean

Better to leave something unsaid than to make an assumption, epsecially when you are talking about the heart and motives of an individual. I know I am not always perfect in that, but I think that is good advice for all of us to heed.

 

[steaver]

(Jump)....So your brother's pastor and your brother want to see people punished? Am I reading this correctly?

You read it correctly and I should not have added "and desire they be punished in some way". They do not desire fellow Christians to be punished.

(Jump)....Scripture does not teach a "false" Christian. Such a person is merely unsaved.

Sure it does. Wolves in sheeps clothing. False brethern.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

Sure it does. Wolves in sheeps clothing. False brethern.

That is talking about teachers not the general population. And the context isn't that they are unsaved, but that they are leading people into false doctrine that they have bought into and are now selling.

There are just saved and unsaved within the general population. Now granted there are some unsaved people that think they are saved, because they have been taught incorrectly what eternal salvation is all about, but they are not false Christians, they are just unsaved.

 

[steaver]

(Jump)...There are just saved and unsaved within the general population. Now granted there are some unsaved people that think they are saved, because they have been taught incorrectly what eternal salvation is all about, but they are not false Christians, they are just unsaved.

You are straining at gnats brother. When someone speaks about "false Christians" they are speaking about those who look like Christians, they go through Christian traditions, but really they have never been born again. They may be intentional unsaved infiltrators or they may be like Mormons who call themselves Christians, and even believe they are Christians, but they are not. We call them false Christians or false converts. Whatever! But yes "technically" you are correct. Your are either a Christian or you are not. Saved or unsaved. :thumbs:

God bless!

 

[J. Jump]

You are straining at gnats brother.

You are absolutely right, and I believe we would do well to have more gnat strainers. We have far too many Christians that believe something just because of tradition without ever checking anything out with Scripture.

Jesus said there is life in every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, so we better know what those words are and what they mean if we want to find and take hold of the life that is contained within them.

The Bible speaks of saved and unsaved, so why should we speak differently? Because we have at least in part abandoned the language of Scripture we have all kinds of false teachings running rampant throughout Christendom. We need to speak as Scripture speaks and nothing else, because Truth mixed with humanity is a bad mixture

 

[steaver]

(Jump)....The Bible speaks of saved and unsaved, so why should we speak differently? Because we have at least in part abandoned the language of Scripture we have all kinds of false teachings running rampant throughout Christendom. We need to speak as Scripture speaks and nothing else, because Truth mixed with humanity is a bad mixture

I will concede and agree with your point. But remember, the same would apply when the bible speaks of a living soul. The scriptures say that this is a person. The person/soul is the focus of whom is "saved" through regeneration. Let's speak as the bible speaks. God's salvation is for the soul from begining to end. There is no mystery in this. The spirit is merely the life line for the soul.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

That's an awfully bold and arrogant statement saying that I am obedient solely for the sake of my soul and not doing it for the love of Christ, as if you are the only one that loves Christ.

Just so we can set the record straight and correct your mis-statement I love Christ as much as possible and am trying to love Him more day by day. Some days are easier than others. But what I do know is that the Bible tells us to be faithful, obedient and overcoming. And if we do not do those things because we love Christ, which we should, we should at least do those things out of the fear of the Lord. Hebrews tells us that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! And I believe that. I don't want to experience a life of disobedience and unfaithfulness and then have to stand before the Perfect Judge. Unfortunately there are many Christians that do not have a fear of the Lord anymore, because Christendom has watered down what that means.

This is why I have a difficult time pointing out J Jump's errors here. J.J is trying to find a way to ACCEPT the Bible warnings that many turn a blind-eye to as they say "Well that does not apply to me after all I am a Christian".

But J.J knows he has a problem there. IF he ACCEPTS what the Word of God is saying -- then it appears that OSAS is out the window... so he needs a way to ACCEPT the "you will be lost IF..." language while ALSO clinging to OSAS "you can never be lost no matter what you do" ...

