What about the servant with the 1 talent? Did he go to hell?

[mman]

Originally posted by Dustin:
Martyrdom is the ultimate in faith...


Baptism in water DOES NOT save you. If it were so, then one could get baptised and then "live like the devil" just because they got baptised. It seems you people trust the water baptism more than you trust the Holy Spirit to get to heaven. What happens when you sin afterwards? Do you get baptised again to "wash them away?" The way you state it is that if you want to go to heaven, you "do all these things." That's like...semi-Pelagianism...

Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! - Rom 6:1

I don't trust water baptism, I trust God. That my friend is faith. Water can no more wash away sins than it can cure leprosy, yet God can use it to do both. The power is not in the water but in the blood.

If you were to read and understand Rom 6 you would see that is how we come in contact with the blood of Christ.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Oh, no! Don't get him started on that! That's all we argue about elsewhere, and most of this discussion with him stems from the arguments about baptismal regeneration (He is a Campbellist or Church of Christ member).
We should just resurrect one of those threads, if you want to go there with him, and then you can see how his arguments have been answered already.

Not one has been answered by you. In your mind you may have performed all the mental gymnastics but you don't use scripture.

Your snide remarks, I count as joy.

I am not a Campbellist and I don't believe in baptismal regeneration.

Here is what you believe. You believe that confession is unnessary for salvation. You believe that repentance is unnecessary for salvation. One is saved by belief only and therefore the demons are saved, that is what you really believe, isn't it.

See, if you won't tell me what I believe, then I won't tell you what you believe.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
You have to understand they don't believe in eternal security either, so Baptism is just the first work in a long list of continual works you must persevere in, not something that gets you in for good regardless of what you do afterwards.

Again you misspeak. I certainly do believe in eternal security. I also believe that man keeps his free will. Can man choose to stop following God? Yes. Is God ok with that and will save them anyway? Not according to the bible.

Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

What is the result of this? Heb 3:18And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

I Cor 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.

I guess that is impossible in your eyes, "believed in vain".

Please explain to me how it would "have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" for the person who has "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

If your version of eternal security were true, then everyone is always better off "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and Peter didn't know what he was talking about, right?

 

[J. Jump]

Baptism is not required for salvation by grace through faith. Acts 16:30-31 clearly spell that out. A direct question was asked and a direct answer was given regarding what I must do in order to be saved. And all that was said was believe. You can't add to Scripture. All it says is believe. Period. There can be no more discussion. That's what the Bible has to say about the matter and we can either believe it or not.

There is no salvation for fallen angels or for Satan, so whether or not they believe or not believe is irrelevant. They can't be saved anyway, because the plan of salvation is only for humans.

Baptism is required on the other hand for the salvation of our souls (which deals with the 1,000-year kingdom only and not eternal salvation), because obedience is the key to the salvation of our souls.

So to correctly understand the baptism verses in light of salvation, you must keep them in context. And the context that they are given in are always dealing with the salvation of the coming kingdom and never the salvation that we receive by grace through faith.

 

[Eric B]

Not one has been answered by you. In your mind you may have performed all the mental gymnastics but you don't use scripture.

They have been answered, but you just reiterate the same position being answered, as if that makes the answer go away.

I am not a Campbellist and I don't believe in baptismal regeneration.

Semantics. You're Church of Christ, or some other group that believes the same doctrines, right? That'ws what we call "Campbellism". We are not going to call you "Christians" like you prefer, as if we aren't, and you're the true Church.
And you are arguing that a convert is saved only when baptized. That is what we call "baptismal regenerations". Your the one doing the "mental gymnastics", with that whole thing about "the salvation/power isn't in the water" disclaimer. It's still in the act, but it is not by "deeds" that we are saved.(Titus 3:5, and remember, it is "the washing OF regeneration"--SPIRITUAL, not physical!)

Here is what you believe. You believe that confession is unnessary for salvation. You believe that repentance is unnecessary for salvation. One is saved by belief only and therefore the demons are saved, that is what you really believe, isn't it.

See, if you won't tell me what I believe, then I won't tell you what you believe.

