What does, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved” mean?

[peldom10]

I think I just realized why there's tension between our positions. It's this phrase you just wrote: " to the one who reads".
Yes, if what Paul wrote was meant to apply to every person who reads it, then it would not be possible for vs 8 to be a statement. But Paul isn't writing to the world, he is writing to the church. This spiritual fact only applies to people who are a part of the church. So there's no issue with reading it the way it is written.
Anyways...moving on

The Bible references refer to the ultimate presence of God's meaning with the word saved. What is required to obtain that result when judged by God must be applied in context.
The Bible clearly illustrates and most any lit. student would understand that.......after.Bible study. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest more study of scriptural meaning is indicated.

 

[arthurfleminger]

So many eggheads on this board. Christianity is a religion for simple people, straightforward and to the point. So, what does, "But he who endures to the end will be saved mean?" It has nothing to do with the end of times. It has everything to do with my death and your death. If we endure in Christ and His word through all the turmoil of our live, we will be saved. That's what it means and keep things simple. If you and I remain faithful unto our death, we will be saved. If we don't, we won't be saved. Simple as that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Diakonos]

A diet of reading good literature will help you understand references used.

I understand the passages of the references I used.

I asked you to show me how I misused those contexts since you said I wasn't keeping them in context.
If you don't know the meaning of a passage (the context), you can't effectively tell someone they used a verse out of context. I.e., you can't tell someone they're using something wrong if you don't know how to use it yourself. I am asking you to show me my error because I genuinely need to know if I am misunderstanding these 5 verses. But they need to be Biblically based and fit their own contexts.

I provided 5 verses in post# 401 as evidence for the statement: "We may absolutely refer to ourselves as saved".

Are you able to explain the contextual meanings of those verses or not?

 

[peldom10]

I understand the passages of the references I used.

I asked you to show me how I misused those contexts since you said I wasn't keeping them in context.
If you don't know the meaning of a passage (the context), you can't effectively tell someone they used a verse out of context. I.e., you can't tell someone they're using something wrong if you don't know how to use it yourself. I am asking you to show me my error because I genuinely need to know if I am misunderstanding these 5 verses. But they need to be Biblically based and fit their own contexts.

I provided 5 verses in post# 401 as evidence for the statement: "We may absolutely refer to ourselves as saved".

Are you able to explain the contextual meanings of those verses or not?

End of discussion.

 

[Diakonos]

End of discussion.

Thus the reason we may not refer to our selves as saved while alive on this earth because it takes away from God's ultimate authority to pass judgement.

We (the church) have died with Christ. Our sins were judged on the cross. We have passed from death to life. God is perfectly just in declaring us righteous now because we are already forgiven.
Amen

 

[justbyfaith]

I think I just realized why there's tension between our positions. It's this phrase you just wrote: " to the one who reads".
Yes, if what Paul wrote was meant to apply to every person who reads it, then it would not be possible for vs 8 to be a statement. But Paul isn't writing to the world, he is writing to the church. This spiritual fact only applies to people who are a part of the church. So there's no issue with reading it the way it is written.
Anyways...moving on

Is it possible that someone who is not a genuine believer, but who thinks that they are a believer, might read Ephesians 2:8-9 and think that they are saved, if they read it in a modern version?

 

[Diakonos]

Is it possible that someone who is not a genuine believer, but who thinks that they are a believer, might read Ephesians 2:8-9 and think that they are saved, if they read it in a modern version?

The Bible answers your question perfectly:

"the gospel...By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you,
unless ye have believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:2, KJV 1900)
​

So this is directed at the church. Paul makes it clear that we are saved by the gospel (by grace, through faith [Rom 1:16, Eph 2:5, Heb 11, etc]). And he goes out of his way to address the person that may have believed in vain (not a genuine believer).

“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves,
how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Corinthians 13:5, KJV 1900)​

See, God is thorough. He makes sure that He addresses everyone who reads His word, even if they are reading for the wrong reasons or reading a section not applying to them, specifically.

I don't understand why you want to have a debate about Eph 2:8 when I never brought it up. I quoted verse 5 as supporting evidence for what I stated earlier (post#401). Verse 5 explicitly says we are saved. So even if verse 8 was a question (which it's not), the question was already answered in verse 5. Question or statement...in either case, verses 5 and 8 are directed at the church.

Is that a satisfactory answer for you?

 

[justbyfaith]

No.

It should be clear that in Ephesians 2:8-9, a question is being asked, are ye saved (?).

Yes, 2 Corinthians 13:5 does substantiate that this is the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8.

There are those who think that if a doctrine is anywhere in the Bible, that it is okay to take that doctrine out of some verses in the Bible as long as that doctrine is somewhere in the Bible.

But it begs the question...because those same people require that a doctrine cannot be made out of a singular verse. But they take the doctrine out of specific verses so that in certain Bibles, the doctrine is found in only one verse.

However, in the kjv, the doctrine is found in more than one verse; and these same people would rather go by a translation that does not have thet doctrine in more than one verse.

Do you think it might be the devil's attempt to destroy sound doctrine in people's minds? Or, at least, to render lame those people who would preach those doctrines from the Bible?

 

[Ellie123]

you attacked = i corrected the attack = not you = you took it personel
You also falsely accused me again = "i never said you were satan"

Maybe you have not been reviewing my posts as i have been reaching out in the Love of God to tell my Brethren to turn away from the lies.

pre-trib is a Big Lie from satan and many have swallowed it - hook, line and sinker

God is calling everyone, myself included, to repentance and to return to "the faith, once delivered to the Saints".

We do this together and it becomes a joyful celebration in freedom from religion and blessing in the Holy Spirit.

But if we hold tightly to our idols, we will accuse and attack one another.

i



It wasn't an attack, have you read my message? May be you think so ,because you in this constant attack mode.

I also doubt the pre tribulation rapture, so at least we agree on something. Just remember the Devil wants us divided and he is happy when we are.

 

[DavidTree]

i

It wasn't an attack, have you read my message? May be you think so ,because you in this constant attack mode.

I also doubt the pre tribulation rapture, so at least we agree on something. Just remember the Devil wants us divided and he is happy when we are.

Your words spoken FIRST = "Praising God for something you do not believe in. Isn't this a blasphemy? Just saying. "

Today is a new day = start out on the right path

 

[de-emerald]

I have issues with today is a new day as a liscence to excuse your own sin personaly or not to try harder just sayin. or a reason to get drunk all over again and go back to glutony and laziyness its just a mentality that i have seen so many times and herd said by so many people. that i have now become un fond of this saying today is a new day or today is the first day of the rest of your life.. this is ok if it does not lead to health issues using this mentality.. My guess is the today is a new day is a saying i think could be from the devil.. its so wierd i had a long debate over this saying the other day with a friend. My friend said today is a new day after he was highly stoned on a canibis joint.. It waring me out fighting the enemy..