Salvation of the Soul (Page One)

[J. Jump]

Is that it?

See this is what I don't understand. You people obviously don't agree with what little I have said on this thread, but you keep begging to have questions answered. Why is that? Why do you want me to answer your questions when you don't really want to know the answers. You don't really care what the answers are, and you certainly aren't going to believe me any way. So what is the purpose in asking your questions? To me that is really a waste of time and talking about unproductive.

I will have to agree with Jim in that I think this thread has run its course.

So unless there is any new material introduced this will be my last post.

 

[steaver]

Quote: (steaver)
Faith in the work of Christ alone is what saves the soul.

(Jump)....Really can you provide some Scripture evidence of this? I notice that you didn't bother to put a verse that says this.

The work of Christ is what saves the soul. (Romans 5) Here you find everything you are objecting to; faith, grace, justified by His blood we shall be saved, atonement (death of Christ, blood of Christ) , reconciled to God, free gift, eternal life. All of this clearly speaking about a soul's salvation.


Rom 5:1¶Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Rom 5:4And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Rom 5:5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Rom 5:6¶For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12¶Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.


Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Q1) Who is the church of God? Believers? Yes or No?

Q2) Who is the blood an atonement for? A soul? Yes or No? (Leviticus 17:11)

Q3) Did Christ's blood purchase souls? Yes or No?

Q4) What is the purchased possession? Purchased by the blood is souls. Possessed by Christ is souls.

"until the redemption of the purchased possession"....it is already purchased by the blood, it is already owned by Christ, redemption is promissed, therefore Christian souls have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. James, Peter and Hebrews declares the future finality of this truth.

Eph 1:12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Eph 1:13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.)

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

(Jump)....See this is what I don't understand. You people obviously don't agree with what little I have said on this thread, but you keep begging to have questions answered. Why is that? Why do you want me to answer your questions when you don't really want to know the answers. You don't really care what the answers are, and you certainly aren't going to believe me any way. So what is the purpose in asking your questions? To me that is really a waste of time and talking about unproductive.

As for me, I welcome all questions from everyone. Answering questions has been what formed the doctrines that I now hold. Many positions I have changed over the years because of questions that challenge my beliefs. At the end of the day I hope to have learned something. I have learned from this debate as well and I am thankful for it.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Lost - but still saved -- is not in the Bible.

Saved withotu faith -- is not in the Bible

Saved while fallen from Grace is not in the bible

"By GRACE as you SAVED through FAITH" --

Well as always Bob you can convince yourself that that is correct, but it still doesn't make it so. And just because "you" say it isn't in the Bible doesn't make it so.

So you can continue to believe that if you want and others can believe that if they want, but it will be to your own peril I'm afraid

You spun your response to misdirect again.

to address the point you needed to either post a text by each line exposing the flaw in your argument or admit that you have none to post.

Posting texts that you need to "spin" into saying "saved while lost" even though they don't say it in the text - merely proves my point.

Posting no text at all affirms that point in triplicate.

Issuing a post "on my peril" instead of supplying the texts for each of those gaps in your argument - does not forward your point. It retracts it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Having said that - JJump's argument "survives" only because of this one truth - he can always make the case for the texts that he quotes that "failure" to persevere in doing Good - is shown in the texts to result in something far worse than "less heaven - but still heaven". That is the thread of trugh upon which his argument still has some hope of surviving.

And Steaver can always point to the fact that no Bible text says "SAVED while LOST". His argument is just as strong there as is J.Jump's pointing to a far worse consequence for failing to remain in the vine of Christ than many man-made-traditions would allow --

And that is why I accept the strengths of both sides and reject the weaknesses of both.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

(Bob)....Having said that - JJump's argument "survives" only because of this one truth - he can always make the case for the texts that he quotes that "failure" to persevere in doing Good - is shown in the texts to result in something far worse than "less heaven - but still heaven". That is the thread of trugh upon which his argument still has some hope of surviving.

Jump's argument about do good works or else, or even your argument about remaining in the vine or else, can be debated and if you guys like then begin a new thread on this. However, the argument concerning the salvation and justification for the soul is the focus of this debate and Jump's argument for this survives only in his own mind. Scripture does not support it.