It is not the same thing, because I never said "BELIEVE only" the the exclusion of confession and repentance. It's not the same as you saying you have to be baptized on order to be saved, but then denying the label "baptismal regeneration", and trying to say that is not a work any more than confession and repentance.

Again you misspeak. I certainly do believe in eternal security. I also believe that man keeps his free will. Can man choose to stop following God? Yes. Is God ok with that and will save them anyway? Not according to the bible.

Well, right or wrong, that's not eternal security, in the context I was using it. You answered nis question exactly as what I was saying. Yes, if you sin afterwards, you lose salvation. Perhaps God overlooks it to some extent, so you then come up with the notion of "choosing to stop following God". But any sin afterwards cold be seen as ceasing to follow.

I Cor 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.

I guess that is impossible in your eyes, "believed in vain".

Please explain to me how it would "have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" for the person who has "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

If your version of eternal security were true, then everyone is always better off "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and Peter didn't know what he was talking about, right?

To understand what such scriptures were addressing, we must remember that many people in the New Testament, beginning with the ministry of Jesus Himself while still here, were hastily accepting Christ, but they did not understand what the purpose of His mission was. So they "believed" (John 8:31), but eventually their true fruits surfaced (v.37ff). Most others of this class, while not disputing Jesus to His face would show their true colors when persecution would come and they quickly abandoned Him. It's in this context that we have all the scriptures on perseverance until the end. Like the others, these people "believed" and followed for the wrong reasons. Remember, Israel was looking for a Messiah for mostly political reasons, so many really did not understand His Gospel message—that they needed to be saved from sin; not the sin of the pagans, but their own sin. They still thought of themselves as the "good guys" waiting for God to put down the "bad guys", yet they were just as sinful as the ruthless pagans. There is no thought of any Spirit bearing witness with their spirit, or them thinking they were saved. They had their agenda, and Jesus showed that they were not really following Him, though they professed. As soon as He began speaking of dying, it knocked their whole agenda for a loop, and even the disciples were ready to deny Him and run and hide. Why believe in Him if He's only going to die and not rise up and crush the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel right now? Many gentiles had also fallen into a similar misunderstanding or misuse as well. (Such as those described who would rise up and apostasize, drawing away their own following, thus using the Church for control). Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel). Today we have many cults, liberals, etc. who "believe" in Christ, but knowingly twist or reject parts of the Bible; in effect creating a whole different concept of Christ (as different as the political Messiah of Israel), and most do not even speak of thinking they are "saved", or if they do, they make up their own idea of how to be saved (being good, keeping certain works, being baptized into their group, etc.). All of these are the people who "believed in vain", not someone who really believed they were saved, but fell into sin.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
To understand what such scriptures were addressing, we must remember that many people in the New Testament, beginning with the ministry of Jesus Himself while still here, were hastily accepting Christ, but they did not understand what the purpose of His mission was. So they "believed" (John 8:31), but eventually their true fruits surfaced (v.37ff). Most others of this class, while not disputing Jesus to His face would show their true colors when persecution would come and they quickly abandoned Him. It's in this context that we have all the scriptures on perseverance until the end. Like the others, these people "believed" and followed for the wrong reasons. Remember, Israel was looking for a Messiah for mostly political reasons, so many really did not understand His Gospel message—that they needed to be saved from sin; not the sin of the pagans, but their own sin. They still thought of themselves as the "good guys" waiting for God to put down the "bad guys", yet they were just as sinful as the ruthless pagans. There is no thought of any Spirit bearing witness with their spirit, or them thinking they were saved. They had their agenda, and Jesus showed that they were not really following Him, though they professed. As soon as He began speaking of dying, it knocked their whole agenda for a loop, and even the disciples were ready to deny Him and run and hide. Why believe in Him if He's only going to die and not rise up and crush the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel right now? Many gentiles had also fallen into a similar misunderstanding or misuse as well. (Such as those described who would rise up and apostasize, drawing away their own following, thus using the Church for control). Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel). Today we have many cults, liberals, etc. who "believe" in Christ, but knowingly twist or reject parts of the Bible; in effect creating a whole different concept of Christ (as different as the political Messiah of Israel), and most do not even speak of thinking they are "saved", or if they do, they make up their own idea of how to be saved (being good, keeping certain works, being baptized into their group, etc.). All of these are the people who "believed in vain", not someone who really believed they were saved, but fell into sin.

