Why I now believe that salvation can be lost.

[Musicmaster]

You should, most especially because there is precedent for it in the didactic portions of God's Word (Gal 4:21ff.). Also, Revelation is both prophetic and apocalyptic literature, and as such is replete with figurative language.

The proverbial apples to oranges comparisons will not win when drawing incongruent comparisons. I simply don't buy your take on it all.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Since you do know, WHY have you been asking for days and days WHO these people were?

Plus, you contradict yourself. You claimed to know 50-100 people who fell away.
Now you are saying AGAIN that only God can know.

Good point. It's an old dodge to lay claim to something they have never observed, never experienced that which is inexplicable. That is precisely how anyone can define blind faith. It is by bland faith that they believe in a phenomenon that contradicts what's written.

MM

 

[Cameron143]

One example is Isa 2:1-5 (and also Mic 4) which is a prophecy for the "last days". Has that prophecy been fulfilled or will it be fulfilled in the New Heavens and New Earth? Have the nations already beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and have all the nations stopped training for war? if not, then the "last days" must extend from the first advent of Christ to the second.

Also, one more thing about Heb 8:13. A careful reading reveals that the writer saw the Old Covenant as already obsolete. The passage doesn't say that the Old will become obsolete, rather he says it "is" obsolete. It became obsolete the moment Christ died on the Cross, at which point the New Covenant was ratified in his blood. What the Hebrews text does say is that the first one "will soon disappear". God had to graphically prove the annulment of the OC to national Israel in 70 A.D. by destroying it's greatest symbol: the temple. What actually disappeared was OC Judaism -- its priesthood, its sacrifices, its feast days, etc. -- it was wiped off the face of the earth. The Judaism that is practiced today by religious Jews throughout the world is merely a modified version. Also, and just as importantly, the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. sent a clear signal to national Israel that God departed from them, i.e. "divorced them" as prophesied in the OT.

So, I stand by what I said yesterday that the OC became obsolete the moment Christ died and ratified the NC. The "transition" period didn't involve the first and second covenants per se. There were never two competing, contrary covenants in force at the same time and in the same sense from God's perspective. But what the transistion period was really all about was the destruction of the last physical vestige of the OC which had already become obsolete.

A covenant can't end until all the terms of the covenant are satisfied. Hebrews 8:13 says it's fading away and it was at the time Hebrews was written.
As far as fulfillment of all the prophecies, they were fulfilled or begun to be fulfilled from the cross forward. But the cause of their fulfillment has been accomplished...the cross.
Has every thing come to consummation? No. Has everything started? Yes. For example, have all things been put under Jesus feet? No. Is this what history is building to? Yes. Is it a sure thing? Definitely. Since the beginning of the church, has it become more evidenced throughout history? Without a doubt.

In this way, it is similar to salvation. It has begun in us, is progressively coming, and, one day it will consummatively come at the end.

 

[Rufus]

Theology 101 labels that as Eisegetical Hermeneutics, not Exegetical.



Where that is true in relation to the work of salvation itself, and the price that was paid for it, James was still was speaking on what is required on the part of the Jews. There's no getting around that. His words betray absolutely an instruction to each and every Jew who sought that salvation work that was completed by Christ. To try and say that James was referring to what was already accomplished by Christ on the part of each individual Jew, that's an alteration of the text by having to inject into what is plainly not stated.

Generally speaking, those out there who think James was talking to us who are under the Gospel of Grace, read James 1:1. If that were meant for Gentiles as well, then you must have a very very dim view of not only God's ability to inspire His meaning, and/or you think James was remiss in writing what was inspired or meant to be inspired that others reading it want to inject into it from their own imaginations. Either way, there are many who habitually deal dishonestly with the text. I'm hoping that you, Roger, are a cut above all those folks out there who do that.

MM

What James wrote applied to the entire Body of Christ. Messianic Jews did have one covenant and Gentile believers a different one. Both were and are to this day under the New Covenant.

 

[Rufus]

A covenant can't end until all the terms of the covenant are satisfied. Hebrews 8:13 says it's fading away and it was at the time Hebrews was written.
As far as fulfillment of all the prophecies, they were fulfilled or begun to be fulfilled from the cross forward. But the cause of their fulfillment has been accomplished...the cross.
Has every thing come to consummation? No. Has everything started? Yes. For example, have all things been put under Jesus feet? No. Is this what history is building to? Yes. Is it a sure thing? Definitely. Since the beginning of the church, has it become more evidenced throughout history? Without a doubt.

