Can you be saved and not know it?

The rich young ruler went away sorrowful.
He was not saved because he had rejected Christ in favor of his riches. His riches may have been an obstacle. But if he remained in his lost condition it would be because of his rejection of Christ, not because of his riches. Money doesn't send a person to hell.

 

John 15 is where I hoped you were heading, as opposed to here (Romans 11), when I posted the question. We (believers) are also branches of the true vine, according to John 15, specifically in verse 5. And there we are not said to be grafted in, (as we are to all the corporate body in Romans 11), for we are branches from the beginning, in Jesus. We believers today are "members in particular" of His body, something OT Israel never was, nor ever will be.

Ed

 

Old Israel had faith that God would send the Messiah. What do you think Jesus is.
John 1:
9: That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10: He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11: He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, are you going to thank me or what?

Eph. 2:
10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11: Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12: That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14: For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Who do you think the twain is Ed;?

Its not that cut and dried Ed;

 

Yep, they sure did.

Seems clear enough to me, but I can find another hundred verses, if you'd like. And this is what Zacchaeus did, as well. Believed on Jesus, and received the free gift of salvation, just as Nicodemus in John 3, Joseph of Arimathea, the thief on the cross, Mary & Martha, Mary, his mother, James, his brother, and Paul, and the jailer, all later, plus Peter, Mary Magdalene. et.al. And all save the thief, who never had the chance, followed up on their believing for salvation, as disciples (created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of good works" Eph. 2:10b) , which is what we all should do, certainly. But that discipleship is not necessarily required, even though it is expected, and desired. (Rom. 4:1 ff., Eph. 2)

Do you see the difference, between the ruler and the above? The ruler wanted to "DO" something, on his own, that would assure that he inherited this, by right. He did not accept Jesus as the Son of God, hence God, unlike the others. Jesus' response shows this, when he answers "No one isgood but One, that is, God." The ruler did not respond to this. He also had a very high opinion of himself, and his own works, not realizing that all have sinned, unlike the others, apparently, for he would claim to have kept "some" of the commandments, in their entirety. Jesus did not even mention the first four of the commandments, fo He knew full well, the ruler's heart, as another Scripture shows that Jesus knew what was in all men.

BTW, the very next verses tell of Nicodemus. The ruler was 'trusting in his riches to buy or acquire whatever was needed for that inheritance.

Jesus shot that down, immediately, as we would say. He said "Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor" [Jesus would say, 'He was trusting in his riches.' (and hence expected to buy his way in to eternal life) later, to the disciples] "and you will have treasure in heaven;" (rewards), "and come" [how all of us receive salvation is by coming to Jesus, by faith. ( Mt. 11:28; 19:14; Jn. 5:40; 6:44; 6:65; 7:37; Rev. 22:17)], "follow me." [Follow after me - what is expected and should be the norm of a disciple, which cannot occur until one comes first, by faith. (Mt. 4:19; 6:24; Mk. 8:34; Lk. 9:59; Jn. 10:27)]

That last verse tells us that one cannot follow, until one is, first, a 'sheep', for the sheep only follow their own shepherd, for they know his voice. And Jesus said the sheep will not follow another shepherd. One does not become a disciple, in order to be saved. One is saved first, by grace through faith/believe, and then, and only then, one can become a true disciple.

Did you notice the ruler called Jesus "Good Teacher"? The blind man called Him "Jesus, Son of David" and (along with Zacchaeus) "Lord"? Wanna' guess which two out of the three were saved, here, and would become disciples, thereafter??

But there were and are those who attempt or even become so-called 'disciples' who were never saved.
Judas would be "Exhibit 'A'".
The rich young ruler would be "Exhibit 'B'".

Ed

 

I'm going to let my friend, Elmer answer this. Elmer?