Wow, you sure used a lot of word to try and explain away these simple verses. Your explaination does not fit the context.

Let's read it again, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, IF you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain." - I Cor 15:1-2

Were they brothers? While this can mean "fellow Jew", Paul is writing to "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" - I Cor 1:2

Do you think these people are "really believers"? Were they really sanctified and saints?

Paul does not have a different audience in Chapter 15. He is writing to the same people in Chapter 15 that he is to in Chapter 1.

Had they received the gospel? Yes
Were they standing in the gospel? Yes
Were the being saved by the gospel? Yes, as long as they held fast the word, otherwise they had believed in vain.

That is what the text says. You must manipulate the text to fit you prior beliefs. Just accept it for what is says and base you beliefs on the text rather than twist it to fit your beliefs.


Also you did not explain how it would "have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" for the person who has "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

If your version of eternal security were true, then everyone is always better off "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and Peter didn't know what he was talking about, right?

 

[J. Jump]

mman once again you are taking a passage of Scripture that is not dealing with salvation by grace through faith and trying to make this fit a unbiblical theology of works.

This is talking about the salvation of the soul. And our souls will only be saved if we hold fast and if we remain obedient.

And this is only in regard to the coming 1,000-year kingdom. Eternal salvation has nothing to do with our works. Nothing.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by J. Jump:
mman once again you are taking a passage of Scripture that is not dealing with salvation by grace through faith and trying to make this fit a unbiblical theology of works.

This is talking about the salvation of the soul. And our souls will only be saved if we hold fast and if we remain obedient.

And this is only in regard to the coming 1,000-year kingdom. Eternal salvation has nothing to do with our works. Nothing.

I sorry, I can't follow your mental gymnastics!

Go back and read the text and show me where he means something different than what he said.

 

[Eric B]

Let's read it again, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, IF you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain." - I Cor 15:1-2

Were they brothers? While this can mean "fellow Jew", Paul is writing to "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" - I Cor 1:2

Do you think these people are "really believers"? Were they really sanctified and saints?

Paul does not have a different audience in Chapter 15. He is writing to the same people in Chapter 15 that he is to in Chapter 1.

Had they received the gospel? Yes
Were they standing in the gospel? Yes
Were the being saved by the gospel? Yes, as long as they held fast the word, otherwise they had believed in vain.

That is what the text says. You must manipulate the text to fit you prior beliefs. Just accept it for what is says and base you beliefs on the text rather than twist it to fit your beliefs.

Paul gives the people the benefit of the doubt. They are there professing to believe, so he speaks to them as believers. It is still possible for some not to have really believed. So as I said, "Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel)". That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

If your view was correct, nobody was "being" saved, as salvation would only truly come after they have lived their whole life. Also, deserving consideration is the theory that salvation would become more secure whan the Old Covenant system was finally destroyed in AD70.

Also you did not explain how it would "have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" for the person who has "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

If your version of eternal security were true, then everyone is always better off "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and Peter didn't know what he was talking about, right?

Same thing. It is better to have never come that close to the truth, as to be among the believers, and seeing God's work, than to be there faking it. Doesn't that make sense. "The world" there is AGE, meaning the Old Covenant. People could "escape" that, coming over to the Church (where they see they are free from the LAW) without really accepting Christ. Read the WHOLE chapter, and you see that these are "False Prophets"; not just anyone who falls into sin, or simply doesn't work hard enough.

 

[J. Jump]

mman there are no gymnastics that need to be played. He said exactly what he meant and he meant exactly what he said. But you are assigning a meaning to the text that is not there.

You are saying that he is speaking of salvation by grace through faith and that is not what the context says.

The church has lost the complete meaning of the Gospel message. Gospel means good news. There is a good news to a spiritually dead man and then there is good news to a spiritually alive man.

Instead of teaching the entire Gospel message the church has cut off the second half and just shares the first part of the message which is that Christ died for our sins and you can be saved.