In this way, it is similar to salvation. It has begun in us, is progressively coming, and, one day it will consummatively come at the end.

Since the NC is a unilateral, universal covenant, then what terms needed to be fulfilled? You still ignore the fact that the writer of Hebrews did say that the OC IS obsolete. The only thing that was left to pass away was the physical, symbolic vestige of it which was the temple.

I didn't ask about the fulfillment of all prophecies, I asked about a very specific prophecy in Isa 2:1-5. A prophecy that is "being" fulfilled is quite different from one that has been fulfilled. And the latter is what matters to me. This prophecy has not been fulfilled since mankind is still making wars with one another as it has been since the beginning of time. Mankind is still in open rebellion against God, hardly wanting "to go up to the mountain of the Lord....[so that] he will teach us his ways [and] so that we may walk in his paths." Therefore, since this prophecy has not been fulfilled, we must still be in the "last days". So...we either have two sets of "last days" (one that ended the OC dispensation) and one that ends the NC dispensation -- but this impossible since the NC is as eternal as Christ himself who is the embodiment of it, so there can be no end to it. Or we just have the "last days" that began with Christ's first advent and ends with his second advent, as I said originally. And what I just said makes good sense since there will be no such thing as "days" in the New Eternal order. Time will cease to be at the Parousia.

And you're conflating the "cause" of mankind's salvation generally, with the actual fulfillment of God's eschatological program. With that kind of logic, one could say Jesus has already returned because he caused that return at the Cross. That may work for you, but it doesn't for me.

 

[Rufus]

Here's a correction to my 4564 to MusicMaster:

What James wrote applied to the entire Body of Christ. Messianic Jews did not have one covenant and Gentile believers a different one. Both were and are to this day under the New Covenant.

Sorry for the confusion. I typed that in a hurry because my phone was ringing, so I sent up the post then went to answer my phone.

 

[Cameron143]

Since the NC is a unilateral, universal covenant, then what terms needed to be fulfilled? You still ignore the fact that the writer of Hebrews did say that the OC IS obsolete. The only thing that was left to pass away was the physical, symbolic vestige of it which was the temple.

I didn't ask about the fulfillment of all prophecies, I asked about a very specific prophecy in Isa 2:1-5. A prophecy that is "being" fulfilled is quite different from one that has been fulfilled. And the latter is what matters to me. This prophecy has not been fulfilled since mankind is still making wars with one another as it has been since the beginning of time. Mankind is still in open rebellion against God, hardly wanting "to go up to the mountain of the Lord....[so that] he will teach us his ways [and] so that we may walk in his paths." Therefore, since this prophecy has not been fulfilled, we must still be in the "last days". So...we either have two sets of "last days" (one that ended the OC dispensation) and one that ends the NC dispensation -- but this impossible since the NC is as eternal as Christ himself who is the embodiment of it, so there can be no end to it. Or we just have the "last days" that began with Christ's first advent and ends with his second advent, as I said originally. And what I just said makes good sense since there will be no such thing as "days" in the New Eternal order. Time will cease to be at the Parousia.

And you're conflating the "cause" of mankind's salvation generally, with the actual fulfillment of God's eschatological program. With that kind of logic, one could say Jesus has already returned because he caused that return at the Cross. That may work for you, but it doesn't for me.

The new covenant is unilateral for us. It was not for God the Father and God the Son. Jesus fulfilled all the terms. It's a done deal. But that doesn't mean it has been fully consummated.

Have you ever outlined the books of Deuteronomy and Revelation? It's the same outline except that one establishes the covenant while the other reveals what happens when the stipulations of the covenant are not met.

 

[Magenta]

Here's a correction to my 4564 to MusicMaster:

What James wrote applied to the entire Body of Christ. Messianic Jews did not have one covenant
and Gentile believers a different one. Both were and are to this day under the New Covenant.

Sorry for the confusion. I typed that in a hurry because my phone was ringing, so I sent up the post then went to answer my phone.

Without going back to see what exactly you were correcting, what you have said here is what I understood you
to be saying in the previous post, which I certainly agree with. You two have been going at it with each other
for quite a few days now, and I must admit that I cannot always follow what exactly the disagreement is over,
since I am not keen on reading long posts in back and forths, nor posts full of acrimonious accusations.