So he goes along with those that come up with this "soul lost - spirit saved" story even though no text in all of scripture states it or supports it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I will concede and agree with your point. But remember, the same would apply when the bible speaks of a living soul. The scriptures say that this is a person. The person/soul is the focus of whom is "saved" through regeneration. Let's speak as the bible speaks. God's salvation is for the soul from begining to end. There is no mystery in this. The spirit is merely the life line for the soul.

God Bless!

And of course Steaver is also right on this point!

COMBINING what Steaver has RIGHT and what J.J has RIGHT - you get to my position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

This is why I have a difficult time pointing out J Jump's errors here. J.J is trying to find a way to ACCEPT the Bible warnings that many turn a blind-eye to as they say "Well that does not apply to me after all I am a Christian".

But J.J knows he has a problem there. IF he ACCEPTS what the Word of God is saying -- then it appears that OSAS is out the window... so he needs a way to ACCEPT the "you will be lost IF..." language while ALSO clinging to OSAS "you can never be lost no matter what you do" ...

So he goes along with those that come up with this "soul lost - spirit saved" story even though no text in all of scripture states it or supports it.

You know this thread was actually dying with a little dignity and then you had to re-post your nonsense to kick it backup again huh.

I'm not trying to "find" a way to accept anything. I look at what the Scripture says and believe it. The Scripture clearly states that eternal salvation is a one-time event that is irrevocable. The only one that is having a hard time "accepting" anything is you Bob.

You are the one that sees the warnings, but don't know how they fit into the rest of Scripture, because you have bought into the lie that someone can be eternally saved and then eternally lost. That's called works salvation and it is repeatedly spoken against in Scripture, but you just can't let it go sadly enough.

And your last line is so full of bologna that I'm not going to even respond to it, which I am sure will draw your childish response of you can't respond because you are wrong or maybe your well if you don't respond I'm right nonsense.

 

[J. Jump]

And of course Steaver is also right on this point!

COMBINING what Steaver has RIGHT and what J.J has RIGHT - you get to my position.

In Christ,

Bob

And I wills state again when you combine humanity and Truth you get error. We can only know the Truth when we read and allow the Spirit to teach us what He guided the authors to pen instead of putting a human spin on the text.

 

[J. Jump]

The scriptures say that this is a person.

Again that may be true. I beleive Brother Bob said something about the Old Testament referring to a person as a soul. Even if that is true it doesn't prove your point. Because a person is tri-part. There are three parts to the person and three parts to salvation.

Ultimately the person will be whole in eternity, but what most of Christendom forgets is there is an age of time that will exist before we step out into eternity. There is no guarantee that a person will be wholly saved during that age of time.

Again if we truly want to understand this we must start at the very beginning. And I will make this offer again. If anyone truly wants to study through this material so as to make up their own mind I would be more than happy to engage in a conversation with them. We can start from the very beginning and then move forward.

 

[BobRyan]

The Scripture clearly states that eternal salvation is a one-time event that is irrevocable.

Text please.

Oh you have none?

How Surprising.

Try Matt 18 - "Forgiveness revoked".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You are the one that sees the warnings, but don't know how they fit into the rest of Scripture, because you have bought into the lie that someone can be eternally saved and then eternally lost. That's called works salvation and it is repeatedly spoken against in Scripture, but you just can't let it go sadly enough.

You claim "lost is still saved anyway" -- it is not.

You claim that "lost" is STILL the gospel good news for the wicked regarding salvation. "Well you may be still lost - but the good news is that while lost you are also saved" -- what scripture can be bent to make your case on that one? I don't think there is even one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Again that may be true. I beleive Brother Bob said something about the Old Testament referring to a person as a soul. Even if that is true it doesn't prove your point. Because a person is tri-part. There are three parts to the person and three parts to salvation.

If the PERSON is going to heaven - then ALL three Parts GO!

If the PERSON does NOT go to heaven - then all three parts DON't GO!

It is as easy as that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Text please.

Oh you have none?

Now Bob you know that's just flatly false. You just don't like what Scripture has to say in the matter. You would rather believe a person would burn in hell and then be annihilated than to see God as a God of mercy that disciplines His children and in the end they become what He wants them to be.