"Thanks, Ed! Who is the twain?? I thought evewybody knew who was the twain! That is the big thing they call a wocomotive that wuns down a set of twacks and pulls a wawge numbew of caws hauwing things wike wumbew, automobiwes, wubbew tiwes, wawge machines, and othew things wike that. It usuawwy wuns and goes 'Wooo - Wooo!', making aww that noise, and bwows a wot of smoke and scawes away that wascawwy wabbit, when I am twying to hunt him!" Elmer Fudd

"Thanks, Elmer." :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sorry, wouldn't miss the chance on this one.

Ed

 

I enjoyed it too Ed; :)

 

(All Scripture quotes here emboldened.) Now on a serious note, the twain is obviously the Gentiles and the Jews, when they are born again into the church, the body of Christ, in this present age. Note Paul contrasts "being in time past" and "at that time ye were" with "But now" and "are". We, the church, are now all in one body in Christ. And there is unlike then, no difference between the Jew and the Gentiles now, for what was the specific distinction, "the middle wall of partition between us", or "the emnity", the "old covenant", namely the Mosaic Law, here called "the law of commandments contained in ordinances (or judgments) " (Lev. 25:15; Num. 26:13; Dt. 5:31; 6:1; 7:11; 8:11; 11:1; 30:16; I Ki. 2:3; Neh. 1:7; 9:13; 10:29; Ezek. 11:20; 43:11; 44:5; Lk. 1:5; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14, 20; Heb. 9:1) was removed, "having abolished in His flesh the enmity" when "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;", just as He was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). The Mosaic Law was completly set aside for the Christian. We are not now under the Mosaic law, the Old Covenant, in any way whatsoever. We are under "the New Covenant", "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", "the perfect law of liberty", what Jesus also referred to as "my commandments", the 'new law' of the grace covenant. Not one precept of Moses is for us, as written therein. What principles from that law that are 'binding' on us today are restated in the NT in the language of grace. Just thought I'd throw these last five sentences in for free.

Actually, it is exactly that cut and dried. As Scripture says in four different places, "The just shall live by faith." There is no question that we, any and all of us, Jew and Gentile, were/are saved or justified before God, by believing/faith, in each and every dispensation, after the fall, hence all are saints :saint:.

[I will use a set of fairly commonly accepted titles of the dispensations. (D.)]
Abel, Enoch, and Noah were justified by faith in the D. of Conscience;
Abraham and Lot in the D. of Human government;
Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses in the D. of Promise;
Rahab (a Gentile), Ruth the Moabitess (A Semite, yet a Gentile), David, Samuel, Solomon, the prophets, John the Baptist, and the Apostles, and the thief on the cross (was he a Jew??), in the D. of Law;
Paul, Luke, Timothy, Cornelius, the Phillipian jailer, you and I and everyone today (some are Jews; some are Gentiles) in the D. of grace.

All were and are justified before God, by grace through faith, by believing God, and that apart from any works. (Rom. 4) One cannot admix grace and works. (Rom. 11:6) The basis of the gospel is the cross - the death. burial. resurrection, and appearance of the Lord Jesus, "wherein is the righteousness of God declared, beginning with faith and ending with faith" (I Cor. 15:1-8; Rom. 1:14-17). I am no more (and no less) saved than is Abel, Enoch and Moses - who "walked with God", Abraham - "the friend of God", or David - "the man after the LORD's own heart".

But you and I have some things they never could have had, and could not have known. One is, as you have mentioned earlier in another post, the indwelling Holy Spirit. I got it; Paul and Peter got it; every person saved in this D. got it. I am sealed by Him; I'm part of 'his body, the church'. The OT saints "looked for a city", I'm going to be part of that city, the bride of Christ. They are going to be at the wedding as "friends of the Bridegroom", We're going to be there as 'the bride'.

I could even not begin to shine the shoes of these OT saints I've mentioned in many ways, but I also have so many things they could not have, never were promised, and never did have. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

It said we were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel and now we are one. It says He came to His own (Israel). It says He was their Messiah, not now but then and now.

Have you ever read of the Holy City and what it is made up of? The foundations, the Gates and the Temple of that City. Notice "one" City.

No, but they were promised the Messiah (Jesus). How could they be His own and not be a part of Him?