 

[Rufus]

The proverbial apples to oranges comparisons will not win when drawing incongruent comparisons. I simply don't buy your take on it all.

MM

"Incongruent comparisons"?

 

[Rufus]

Without going back to see what exactly you were correcting, what you have said here is what I understood you
to be saying in the previous post, which I certainly agree with. You two have been going at it with each other
for quite a few days now, and I must admit that I cannot always follow what exactly the disagreement is over,
since I am not keen on reading long posts in back and forths, nor posts full of acrimonious accusations.

I'm not going to have much more to say to Mr. MM. He's a hard-core dispensationalist and what most of them do is dichotomize virtually everything between the OT and NT, between Jews and Gentiles believers, etc. He will never believe that God has always had ONE people who he has predestined in eternity.

 

[Rufus]

The new covenant is unilateral for us. It was not for God the Father and God the Son. Jesus fulfilled all the terms. It's a done deal. But that doesn't mean it has been fully consummated.

Have you ever outlined the books of Deuteronomy and Revelation? It's the same outline except that one establishes the covenant while the other reveals what happens when the stipulations of the covenant are not met.

Again, you're conflating prophecy with the terms of a specific covenant. I can say, logically, that the prophecy in Isa 2:1-5, while not yet fulfilled, is nevertheless now in the process of being fulfilled (the eschatological "now" and "not yet" ). Since the passage itself tells us when the prophecy will be fulfilled (in the "last days"), then the only logical conclusion is that we must right now be in those last days if the prophecy is truly being fulfilled. But according to you, the "last days" ended in 70 A.D. So...we either have two sets of "last days" or you pegged the wrong time era for the days, which has been my contention.

And, no, I never outlined the two above mentioned books. Sounds like that could be an interesting and informative exercise though.

 

[PaulThomson]

Your in effect saying Jesus failed. Paul says different

Philippians 1:6
being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

It does not say he might complete the work

It does not say he will only complete it if the person allows him to

It says we can be confident that he will complete it.

You were given eternal life when you were born again (if you were really born again)

eternal is forever. it can not be lost. because its not based on you or your ability, it is based 100% on God and his work.

The Greek word translated here as "will complete" is epitelesei, epi = upon + teleO I am finishing. It indicates a process of layering actions upon one another toward the finishing of a project or task.

Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in/among you (pl.) will keep on adding stages towards [that good work's] completion until (achris, up until a terminus) the day of Jesus Christ.

This is not saying that the good work will be completed, (i.e. will have been completed) at the day of Jesus Christ).
It is saying that the good work will be being built upon toward completion until that day.

It is not a given that the good work will have been successfully completed at the return of Jesus, only that God will continue on His part to work towards completing it. However, if any soul shrinks back from submitting to and cooperating with God in that process until that day, not enduring to the end,a seccessful completion is not promised here.

 

[Cameron143]

Again, you're conflating prophecy with the terms of a specific covenant. I can say, logically, that the prophecy in Isa 2:1-5, while not yet fulfilled, is nevertheless now in the process of being fulfilled (the eschatological "now" and "not yet" ). Since the passage itself tells us when the prophecy will be fulfilled (in the "last days"), then the only logical conclusion is that we must right now be in those last days if the prophecy is truly being fulfilled. But according to you, the "last days" ended in 70 A.D. So...we either have two sets of "last days" or you pegged the wrong time era for the days, which has been my contention.

And, no, I never outlined the two above mentioned books. Sounds like that could be an interesting and informative exercise though.

My point all along has been that the term last or latter days refers to the old covenant coming to an end. If you read the book of Revelation, 3 times within the first 7 verses of the first chapter you see the imminency of the book:
verse 1...shortly
verse 3...at hand
verse 7...they which pierced Him among those who see Him

I still don't understand why you believe all the cross did was provide salvation. But even believing this, salvation has hardly come to fruition. Everything necessary for salvation has been accomplished, but all that concerns salvation is far from happening. There is still a number that no man can number yet to be saved.

In like manner, prophecy being fulfilled doesn't necessitate all prophecy having been consummated, but everything necessary to insure its consummation has occurred. Since all the promises of God were fulfilled in Christ, all that was promised will come to pass. The last or latter days is when this took place.