Sad that you would want to see folks that way, but you are entitled.

You claim "lost is still saved anyway" -- it is not.

Again I don't "claim" anything. When Scripture speaks about lost people it is not equating lost with eternal damnation. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that.

You claim that "lost" is STILL the gospel good news for the wicked regarding salvation.

Again another false witness on your part Bob. That is not what I claim. That is not what I have ever said to you in public and/or private. For someone that claims people have to "live" right you sure do make false claims about people an awful lot . . . that's a bit odd.

"Well you may be still lost - but the good news is that while lost you are also saved" -- what scripture can be bent to make your case on that one? I don't think there is even one.

You know Bob we had some really good conversations, but for some reason you have decided to revert into your childish nonsense again. It's a shame.

If the PERSON is going to heaven - then ALL three Parts GO!

If the PERSON does NOT go to heaven - then all three parts DON't GO!

It is as easy as that.

Again you show your lack of understanding of Scripture. We are not destined for "heaven" for eternity anyway. And again you assume that the next phase of existence is eternity. Scripture clearly teaches against both of those notions.

I know it's a lot easier just to make false statements about other folks than it is to try and defend "your" doctrine, but it is so unbecoming. :wavey:

 

[steaver]

(Jump).....Again if we truly want to understand this we must start at the very beginning. And I will make this offer again. If anyone truly wants to study through this material so as to make up their own mind I would be more than happy to engage in a conversation with them. We can start from the very beginning and then move forward.

I did sit down with my brother's pastor because he made the same offer. But what he did not like was when I raised questions that he could not answer. He got frustrated that I simply would not accept his interpretation and move on.

Would you answer questions or would you be like him? He doesn't like debate, he just wants to teach and you accept what he says.

I began this thread with an exposition on my findings concerning the salvation of the soul. I answered questions and even dealt with scripture that had nothing to do with the OP. I posted this expo for examination and refutes. Not ONE scripture that I presented was refuted by you or anyone else. Not ONE. All you did was present OTHER scriptures that you declared refuted my CONCLUSION.

To properly examine and contest my conclusion you should take my references one by one and show me why my understanding of that passage of scripture is wrong. Like i said, you did not do this to even one.

Why don't you start a thread giving your exposition of your version of the salvation of the soul from beginning to end and let others examine it, ask you questions about each finding, and see if it stands up?

Then we can see where you are coming from and how you came to your conclusions.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

Steaver you are already dead set against this doctrine. There is nothing that I can say or do that will convince. Regardless of whether anything was said regarding the texts you brought up or not there was evidence that was given that shows that the conclusions you have drawn are incorrect. You don't even accept that your opening concept is incorrect, so again there is no need to go any further with you. It would be pointless and a waste of time. You are already convinced that you are right. So it is what it is.

I have addressed your some of your Scriptures. Granted not all of them. I just took the ones that you kept harping on about the blood being for the redemption of the soul. And there is nothing to refute. That Scripture says what it says and is true. But what is disputable is how you take that one text and then say that means the soul is what is saved at the moment of eternal salvation. That is a false conclusion. And one way we can see that is that verse of Scripture was given to already saved folks. So why would a passage of Scripture speak to something that has already taken place. And why didn't is say the blood was for the redemption of the soul in the past tense? It just doesn't work. It would contradict other Scripture in the NT and not just the three that I gave you.

Again I'm not disputing Scripture, I'm merely disputing your conclusions, which Scripture also disputes. So I will continue to take Scripture over your conclusions. It's nothing personal. I'm sure you are an okay guy and we would probably get along if we sat down for a cup of water or something, but I'm going to take the plain reading of Scripture of conclusions drawn by man any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I don't know why your former pastor got frustrated with your questions. Maybe he didn't feel comfortable saying I don't know. I don't pretend to know all the answers. There are still some things that I struggle with, but the Holy Spirit has shown me enough in the Scriptures to know this is absolutely a solid doctrine that runs the length of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It all fits.