That is necessary because a person has to be spiritually alive in order to even begin to understand the second part of the message.

The second part of the Gospel message is the message that John the Baptist, Christ and the disciples brought and that was a message of the kingdom. The kingdom message is not the same message as salvation by grace through faith.

Salvation by grace through faith has nothing to do with works. Nothing.

However the message of the kingdom is totally based on obedience, repentance and works.

This message is not well understood, because the church has moved away from this message for centuries now. Now the message is almost obsolete, but that is how Jesus said it would be in the end.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by J. Jump:
mman there are no gymnastics that need to be played. He said exactly what he meant and he meant exactly what he said. But you are assigning a meaning to the text that is not there.

You are saying that he is speaking of salvation by grace through faith and that is not what the context says.

The church has lost the complete meaning of the Gospel message. Gospel means good news. There is a good news to a spiritually dead man and then there is good news to a spiritually alive man.

Instead of teaching the entire Gospel message the church has cut off the second half and just shares the first part of the message which is that Christ died for our sins and you can be saved.

That is necessary because a person has to be spiritually alive in order to even begin to understand the second part of the message.

The second part of the Gospel message is the message that John the Baptist, Christ and the disciples brought and that was a message of the kingdom. The kingdom message is not the same message as salvation by grace through faith.

Salvation by grace through faith has nothing to do with works. Nothing.

However the message of the kingdom is totally based on obedience, repentance and works.

This message is not well understood, because the church has moved away from this message for centuries now. Now the message is almost obsolete, but that is how Jesus said it would be in the end.

So had they believed in vain or not?

He made the statement that they were being saved by the gospel if they held if fast, otherwise, they had believed in vain.

This conclusion is inescapable.

 

[J. Jump]

If they didn't hold fast then they would have believed in vain. A Christian's participation in the coming kingdom is not a guarantee like the vast majority of Christianity believes.

If these believers continued to hold fast then their belief would not be in vain, but if they got away from what they had accepted and what Paul had preached then their belief would be in vain.

But it wouldn't impact their eternal security one bit. It would only impact their status in the coming 1,000-year reign of Christ.

I don't know if they made it to the end or not. It doesn't say, so we can't speculate whether they did or didn't. All we can do is hope that we make it after we come to an understanding of what the kingdom message is all about.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Paul gives the people the benefit of the doubt. They are there professing to believe, so he speaks to them as believers. It is still possible for some not to have really believed. So as I said, "Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel)". That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

You mean the Holy Spirit doesn't know if they were really saved or not. All scripture is given by the inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16-17).

Paul, though inspiration called them sanctified and saints. Either that is true or it is a lie. I think it is the truth.

I know you cannot accept this because it conflicts with your prior beliefs.

If your view was correct, nobody was "being" saved, as salvation would only truly come after they have lived their whole life. Also, deserving consideration is the theory that salvation would become more secure whan the Old Covenant system was finally destroyed in AD70.

What did Paul say in Rom 13:11, "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed."

You cannot accept this either.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Also you did not explain how it would "have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" for the person who has "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

If your version of eternal security were true, then everyone is always better off "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and Peter didn't know what he was talking about, right?

Same thing. It is better to have never come that close to the truth, as to be among the believers, and seeing God's work, than to be there faking it. Doesn't that make sense. "The world" there is AGE, meaning the Old Covenant. People could "escape" that, coming over to the Church (where they see they are free from the LAW) without really accepting Christ. Read the WHOLE chapter, and you see that these are "False Prophets"; not just anyone who falls into sin, or simply doesn't work hard enough. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, you are some mental gymnist. It can't mean what it says that "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" really means they are just faking it and did not really escape the defilements?

Here's a thought for you. If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then neither you nor I can know what it really means!!!!!!!!!

If words have meaning, and they do, then "having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" really means what it says.

Do you see how you have to twist these plain teachings????

 

[mman]

Originally posted by J. Jump:
If they didn't hold fast then they would have believed in vain. A Christian's participation in the coming kingdom is not a guarantee like the vast majority of Christianity believes.

