|
cassian -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (3/7/2006 9:45:00 PM)
|
johnkw,
quote:
I don't know what you're talking about. What am I not calling chastisement? the getting sick. Although in your latest post you include both, the getting sick and death as being chastisement. Death is not chastisement, never has been.
quote:
And yes, God taking ones life is chastisement, because, since we live forever, what we do here matters and will have an effect on what rewards we receive in heaven. I, for one, want to receive all the rewards Christ has for me. God, like a good parent, will discipline bad behavior. Witness Ananias and Sapphira. And it serves as a warning for those who are left behind, too. Everyone lives forever. And you are absolutely right that what we do here does indeed matter. What we do here first determines whether one goes to heaven or hell first. If and when you get to heaven then we can be concerned just what additional rewards one might recieve. The ultimate reward is Christ. Without Christ, there are no other rewards.
God will discipline, will chastise through many and sundry ways. But death is never part of the chastisment. If you do not heed the warnings, do not heed the correction notice, and then continue to willfully sin and continue to disobey, you are definitely not being saved. Sin and Christ do not mix. One will never be saved by willfully sinning against God. That willfully puts you outside of Christ.
Ananias and Sapphira are not good examples to use here as there is no indication of warnings or chastisement. But God surely used this example for others to heed. Lying is not a virture worthy of praise and glory. Whether they were saved or not is known only to God, at this point.
Any you are very correct in that is serves as a warning to others. God will not be mocked, nor trampled on, nor taken for granted in the more vernacular.
quote:
Wow, 2 question marks! No, I don't treat it as being saved. I treat it as a possible situation a saved person might be in. It's still a tragedy nonetheless. The unrealized potential of a life lived for God. Eating and drinking unworthily and not heeding the warnings is not indicative of a saved person. This person is continuing to sin and disregarding the heeding to repent. No repentance, no salvation.
quote:
Do you know my view that you could make such a categorical statement? Slow down, trigger I am assuming you are being honest here and not playing the devils advocate. Thus you either are sincerely attempting to put forth your view, or you are acknowledging that you have done a very poor job in that I should not have any indication by what you have been saying.
quote:
Except for the story of the prodigal son. Being in sin: "Dad, give me my inheritance now!" Willfully sinning: "Wine, women, and song." Willfully sinning, disrespecting chastisement: losing it all and then going to feed pigs. Still saved: He came to himself and decided to go back to his father. The prodigal son is not about a sinning, willfully sinning person who does not heed the warnings and dies in his disobedience.
Instead it is the story of a believer who chose to go his own way. to leave the Father's House, and attempt to live on his own. He made a mess of it, and sunk so low, that he saw his waywardness, and chose to repent, that is return to the Father. This is a story of a believer repenting and returning to the fold, not willfullys continue to live on his own.
This prodigal was not saved, nor being saved while in the far country. He was entirely outside of Christ. Separated, and condemned unless he repented, which he did.
quote:
You really ask that? Being saved (in the ushering into eternal life sense, not in the daily growing in grace/holiness sense) is not the end-all be-all of Christian life. that is where there is a massive distinction in scripture which you are not grasping. All men will live eternally. It is that daily, grace/holiness, remaining in faith that separates the unbeliever from the believer and determines whether one lives with Christ or apart from Him, eternally.
quote:
You might as well ask, "If he's your child, why do you care that he has tantrums and throws his food on the floor?" I would, but in this case, you would have to kill him in order to give the ultimate saving result. Taking the food away and going hungry is chastisement, but killing him is even better, because under your definition, he then can no longer throw a tandrum, sin, but still be what? your analogy does not flow here.
quote:
But scripture doesn't call it final condemnation, just chastisement. Check your Greek. No, it never calls it chastisement. It is a final judgement. That is what condemnation is in every instance. It is not final here as these people have time to repent. They are eating to their condemnation. If they do not cease they will die. That is a final result and condemnation then is final. Salvation is not condemnation. Never has been, never will be. If so, then every unbeliever is already saved as well, even though they have been condemned.
I would suggest you study the Greek a little more. The prefex 'kata" is not final either depending on the context. For the unbeliever who is condemned because of his unbelief, does not have final condemnation either. He can change that status at will. He can become a beleiver and not be condemned at all. So, the believer, has eternal life. But eternal life is dependent on believing. It is not final anymore that the kata is for the unbeliever. But for the same reason it is final, IF one continues to believe.
Stick to the context and the meaning of the scriptural uses of these words.
quote:
No. The bible never uses final condemnation in this passage all condemnation is final. It just has a time and continuance factor which you are ignoring on both sides of the coin. It is final without repentance, just as a believer is OSAS as long as he never loses faith. But in both instances, the Bible is repleat with so many examples of the change of these status's. Or, they are final if one stays permanently in them.
quote:
This is ultimate condemnation, katakrima. The 'kata' makes it ultimate. And that happens at their death, if they don't Repent Ah, but you do understand, but fail to apply it correctly. Now you should know that as well.
quote:
To your point: it's not a symmetric proposition. OSAS does not imply OLAL. That is the point. It does not, but your view does as you have explained it, or should say more correctly, applied it.
quote:
Once saved always saved does not in the slightest imply that Once Lost Always Lost. Why would it? That's a specious argument. It would by your statement. But as you have stated now above that it is final unless repentance occurs. OSAS is final for the same reason, in that belief must be continuous, then it it final long before then end. But salvation as does condemnation always means final unless one changes position. A believer can become an unbeliever, thus not final, or an unbeliever can become a believer, thus not final condemnation either.
But we know for sure, that they are not the same. Condemnation never means salvation, nor salvation condemnation.
quote:
Whoa, nelly! I'm not ignoring anything You're ignoring all those changes we make in this life. Nothing in the slightest is final until death. Death is final. It is what you are at death that determines where you are on the other side.
Lets look at context: John 3:18. both believers and unbelievers have a final destination. It is a simple fact. John 3:16 refers only to believers, but implies the opposite for unbeleivers.
But none of these positions is a final result for either a believer nor an unbeliever as long as he is alive and breathing. A believer and unbeliever can change positions at will in life. Death is final and position at death is what is final of either choice.
|
|
|
|