(Bob)....And Steaver can always point to the fact that no Bible text says "SAVED while LOST". His argument is just as strong

I never pointed to this fact at all, this is your point. My point is the soul is saved, justified, atoned for, purchased and posssessed by Christ by the blood of Christ through faith in Christ (post 10:25pm Feb 26). This blows the "soul not yet saved at regeneration" doctrine clean out of the bible(the focus of this argument). If not, show me why the scriptures I posted do not say these things. Jump has not refuted these scriptures.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

The work of Christ is what saves the soul. (Romans 5) Here you find everything you are objecting to; faith, grace, justified by His blood we shall be saved, atonement (death of Christ, blood of Christ) , reconciled to God, free gift, eternal life. All of this clearly speaking about a soul's salvation.

Well you are correct in that it talks about everything that you have "bolded." However, unfortunately for you the word "soul" is never used in that text. So once agin you have no proof. It is merely your own conclusion that you falsely draw from a text just because you see the word blood there.

Never is there a mention of salvation and soul together that is ever in the past tense. It's always present and future. So that right there is enough to tell us that the soul was not saved in the past.

As for me, I welcome all questions from everyone. Answering questions has been what formed the doctrines that I now hold. Many positions I have changed over the years because of questions that challenge my beliefs. At the end of the day I hope to have learned something. I have learned from this debate as well and I am thankful for it.

Oh I welcome questions as well. I have offered MANY times to answer folks' questions. But what gets me is folks that ask questions that really don't want to know the answer. Some of your questions strike me as odd, because you clearly have your mind set that the soul is saved, and there seems to be nothing that is going to convince you otherwise. Scripture certainly isn't.

So that's why I ask my question. Why bother asking a question of someone that you disagree with when you know you aren't going to agree with their answer when they give it. That's just silly, immature game playing.

But I guess it's easier to play games sometimes than defend what one believes.

 

[DQuixote]

Why bother answering someone whose mind is made up, a la J. Jump and HP? Their questions are posted not for answers but to pin responders to the mat. I recall an off-duty military policeman in Europe, an obvious weight lifter in extraordinary physical condition. He frequented bars, grinning, striking up conversations. At the first opportunity he found fault with what someone said, and started swinging. He would then beat all contenders to a pulp, not because he was justified or right or correct but just because he wanted to demonstrate his ability to punch folks out. When on-duty military police arrived, he was quick to point out that he didn't know why folks responded like they did. He had a hard time understanding how folks could do that. Then the military police dragged "the folks" off to the hoosegow, while he finished his beer.

Enough said.

 

[steaver]

(Jump)....Well you are correct in that it talks about everything that you have "bolded." However, unfortunately for you the word "soul" is never used in that text. So once agin you have no proof. It is merely your own conclusion that you falsely draw from a text just because you see the word blood there.

Let's see, the word "spirit" is not used either. I explained with scripture why the blood is an atonement for the soul and therefore it is souls that is the focus of the text. So I guess you believe the blood is an atonement for the spirit, therefore I guess you can refute my assertion that the blood is an atonement for the soul and give scripture that states the blood is an atonement for the spirit. I await your refute.


Can you answer the following Qs? I gave a hint for 2 and I gave my answer for 4. I would like to hear your answers. Maybe you can change my mind and show me how Christ did not purchase souls with His blood and show me how Christ does not possess these souls until the redemption.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Q1) Who is the church of God? Believers? Yes or No?

Q2) Who is the blood an atonement for? A soul? Yes or No? (Leviticus 17:11)

Q3) Did Christ's blood purchase souls? Yes or No?

Q4) What is the purchased possession? Purchased by the blood is souls. Possessed by Christ is souls.

"until the redemption of the purchased possession"....it is already purchased by the blood, it is already owned by Christ, redemption is promissed, therefore Christian souls have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. James, Peter and Hebrews declares the future finality of this truth.

Eph 1:12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Eph 1:13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.)


God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

Is that it? Only J. Jump needs to respond.

You were in fact the one that asked the question and then you write this comical statement.

Why bother answering someone whose mind is made up, a la J. Jump and HP?

Why didn't you include yourself in that equation? Your mind is already made up that I am wrong. There is no convincing your otherwise, but you still ask questions of me. Why is that? Why should I bother answering your question DQ when your mind is already made up?