If these believers continued to hold fast then their belief would not be in vain, but if they got away from what they had accepted and what Paul had preached then their belief would be in vain.

But it wouldn't impact their eternal security one bit. It would only impact their status in the coming 1,000-year reign of Christ.

I don't know if they made it to the end or not. It doesn't say, so we can't speculate whether they did or didn't. All we can do is hope that we make it after we come to an understanding of what the kingdom message is all about.

Slow down, hold on.... the coming kingdom? What in the world are you talking about? The kingdom has been in existence for 2000 years!

 

[J. Jump]

Christ will rule this earth for 1,000 years. Some refer to it as the millenial reign of Christ. That is the kingdom I am speaking of. And there is no guarantee that all Christians will participate in the ruling and reigning with Christ.

This kingdom has not been established yet or Christ would be ruling and reigning. And you can just turn on the Noon news or the 6 p.m. news or the 10 p.m. news or read the local newspaper to see that Christ is not currently ruling and reigning.

Satan is still ruling and reigning over this earth, but his time is drawing to a close.

Christ, while He was born King and is the Annointed He hasn't taken the throne as of yet. He is currently acting as our High Priest.

His bride must be complete before He can take the reigns from Satan.

A complete understanding of the kingdom is something that would take more time and space than is available here. If you would like more resources on the matter I would be more than happy to send them your way. And they are free

 

[Eric B]

Originally posted by mman:
You mean the Holy Spirit doesn't know if they were really saved or not. All scripture is given by the inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16-17).

Paul is not the Holy Spirit. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit was not telling him who was true or not, then.

Paul, though inspiration called them sanctified and saints. Either that is true or it is a lie. I think it is the truth.

I know you cannot accept this because it conflicts with your prior beliefs.

What did Paul say in Rom 13:11, "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed."

You cannot accept this either.

Well, that would mean nobody was completely saved, then. Else, you have to understand that as refering to the end of the age, which would occur in AD70, as other such passages must also being pointing to.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Also you did not explain how it would "have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" for the person who has "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

If your version of eternal security were true, then everyone is always better off "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and Peter didn't know what he was talking about, right?

Same thing. It is better to have never come that close to the truth, as to be among the believers, and seeing God's work, than to be there faking it. Doesn't that make sense. "The world" there is AGE, meaning the Old Covenant. People could "escape" that, coming over to the Church (where they see they are free from the LAW) without really accepting Christ. Read the WHOLE chapter, and you see that these are "False Prophets"; not just anyone who falls into sin, or simply doesn't work hard enough. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, you are some mental gymnist. It can't mean what it says that "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" really means they are just faking it and did not really escape the defilements?

Here's a thought for you. If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then neither you nor I can know what it really means!!!!!!!!!

If words have meaning, and they do, then "having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" really means what it says.

Do you see how you have to twist these plain teachings???? [/QB][/QUOTE]

The defilements were the works of the Law (which only leaves someone condemned anyway). That doesn't mean they were really saved.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by J. Jump:
Christ will rule this earth for 1,000 years. Some refer to it as the millenial reign of Christ. That is the kingdom I am speaking of. And there is no guarantee that all Christians will participate in the ruling and reigning with Christ.

This kingdom has not been established yet or Christ would be ruling and reigning. And you can just turn on the Noon news or the 6 p.m. news or the 10 p.m. news or read the local newspaper to see that Christ is not currently ruling and reigning.

Satan is still ruling and reigning over this earth, but his time is drawing to a close.

Christ, while He was born King and is the Annointed He hasn't taken the throne as of yet. He is currently acting as our High Priest.

His bride must be complete before He can take the reigns from Satan.

A complete understanding of the kingdom is something that would take more time and space than is available here. If you would like more resources on the matter I would be more than happy to send them your way. And they are free

His kindom was already established. In fact, there were people in Mark 9:1 that would not die till they saw it come with power.

Do you really believe they are still alive?

In the book of Colossians, Paul affirms that he and the brethren whom he addresses had been “translated” (note the past tense form of the verb) out of the power of darkness “into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (1:13), i.e., the kingdom of Christ. From the apostle’s vantage point, the kingdom was not a future (millennial) promise, but rather a present reality. The term “translated” (methistemi) means to “remove from one place to another”

Compare with this John’s declaration that he was a “partaker” in the kingdom with other Christians (Rev. 1:9).

