Loss of salvation???

[Toknow]

I doubt it. After the cross, the thief beside Jesus was promised to be with him "in paradise TODAY", and they both went down to the grave.

Not sure what you mean by the above.
Paradise...if you look it up....is the English word for Hades.

Both Jesus and the thief went into the grave.
But did they STAY there?

By grave I understand that you mean sheoul.
You cannot believe in sheoul AND hades (Luke 16)
they're two different places.

 

[Toknow]

Eternal union with Lord Jesus, some will be his inner circle with the most intimate relationship with him (such as Peter, James and John), some will have a close relationship (such as the other disciples and the women that followed Jesus), others will have a rather distant relationship (such as the 70 he sent off). Unprofitable servants will receive no reward.

Maybe, I'm sure absolutely sure either. This says the "sons of the kingdom" will be cast into this outer darkness. I've heard from some sermons that "sons of the kingdom" are identified as the Pharisees, Sadduccees and their modern counterparts in the church, if that's true, they'll be called LEAST in the kingdom, but at least they'll still be in the kingdom.

“Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 8:10-12)

Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ... (Matt. 5:19)

the SONS OF THE KINGDOM means the Jews.
The Jews are the ones to whom the promise was given.
But they did not accept Jesus as Messiah.
This speaks to Romans 9...but it's really a lot to get into.

It would be nice if @studier would comment on Matthew 8:10-12.

 

[Toknow]

The bigger question is why do you always add claims to my posts that I didn’t make?

When I said having a couple drinks isn’t bad for everyone, I was talking about moderation, not advocating drunkenness.

When I said the Bible is a book and doesn’t have the Holy Spirit, I was referring to the physical object, the paper and ink, not dismissing its message.

When I said I use AI as a tool, that is all I meant. I never said AI has the Holy Spirit.

Maybe try to respond to what I actually say in the future and not the conclusions you’re adding to it.

I agree with you.
But some do seem to do this.
We've all done it....i'll bet.
But good points.

 

[studier]

The Pharisees along with other religious leadees are depicted as being behind persecution and scourging of early followers of Jesus within the synagogues as in Matthew 10:17 and the Pharisees represent the primary group in the Gospel of Matthew that resisted and sought to destroy Jesus and his ministry.

The immediate context of Matthew 10:33 focuses on instructing the disciples to fearlessly acknowledge Jesus despite persecution and the broader context of the Gospel of Matthew highlights the Pharisees as the leading opponents who "deny" or Jesus's authority.

Matthew 10:33

Shall deny me (αρνησητα με). Aorist subjunctive here with οστις, though future indicative ομολογησε above. Note accusative here (case of extension), saying "no" to Christ, complete breach. This is a solemn law, not a mere social breach, this cleavage by Christ of the man who repudiates him, public and final.

Matthew 10 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org https://share.google/tDyF4K5mDIGdhMnkr

There's no need to double-down on the Pharisees, They're simple not the main focus in Matt10.

You misread or misapplied what Robertson said about the aorist tense. He's saying this is a single decisive act, not the way you stated it here:

"The word for "deny" is an aorist tense. This points to the fact that Jesus is not talking about a single instance of denial (as was the case with Peter, who actually denied Him three times - Luke 22:34), but is referring to life in its entirety. Hence, the person who throughout his life denies Christ (as was typically the case with the Pharisess and includes unbelievers who may even give mere "lip service confession" - Matthew 7:21-23, but lack saving faith in Christ) will be denied by Christ before the Father."​

​

Did you read Robertson's section on Peter's denial?

 

[studier]

When you find that your own perspective isn't right or working, then I will offer you an alternative. Until then, what is the point? Our only productive course of action is to discuss the scriptures, not trade philosophical positions.

This is silly. Put forth your view of the 3rd option which may well be from Crabtree and support it from Scripture.

 

[rogerg]

Verse 13.....These receive the word WITH JOY. This means they HEARD the word and received it. It planly states this.
Jesus Himself is stating that THEY BELIEVED FOR A WHILE. A believer is a saved person. They believed for A WHILE.
and then they FELL AWAY.....due to temptation.