 

[J. Jump]

Let's see, the word "spirit" is not used either. I explained with scripture why the blood is an atonement for the soul and therefore it is souls that is the focus of the text. So I guess you believe the blood is an atonement for the spirit, therefore I guess you can refute my assertion that the blood is an atonement for the soul and give scripture that states the blood is an atonement for the spirit. I await your refute.

You are right the word spirit is not in there. Just common reasoning allows us to know that it is the spirit that is saved by grace through faith apart from works. First of all we have plenty of Scriptures again that tell us the soul should be in a present state of being saved with the actual realization of salvation coming at the END of our faith, not at the beginning as you impose.

Secondly the spirt is the only thing that is dead and needs to be made alive, which is what happens when we are saved by grace through faith. We are passed from death unto life. Our dead spirits are made alive so that we can understand the Word of God, which was an impossibility prior to eternal salvation.

Thirdly your "proof" text about the blood being the atonement for the soul is a text given to saved individuals. It was saved individuals in which the blood was the atonement for their souls.

I have said at least twice that I completely agree that the blood is the atonement for the soul. It would be foolish to argue that point. But what is unacceptable according to Scripture is "your" timeline.

Death and shed blood is what is required for eternal salvation, and that's it.

James tells us that faith has to be mixed with works or we will not be saved. So the question one has to ask of you Steaver is if we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, and that saves our spirit and souls, then what part of us is in danger of not being saved if we have a dead faith?

Again your concluions have no backing in Scripture, and when you continue them out to the end you get problems that keep coming up.

And we haven't even touched on the problem that an already saved soul causes with the once saved always saved doctrine. Bob Ryan could fill you in a little more on that If you preach a salvation that is complete ie spirit/soul already saved there is no way you can preach OSAS. They don't reconcile themselves.

 

[J. Jump]

therefore Christian souls have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Here's a question that I would like an answer to. Why is it that the ONLY time the words soul and salvation are used together they are ALWAYS either present or future. If our souls were saved in the past don't you think there would be at least one mention of the salvation of the soul in past tense?

And here's another illogical conclusion to your argument. If we have already been saved (spirit/soul) and we already know our body will be saved in the future, then what is in need of present salvation in your equation? You have a past, present and future salvation, yet by your teaching the spirit and the soul are saved in the past, which means there is nothing else that is needed, and our bodies are going to be saved in the future, so I'm just curious as to what is lacking salvation and needs to be in the process of being saved now?

 

[steaver]

(Jump)...Again your concluions have no backing in Scripture, and when you continue them out to the end you get problems that keep coming up.

Still waiting for your conclusions.....

Can you answer the following Qs? I gave a hint for 2 and I gave my answer for 4. I would like to hear your answers. Maybe you can change my mind and show me how Christ did not purchase souls with His blood and show me how Christ does not possess these souls until the redemption.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Q1) Who is the church of God? Believers? Yes or No?

Q2) Who is the blood an atonement for? A soul? Yes or No? (Leviticus 17:11)

Q3) Did Christ's blood purchase souls? Yes or No?

Q4) What is the purchased possession? Purchased by the blood is souls. Possessed by Christ is souls.

"until the redemption of the purchased possession"....it is already purchased by the blood, it is already owned by Christ, redemption is promissed, therefore Christian souls have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. James, Peter and Hebrews declares the future finality of this truth.

Eph 1:12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Eph 1:13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.)

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

Steaver your selective reading must be kicking in again. I said I've already answered you twice and my last post made three and now this makes the fourth time I've said your conclusion is flawed, because the statement that the blood is the atonement for the soul was given to saved individuals. It was the souls of the already saved individuals that the blood was given to. Again disproving your idea that the soul is what is saved to begin with.

Here is Lev. 17:11 - `For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'

Again the text proves you wrong. This is not past tense. This does not say I gave it to you and your souls have been atoned for.

At every turn you conclusions come up short. Steaver I know this doctrine doesn't sound right. I struggled with it. One of the ones that I learned it from struggled with it when he was first introduced to it, but brother this is the Truth of Scripture. I pray God will have mercy on your eyes and ears. I truly do! And I pray that He continues to have mercy on mine and that as Paul says thought I have preached the Truth I hope I am not a castaway on that day.

 

[steaver]

(Jump)...Steaver your selective reading must be kicking in again.

I'm sorry, I missed your answers to my post....