John the Baptizer, Jesus himself, and the twelve disciples all preached that the kingdom was “at hand,” literally meaning “is come near” (Mt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; Lk. 21:30 for the meaning of “at hand”). Thus, they preached the nearness of the kingdom of God, and such can scarcely be harmonized with the notion that it hasn’t come.

Jesus taught that the “new birth,” consisting of being born of “water and the Spirit,” enables one to “enter the kingdom” (Jn. 3:5). This is simply receiving the Spirit’s message (the gospel), and being baptized in water – the very thing which puts one into the “one body” (1 Cor. 12:13), which is “the church” (Col. 1:18). Hence, to enter the church, is equal to becoming a citizen of the kingdom.

The premillennial concept is the result of literalizing a few symbolic verses in the book of Revelation, coupled with a considerable disregard for scores of very clear Bible passages.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
You mean the Holy Spirit doesn't know if they were really saved or not. All scripture is given by the inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16-17).

Paul is not the Holy Spirit. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit was not telling him who was true or not, then.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you not understand that Paul was writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Could Paul write a lie?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Paul, though inspiration called them sanctified and saints. Either that is true or it is a lie. I think it is the truth.

I know you cannot accept this because it conflicts with your prior beliefs. What did Paul say in Rom 13:11, "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed."

You cannot accept this either.

Well, that would mean nobody was completely saved, then. Else, you have to understand that as refering to the end of the age, which would occur in AD70, as other such passages must also being pointing to.</font>[/QUOTE]So, basically you are saying it can't mean what it says, because that contradicts with what you believe?

It is possible to believe in vain, but not according to you.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Also you did not explain how it would "have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" for the person who has "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

If your version of eternal security were true, then everyone is always better off "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and Peter didn't know what he was talking about, right?

Same thing. It is better to have never come that close to the truth, as to be among the believers, and seeing God's work, than to be there faking it. Doesn't that make sense. "The world" there is AGE, meaning the Old Covenant. People could "escape" that, coming over to the Church (where they see they are free from the LAW) without really accepting Christ. Read the WHOLE chapter, and you see that these are "False Prophets"; not just anyone who falls into sin, or simply doesn't work hard enough. </font>[/QUOTE]I read that "after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and take it to mean "they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" where you take it to mean "they have NOT escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", but they came close.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Wow, you are some mental gymnist. It can't mean what it says that "having "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" really means they are just faking it and did not really escape the defilements?

Here's a thought for you. If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then neither you nor I can know what it really means!!!!!!!!!

If words have meaning, and they do, then "having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" really means what it says.

Do you see how you have to twist these plain teachings????

The defilements were the works of the Law (which only leaves someone condemned anyway). That doesn't mean they were really saved. </font>[/QUOTE]These had "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and it "would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them."

This means they had known it and were following it, but had turned back. THEY STILL HAD FREE WILL.

They had believed in vain, just what Paul warned against.

 

[J. Jump]

His kindom was already established. In fact, there were people in Mark 9:1 that would not die till they saw it come with power.

Well you're going to have a tough question to answer if Christ is already ruling and reigning over the earth, then why is the world is the shape that it is in? The Bible says that when Christ rules that all rule will eminate from the heavens (where Satan currently rules once again showing that Christ is not ruling) and from the earth via Jerusalem. So are you saying that Christ is on the earth ruling from Jerusalem?

Neither of those things are happening. So Christ is not currently ruling. Another thing that shows that Christ is not currently ruling is that His bride is not complete and the wedding ceremony has not taken place. There will be no rule until that happens.

As to your question regarding some that shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His glory. Well that can easily be seen in the transfiguration where Peter, James and John saw Christ's kingdom and glory. So that was fulfilled just as it was written.

Do you really believe they are still alive?

Nope they have died.