No. My whole point was that a believer is not necessarily a saved person. By saying that you've demonstrated that you
didn't read my post. To be a true believer, they endure in it until the end. Not everyone does so.

 

[rogerg]

If you care to show how the verses are for EDIFICATION...I'd be interested.

Here's the start. The remaining verses up through the end of the chapter are a continuation of that

[Mat 10:1, 5-7 KJV]
1 And when he had called unto [him] his twelve disciples, he gave them power [against] unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. ...
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

[rogerg]

Did you say that God CHOOSES who will be saved?
Is it based on something?

Man does not lose his free will when he becomes saved.

Nothng MUST come to fruition.
God has done His part...
now it is up to us to do our part....
obey Him.
Not let temptation take us away from Him as in verse 13 about the sower.

No. No free will - as least not as salvation is concerned. The unsaved are spiritually dead in sin, and just as a
physically dead person can't make physical choices, neither can a spiritually dead person make spiritual choices.
That is a function of having been given spiritual life and only God can give that - but then spiritual life is salvation.

[Eph 2:1, 4-5 KJV]
1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; ...
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

 

[Lovette]

the SONS OF THE KINGDOM means the Jews.
The Jews are the ones to whom the promise was given.
But they did not accept Jesus as Messiah.
This speaks to Romans 9...but it's really a lot to get into.

It would be nice if @studier would comment on Matthew 8:10-12.

That's rather an antisemetic view which I abhor.

Not sure what you mean by the above.
Paradise...if you look it up....is the English word for Hades.

Both Jesus and the thief went into the grave.
But did they STAY there?

By grave I understand that you mean sheoul.
You cannot believe in sheoul AND hades (Luke 16)
they're two different places.

Jesus rose and ascended to heaven. Did anybody else?

Sheol and Hades are the same place, where everyone will be "gathered to their people". Sheol in the OT, Hades in the NT.

 

[studier]

It would be nice if @studier would comment on Matthew 8:10-12.

I'll bet you can do a fine job with this.

Very simply put:

All the following plus the Centurion's care for his servant - his subordinate - is baked into Matt8:5-7 and Jesus, who sees such things clearly, immediately responds to him:

NKJ Matt8:8a The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof.

• Great humility
• For a Roman Centurion to address Jesus as Lord-Kurios (in Matt8:6 also) and say he was not worthy of a Jewish Rabbi reverses the entire order he lived under and could potentially result in his being charged with even treason.

NKJ Matt8:8b-9 But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. 9 "For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

• Great orientation to authority
• He recognizes the authority of Jesus Christ to do things beyond mere men, no matter their rank, no matter the consequences for appealing to Him and addressing Him properly

NKJ Matt8:10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!

• Great Faith
• Hearing this, Jesus was amazed/extraordinarily impressed.
  • My comment: which is sad in a way:
    • Shouldn't this be the norm among men? It will be. Some understand this now.
  • Not even in Israel with their long history with God was this 'great faith' found by God
    • Here it's found in a Roman soldier.

Great Humility - Great understanding of and Submission to Authority - Great Faith

• Genuine Faith in God contains both of these - they're all overlapping and even helping to define one another.
• I've posted many times how obedience to God and believing in God are 2 sides of the same coin - they're used in parallel & they're stated appositionally.

 

[studier]

No. My whole point was that a believer is not necessarily a saved person. By saying that you've demonstrated that you
didn't read my post. To be a true believer, they endure in it until the end. Not everyone does so.

One interesting point from the Perseverance doctrine.

Remove determinism, monergism and likely the mystery 3rd option (@Roger316) and some of the rest of us agree re: endurance.

 

[Lovette]

One question:

If we do not go on to sanctification...
do we also lose justificaiton?

Some do not tie the two together.

No, we don't.

 

[mailmandan]

No, we don't.

Sanctification has no bearing on justification. That is, even if we don’t live a sinless, perfect life 24/7 (which we won't) we are still justified by faith. (Romans 5:1) Sanctification is the process of being set apart for God’s work and being conformed to the image of Christ. This conforming to Christ involves the work of the person, but it is still God working in the believer (Philippians 2:13) who has been justified.