Rom 11:20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Rom 11:23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.


Act 13:23Of this man's seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Being you threw in 5 sentences free I will throw in this. He that offend in one point is guilty of ALL. Threw mine in free too.

Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Do you think Israel went out of existance or were they still around)?

Gal 3:29And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

James 1:
1: James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
2: My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

James 2:
1: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Here is James still preaching to Israel about their faith in Jesus Christ.

Seems to me that we are the "wild olive tree" and they are the original.

I think this is exactly what Jesus meant when He said for us not to boast, or try to put them out and take it all for ourselves.

Jhn 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(It does say "the world", not just after He was born)


Rev 13:8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

You think only the "Gentile names" were written in the book of life, and it is the Lamb's book.

 

Jesus called him a son.

Really? Then why did you say you haven't seen him in ten years?

Nope, I read things like II Cor 5:1
For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.2Cr 5:2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:2Cr 5:3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
2Cr 5:4For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.2Cr 5:5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
2Cr 5:6Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
2Cr 5:7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)2Cr 5:8We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.


Now i just believe God and KNOW the Holy Ghost is indwelt in my heart.

God said it and that's enough to settle it for me, why do you have so many issues believing what God said?

Nope, he left because he is black and I made reference to the ungodly apparel of Brittney Spears who is white. Anyone can figure out the rest.

You speak as if you are inherently presumptuous. I have never called anyone a devil. I have only made the analogy: if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

The Gentiles are what are grafted in for we are the ones who were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, without God and having no hope in the world. May have not quoted it just right but you get the jest.

 

I said he had not come back to discuss the scriptures in 10 years.

And you believe right?

Do you have the shoes on right now. I think so for the attitude you have is not of the Lord. IMO,

 

You didn't read my response. He went to Hell because something other than Christ was Lord of his life. In his case it was money.

 

There's a simple explanation. The word repent as it is used in the Bible has two definitions with actually very little difference.

Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Lexicon Results for metanoeo (Strong's 3340)
Greek for 3340


Pronunciation Guide
metanoeo {met-an-o-eh'-o}
TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 4:975,636
from 3326 and 3539

Part of Speech
v

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to change one's mind, i.e. to repent
2) to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins

For Synonyms see entry 5862
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 34
AV - repent 34; 34

This word, metanoeo, occurs 34 times in the KJV (23 times in the NT).

The word repentence as you quoted from Acts is defined as:

1) a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done

You quoted the first part but seem to have neglected the rest. I presume because it didn't fit into your argument. Finally, if you embrace the meaning of repent as a change of mind as it pertains to God then I would say you embrace Open Theism. Isn't that its definition? So please refrain from calling other people heretics before you get the beam out of your own eye.

 

What kind of sermon is that anyway? I would of walked out too. Maybe he came to hear the word of God. He sees enough about Brittany on TV, without the preacher making his sermon about her. :laugh: :BangHead: :applause:

 

First, I called no one a heretic, and I do not as a rule, and to my knowledge, never have on the BB, unless I might have used the term in a humerous vein. The term "heretic" (heretick - KJV) is a Biblical term, and is used in the KJV. The related Greek words `αιρεω, `αιρετιζω, `αιρεσις, and `αιρετικος are used a few times in Scripture, hence are Biblical, viable, and permissible, I would say. Maybe I should use the terms more than I do, actually. I do admit to having used the term "heresy" as regards some specific and clearly un-Biblical teaching or teachings in threads (and I make no apology for doing so), but never accused any person of being a heretic, as far as I know. One can, without thinking something through (or without bothering to check out what Scripture actually says), put forth or repeat some heresy, unintentionally I would say, and that is usually the attitude I try and take.