In the book of Colossians, Paul affirms that he and the brethren whom he addresses had been “translated” (note the past tense form of the verb) out of the power of darkness “into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (1:13), i.e., the kingdom of Christ. From the apostle’s vantage point, the kingdom was not a future (millennial) promise, but rather a present reality. The term “translated” (methistemi) means to “remove from one place to another”

Well another problem here is that they weren't "translated" anywhere. They were still on the earth. And we've already said that Christ is not on the earth ruling, just as He wasn't on the earth ruling then. He is seated at the right hand of the father acting as our High Priest and Mediator. While He is king, He is not currently ruling as king, but one day soon will take that position. Oh that that day would come quickly!!

Compare with this John’s declaration that he was a “partaker” in the kingdom with other Christians (Rev. 1:9).

The Revelation given to John was of things to come, not things that were currently taking place.

John the Baptizer, Jesus himself, and the twelve disciples all preached that the kingdom was “at hand,” literally meaning “is come near” (Mt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; Lk. 21:30 for the meaning of “at hand”). Thus, they preached the nearness of the kingdom of God, and such can scarcely be harmonized with the notion that it hasn’t come.

The kingdom was indeed at hand while the King was present on the earth and the offer was being made to the nation of Israel. And had the nation of Israel repented as a nation the kingdom would have been established right then and there. But the nation did not repent and in fact killed almost all of the messengers, including the King.

Jesus taught that the “new birth,” consisting of being born of “water and the Spirit,” enables one to “enter the kingdom” (Jn. 3:5). This is simply receiving the Spirit’s message (the gospel), and being baptized in water – the very thing which puts one into the “one body” (1 Cor. 12:13), which is “the church” (Col. 1:18). Hence, to enter the church, is equal to becoming a citizen of the kingdom.{/QUOTE]

You are equating entering the kingdom with salvation by grace through faith, which is incorrect. You can see the kingdom through salvation by grace through faith, meaning you can be put in a position to understand what is being offered and then either reject the offer or accept the offer by obedience.

Once again that's where "baptism is a requirement for salvation" folks get off track. They start trying to force verses that aren't talking about savlation by grace through faith into that mold. It's like taking a square peg and forcing it to fit into the round hole.

There is nothing that one has to do in order to be saved by grace through faith. The free gift must be received. And it is received by believing and NOTHING else. If anything else comes into the equation it is no longer grace. It can't be any more simple than that.

Baptism and the rest of obedience comes in at entering the kingdom, which is soley based on works that come out of faithful living and obedience.

The premillennial concept is the result of literalizing a few symbolic verses in the book of Revelation, coupled with a considerable disregard for scores of very clear Bible passages.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The concept of the coming kingdom can be found in the opening chapters of Genesis and is the primary focus on God's revelation to mankind. But it is the one message that has received the most attack from the enemy and has been corrupted so much that it is rarely preached these days and if so is so misunderstood. The church thinks it is so rich, and nourished and in fact Christ said the church is miserable, naked and poor.

We've got to stop playing games and realize what the situation is. Christ is on the outside of the vast majority of our churches knocking to get in, but the vast majority of churches today are just comfortable with the way things are going, but the good news is that if individuals will open up Christ will come in and dine with them. Meaning that in these last days Christ is going to be dealing on an individual basis, because it is only individuals that are going to allow Him in.

[ April 24, 2006, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: J. Jump ]

 

[Eric B]

Since I am at work, on lunch, using the cellphone (in which case, I have to go outside in the rain to get reception), I'll just say this for now, in response to both jump and mman.
Mman is using a preterist interpretation in saying that the Kingdom began back then in some of those people's lifetimes. The actual "coming" wa supposed to be a spiritual one in AD70, when the Temple and the OC system was finally destroyed. I don't know whether you're full or partial preterist, but still, if you believe the Kingdom came back then, then you should be consistent and consider that all of this instability in salvation you keep appealing to ("escape the pollutions" yet still fall away and end up lost, etc) also ended then, and salvation became secure at that point.
That would be one of the blessings of this "kingdom"; else, what good is it? The way you keep talking, we might as well still be under the OC with the condemnation of the Law hanging over us. As it is, your view of the how's of salvation is more OT than NT. (E.g. How much you keep referring back to the OT to prove your points)