Can you answer the following Qs? I gave a hint for 2 and I gave my answer for 4. I would like to hear your answers. Maybe you can change my mind and show me how Christ did not purchase souls with His blood and show me how Christ does not possess these souls until the redemption.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Q1) Who is the church of God? Believers? Yes or No?

Q2) Who is the blood an atonement for? A soul? Yes or No? (Leviticus 17:11)

Q3) Did Christ's blood purchase souls? Yes or No?

Q4) What is the purchased possession? Purchased by the blood is souls. Possessed by Christ is souls.

"until the redemption of the purchased possession"....it is already purchased by the blood, it is already owned by Christ, redemption is promissed, therefore Christian souls have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. James, Peter and Hebrews declares the future finality of this truth.

Eph 1:12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Eph 1:13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.)


God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

I'm sorry, I missed your answers to my post....

Steaver there is no need to specifically answer each of your questions. I just showed you how your whole premise is flawed. You are taking verses out of context by switching tenses to make "your" doctrine work. If you leave the texts alone they disprove your theory each time you bring one up.

 

[steaver]

(Jump)...Steaver there is no need to specifically answer each of your questions. I just showed you how your whole premise is flawed. You are taking verses out of context by switching tenses to make "your" doctrine work. If you leave the texts alone they disprove your theory each time you bring one up.

You have showed nothing, saying it does not show it. If my whole premise is flawed then you could easily give different answers and come up with a different premise. You will not answer because you cannot refute the facts I have presented.

What is the "purchased possession"? Can you answer and show me with scripture what it is?

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

You have showed nothing

Man you really do just want to hold on to "your" doctrine don't you. I have showed you that the Scriptures you are using to base "your theory" on don't even say what you are claiming they say. Yet I have showed nothing . . . ?

Okay . . . well if you want to think that be my guest. Time for me to exit again, so I don't get lecutered again on my maturity level So until some more new material comes up I am out.

By the way did "you" develop this doctrine? Is that why you are holding on so tight? Or did you learn it from someone that you have up on a pedestal? And it would be too much to knock them off?

I'm trying to figure out why you are clinging so much to this doctrine when you have been clearly shown through the plain reading of Scripture that it is not correct. It just blows my mind.

Or is it just too much that you would have to tell your brother he was right? I know that would be some hefty crow to eat, but trust me he would rejoice, and he probably wouldn't even say told ya so

 

[DQuixote]

I knew I should have included the quote from you, Jump. My blunder. Here is what I was responding to:

So that's why I ask my question. Why bother asking a question of someone that you disagree with when you know you aren't going to agree with their answer when they give it. That's just silly, immature game playing.

Now I'm responding to this:

Man you really do just want to hold on to "your" doctrine don't you. I have showed you that the Scriptures you are using to base "your theory" on don't even say what you are claiming they say. Yet I have showed nothing . . . ?

How are you different, Jump? You just want to hold on to "your" doctrine, don't you? Get off the soap box.

 

[J. Jump]

DQ i'm not even going to respond to your first statement, because it's pointless.

How are you different, Jump? You just want to hold on to "your" doctrine, don't you? Get off the soap box.

How am I different. Well I'll tell you how I'm different. I don't have any sacred doctrines. If I see something that is incorrect then I am going to make the changes. Like I have said (I believe in this thread even) I am just a little over a year removed from accepting this doctrine. So I have made changes. This is not "my" doctrine. I didn't grow up with this doctrine.

I didn't have a teacher on a pedestal that I was trying to protect, because I didn't know the people that I learned this from. The main one that I read through at first I thought he was off his rocker as most people do when first introduced to this material.

As I study more and more and found out more about him he thought the same thing of the teacher that he studied under. And a number of people have that testimony.

See I'm only interested in God's Truth not matter what it is. No matter how difficult it is. No matter how much I don't like what it says. I only want to know what God's Word says, not what man says. That's why I keep pushing so much to just let the text say what the text says.

So you see I'm not on a soap box. I don't have anything to hide. I don't mind eating crow if I have to. I don't like it, but I'll do it. That's why I always say if someone thinks I'm wrong just show me in Scripture how. But it's funny that in over a year no one has done that. Oh there are several that have started, but when they start getting questions they can't answer they just end up telling me I'm wrong and that I need to believe them because they say so. Sorry I just don't do that. Someone has to show me in Scripture how I am wrong. I don't follow the believe me because I say so philosphy. I did that for too long unfortunately.