Secondly, I do not "embrace Open Theism" in any way, have never done so and given no indications of any such on this board. And I did not and have not, ascribed either of the NT words "metanoeO" or "metanoia" to God, at any time, FTR. At best, any who say that are mistaken; at worst, - well you can figure that out, I'd say, but I let another be the judge of that. In fact, I suggest that any who accuse me of such might be well suited in studying some of these sites, which are somewhat more informative and correct than Wikipedia, for example, which does not produce an accurate view of so-called "openness theology". a.k.a. "Open Theism", IMO.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/open-theism.htm
http://www.carm.org/open.htm
http://www.challies.com/archives/001109.php
http://www.founders.org/FJ46/article2_fr.html
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/theism.fbw

One site advocating this 'theology' is

http://www.opentheism.info/

I assure you that I reject this, and am in no way, any particular fan of John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, or Gregory Boyd, to name but three who advocate this, and in fact, consider it almost a cousin of the so-called New Perspective on Paul or "N.P.P." (which I also reject most of the tenets of), led by E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright, to name its three most noted advocates. But that is another thread.

Thirdly, the verse I quoted from in Acts give specific 'direction' of the 'repentance'. The passage itself says "repentance toward God", not repentance "from" or "of" anything.

Fourthly, I did not quote, nor even check from, 'Strong's'. So what he may have to say is not applicable to my post. I merely gave the meaning of the word, and cited from Thayer and Wigram, where I cited. The theological "application" may or may not be correct, as you cited from Strong. I do not think that it is. Even if I did think that, it is not 'inherent' in the meaning of either "metanoeO" or "metanoia", which was what I said, previously. One cannot get this from a word whose meaning is from the compound word with the particulate meanings of "after" and "mind"., But one does get the meaning of "to think afterward", or "to think differently" from the verb form.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the context of the verse you cited, which is one you have cited frequently, without context. The passage is:

Jesus, here is speaking to the mindset, that these 'bad things' occurred because these were in some way, some great sinners, hence they died . That is precisely why he worded the questions as "Do you suppose..." and "do you think...". And He said in both instances, "I tell you no". In other words it was not because of some (unknown) great sins, here. And neither was it because of some lack of self-reformation, either. 'But unless you change your thinking about this, [and as to who I AM, and what is going on' (Go back and read chapter 12.)] 'you are going to perish in this same way, as they did. In fact he has specifically separated 'repent' from 'sin' in this passage. And I believe I'll agree with Him, not some so-called, self-styled, "tare plucker", wannabe theologian, no matter whom he or she may be, or from whatever background.

My post you partially (or fully, I don't remember which) quoted from stands.

Regardless of any beams. :D :rolleyes:

Ed

 

No:thumbs:

 

Here is a relevant article by Zane Hodges.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1997i/Hodges.html

Lacy

 

So then are you also such a poor steward of the Word of God to have not brought the subject up again in all those fishing trips? maybe you're just too busy fishing to talk.

Uh, yes. It was my believing that brought on the pricking of my heart by the preaching of the Word of God, to see the need for grace through faith that saved me. After that, I knew it, and still do!

Do you really think or just think so? I mean, do you believe what you said or do you just think you believe what you just said?

You're judging me in error and also have called me a devil.

Since no one can carry on a conversation with you unless they agree with your premise, then you are become a law unto yourself/ ERROR!

I understand what you are trying to say you believe, but I really doubt you're that sure as if you know what you believe and only have been taught another doctrine of men and not a Doctrine of the Bible.

BTW, you can call a me devil all you want, I'll still preach the Bible and won't have to answer for the type remarks you're starting to make at the Judgement Seat.

 

It was only a reference to the difference between godly apparel and that apparel that ain't. The ungodly, fleshly sort brings about lust, or didn't YOU "know" that too?

BY YOUR RESPONSE, AND PREVIOUS DEALINGS WITH YOU ON SUBJECTS OF SANCTIFICATION VS. SIN, I guess you also try your best to negate the law being our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

I "love"( your definition of the word), I abhor, the way you ddge what I present to you as evidence of one knowing they're saved and then make up lies in the process to avoid the subject.

 

Maybe I thought he was wearing your type of shoes?

You had to wait until you got your special shoes before you "knew"?

I have only made the analogy: if the shoe fits, wear it.

Do you show video also?