 

[PaulThomson]

Tell you what...I'll let YOU tell John that he was mistaken in what he saw:

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Generally speaking, those who allegoricalize scripture into saying something vastly different from what it says, all in an attempt to try and make it fit personal interpretations, that's an old trick I see liberal theologians practicing who are now teaching in modern Seminary (Cemetary) and Bible colleges. Many of those institutions are cranking out atheistic, gnostic, agnostic, Eastern mystic fuss-buckets populating so many of the modern institutional church pulpits.

If you're going to apply to those types, make sure your resume' points out your subjective system of interpretation. They will welcome you with open arms.

MM

Isn't the bride, the new Jerusalem in which God dwells, his resurrected saints, descending in glorified bodies from the clouds where they had met with Christ before He descended to destroy the antichrist and his armies?

 

[PaulThomson]

Then it is really conditional life. not eternal life.. God is not going to call something eternal that is not eternal.

God never called anything eternal. He called things עוֹלָם / ʽolam and αἰώνιος / aiOnios. Men called aeonous life "eternal life".

 

[PaulThomson]

Last days of what?

IMO The last days of God's seven 1000-year -long week of earth's history. The last 3000 years being the last days; and the last 1000 years being the last day.

 

[Cameron143]

IMO The last days of God's seven 1000-year -long week of earth's history. The last 3000 years being the last days; and the last 1000 years being the last day.

Alot of people have a similar understanding or some variation of this. But what was actually taking place in the first century was the ending of a covenant between God and Israel.

 

[Rufus]

The Greek word translated here as "will complete" is epitelesei, epi = upon + teleO I am finishing. It indicates a process of layering actions upon one another toward the finishing of a project or task.

Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in/among you (pl.) will keep on adding stages towards [that good work's] completion until (achris, up until a terminus) the day of Jesus Christ.

This is not saying that the good work will be completed, (i.e. will have been completed) at the day of Jesus Christ).
It is saying that the good work will be being built upon toward completion until that day.

It is not a given that the good work will have been successfully completed at the return of Jesus, only that God will continue on His part to work towards completing it. However, if any soul shrinks back from submitting to and cooperating with God in that process until that day, not enduring to the end,a seccessful completion is not promised here.

But...the work of salvation never began with man. It began with God and so he will complete it by bringing all his sheep to pasture (home). Salvation does not depend on the man who runs or the man who wills. But on God's mercy (Rom 9:16).

 

[Rufus]

My point all along has been that the term last or latter days refers to the old covenant coming to an end. If you read the book of Revelation, 3 times within the first 7 verses of the first chapter you see the imminency of the book:
verse 1...shortly
verse 3...at hand
verse 7...they which pierced Him among those who see Him

I still don't understand why you believe all the cross did was provide salvation. But even believing this, salvation has hardly come to fruition. Everything necessary for salvation has been accomplished, but all that concerns salvation is far from happening. There is still a number that no man can number yet to be saved.

In like manner, prophecy being fulfilled doesn't necessitate all prophecy having been consummated, but everything necessary to insure its consummation has occurred. Since all the promises of God were fulfilled in Christ, all that was promised will come to pass. The last or latter days is when this took place.

I know what your point is. And I believe your time frame is wrong for all the reasons stated previously. Even the OC itself did not become obsolete in 70 A.D., so how could it have ended in 70 A.D.? In Heb 8 you conflate obsolescence with disappearing, which is poor exegesis. You ignore both the verb tenses. What became obsolete at the Cross (the OC) the most preeminent symbol thereof (the temple) will surely disappear. (There was nothing more sacred and relelvant to the Mosaic Law than the temple. They were inextricably entwined!) The obsolescence took place in the writer's past, while he spoke of the disappearing as yet future.

The Cross work of Christ does not actually bring prophecies to their fulfillment. The Cross work was a necessary means to their end (fulfillment).

And if you insist that 70 A.D. brought an end to the "last days", then you must logically believe Isa 2:1-5 has already been fulfilled. It had to have been fulfilled some time prior to 70 A.D., which is very doubtful.

And since I hold to classical preterism, I do agree with your take on 70 A.D. Most of Revelation has been fulfilled. But that doesn't prove your premise on when the last days came to their end, since your timeframe is wrong.

Best we agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me or vice versa.

 

[Rufus]

Isn't the bride, the new Jerusalem in which God dwells, his resurrected saints, descending in glorified bodies from the clouds where they had met with Christ before He descended to destroy the antichrist and his armies?

Gotta hand it to ya, Mr. PT: One in a blue moon you find that rare acorn. (Or is my metaphor wrong?)