We see initial sanctification in which we are set apart/made holy in standing before God positionally in Christ. 1 Corinthians 6:11 - Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 1:2 - To the church of God, which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus.

Yet we also see progressive or ongoing sanctification in which the reality of that holiness becomes more and more evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, - For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor.

So, becoming washed, sanctified and justified in Christ is a one-time event, yet abstaining from sexual immorality is not a one-time event. Here is how I understand it. The believer possesses a positional, judicial standing of righteousness in Christ and, second, an ongoing process of growth in practical, progressive holiness which becomes increasingly evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives.

 

[rogerg]

The above is just stating that Jesus had to die in order for the New Covenant to become valid.

And not only that, but it is also stating there is an inheritance accompanying it, which it is for, and only for, those of 1 Pe 1:4 - those for whom it had been reserved.

[1Pe 1:4 KJV] 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

 

[Magenta]

From my perspective, I am not explaining away the meaning. I am correcting a long-held misinterpretation of them

Funny how they will say some clearly articulated verse does not mean what you think it does just because they disagree with
you believing what it actually says... but then they also claim nobody has said things certain people most definitely have.

Same old same old.

 

[rogerg]

Funny how they will say some clearly articulated verse does not mean what you think it does just because they disagree with
you believing what it actually says... but then they also claim nobody has said things certain people most definitely have.

Same old same old.

Hey Magenta - great to see you're back - missed your input and Rufus's too (amongst others). Hope you'll be hanging around for a while

 

[studier]

We see initial sanctification in which we are set apart/made holy in standing before God positionally in Christ. 1 Corinthians 6:11 - Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 1:2 - To the church of God, which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus.

'Positional' is standard Reformed and Free-Grace fare, not held by all traditions. As Paul continues in 1Cor6 he'll make clear that there is a future to remain aware of and what we do in the body is important and a matter of obedience. The 'positional' doctrine is part of the OSAS doctrine - a concept of legal status that cannot be removed nor walked away from.

In 1Cor1:2 we once again have a perfect tense verb that in itself says they were sanctified in the past and at the time of writing are sanctified, but after this it tells us nothing about remaining sanctified.

 

[Toknow]

No. Not really. You brought it up.

All I did was talk about the scriptures.

From my perspective, I am not explaining away the meaning. I am correcting a long-held misinterpretation of them

I didn't explain away the conditional sense. I argue that not all conditionals are meant as warnings. THAT is an ASSUMPTION you bring to the text.

Do you think this is fair? Really? Are you allowed to label and marginalize me? Did I quote Calvin? No. Did I quote any reformer? No, And why do you presume that I didn't draw my own conclusions from scripture?

No one can read the NT and come to the conclusion that God CHOOSES some for salvation and some for destruction.
What comes throught when reading the NT is the love God has for mankind and His desire to get us to heaven.
Free will is seen throughout the NT.

These beliefs come from other sources...whatever they may be.

 

[Toknow]

No. My whole point was that a believer is not necessarily a saved person. By saying that you've demonstrated that you
didn't read my post. To be a true believer, they endure in it until the end. Not everyone does so.

I understand your postion.
I do not agree with it.
It is not found in scripture.

There is no such person as a TRUE believer.
One is a believer or he is not.

You're saying that we will know a true believer because he has endured till the end.

You do not seem to realize what I've been saying....
IF this is true....

It means none of us can know if we are saved.

If we have to wait till the end...how could we know we're saved RIGHT NOW?

We can know we're saved right now if we BELIEVE.

To BELIEVE is to be SAVED.

RIGHT NOW. No need to wait till our death bed.

 

[studier]

Hey Magenta - great to see you're back - missed your input and Rufus's too (amongst others). Hope you'll be hanging around for a while

There goes the discussion...

Maybe we just sit back and watch how @Roger316 interacts with strict & aggressive deterministic monergism & some compatibilism and see what his 3rd option amounts to.