Two Salvations?

Why were they first called Christians at Antioch?

Because they were living for Christ and not themselves. Because they were preaching the unadulterated Word of God. Because they were Christ-like.

Those today who want to make a profession of faith and trust in Christ yet continue to live after the flesh have no right to call themselves by the Biblical term, 'Christian'.

Those who want to name the name of Christ yet deny His Word and twist His Word to say that which it does not say, such as 'Christ's righteousness is not enough for one to be a part of the kingdom or part of the Marriage Supper' have no right to call themselves by the Biblical term, 'Christian'.

Jesus said:

 

Thanks webdog, I had forgotten about those questions... I would really like to know the answers.

 

I think this is an example of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, brother. For some reason, you are greatly disturbed by the idea that God might require some effort on the part of a believer to inherit the greater blessing, yet insist that one must put forth the same effort in order to even consider himself saved by Christ's righteousness, because faith alone is not sufficient. The grace of God is greater than that, brother.

 

Words such as everlasting and forever would have to be determined by context. In the context of the kingdom, everlasting is a thousand years.

Try asking the same question of one of these guys who believes you must have good works to prove you are saved

Nevertheless, there is not a clear-cut line in scripture, but we are given some frame of reference.

Matthew 5:19-20
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The pharisees were meticulous in keeping the lesser things, such as tithing, all the while they were devouring widows houses. We should keep the lesser commandments, but not use them as a covering for greater sins.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

That is certainly my understanding. Wherever outer darkness is, thats where they go.

There will be natural people being reigned over in the kingdom. Where they come from is up for debate. I don't have an answer for what happens to children. I do know that God is a just and holy God.

 

Thank you for your honest reply, but seriously the part about everlasting only lasting 1000 yrs is one of the reasons I can't accept this doctrine.

It seems like the phrase "everlasting" is being redefined in order to fit the doctrine.

I have a problem with that, you might not, but I do.

And as I am reading through some stuff from where J.Jump told me to look for resources, it is the same feeling I am getting there.

Somethings have to be really streeeeeeeetched to make this doctrine fit.

I have asked the same question to the ones that believe they can lose their salvation, and they, just like you cannot show me where the line is.

If we can either lose our salvation, or get excluded from the kingdom, I would love to know how, so I wouldn't do it.

What sin will keep you from Heaven? (or in this case, the kingdom)

If you say all or any of them, then none of us will go.
That is why Christ died. If we could do it ourselves, he died in vain.

Again, thank you for your answers.

 

Well, technically, if we could do it ourselves but not all of us actually do it ourselves, Christ could have died only for those who failed. Thus He didn't really die in vain.

But I don't even know why I'm pointing that out, since I don't believe any of us could possibly lead a sinless life, atone for our own sins, or even have the desire to turn to God of our own will. I guess I just have a little tiny bit of lawyer in me and wanted to point out the loophole in your argument. :smilewinkgrin: We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic.

 

As long as i dont owe you a lawyer fee!!! I am happy.

 

I would agree, tim.

If everlasting only lasts 1,000 years, then our everlasting life promised in John 3:16 is for only (gasp!) 1,000 years?

Or does everlasting mean eternal in one place and not eternal in another?

I think someone ain't reading their words right.

 

It may seem a stretch to modern ears, but I think the bible bears it out.

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
Habakkuk 3:6
6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

The bible calls the hills everlasting, but this doesn't mean that they will go on and on for endless eternity. The earth is going to be destroyed at some point in the near future. Everlasting in this context would simply mean lasting for the appointed duration, however long that may be.

Deuteronomy 15:16-17
16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;
17 Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant forever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

The bible says the man should be a servant to his master forever, but obviously this doesn't mean he will serve him on and on for endless eternity. He will be servant until he dies. So in the context, forever is until he dies.

Dealing with Christ's kingdom, the bible tells us it is not going to go on for all eternity, it lasts a thousand years.

1 Corinthians 15:24-26
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

During the millennial kingdom, there will still be natural people who live and die, although it will be far different from what we see today.

Isaiah 65:20
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

But afterwards, there will be no more death.

Revelation 21:4
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Christ reigns till He hath put all enemies under His feet, and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Then He delivers the kingdom up to the Father. At this time everyone who ever believed is now raised up and dwelling with God. But the time of reigning with Christ over the nations is over.

Revelation 20:4-5
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Yes and yes.

 

The thing about it is, the word "aionios" was redefined as "everlasting" (among other things; the KJV translators translated it several different ways, some of which are not at all permissible by the Greek language) by the Catholic church to make it fit their doctrine. I don't think it even takes context to see that this word cannot mean "everlasting", since it is literally "age-lasting". Most literal translations either simply transliterate it or translate it as "age-lasting" or "age-abiding" or something along those lines.

The Latin Vulgate translated the Greek adjective "aionion" to the Latin aeternus in which we get the English word eternal and eternity. The KJV translators instead of going back to the original Greek and translating the Greek adjective aionion, went to the Latin Vulgate and translated the Latin aeternus. If they had gone to the Greek they would have translated it as many translators such as Rotherham and Young, namely, "age lasting" or "life for the age".

The theology of the West was not that of the Greek Church but that of Roman Catholicism. It was Latin theology. The translators were largely influenced by the Latin language and Latin translations. It is admitted that the theology of Calvin was derived from Saint Augustine, modernized and extended to fit his needs. It was essential to Augustinian theology with its blightening emphasis on the doctrine of predestinarianism to mistranslate the Greek adjective "aionion", and put on it a meaning which the Greek will not allow, particularly in its respective applications to salvation and judgment.

And that was essential to Augustinian theology was equally essential to Latin Christianity from the days of Augustine to those of Calvin and Luther. And the same exists in the Reformed Theology from then till the present. To say nothing of other words, the Calvinist simply cannot face an honest and truthful interpretation of the two words with which we are now dealing, namely "eternal life".

A couple of good resoureces for studying the Scriptures in the original languages are In the Beginning and Bible Researcher

BTW, the Greek word for "eternal" occurs only twice in the NT. "Age-lasting" occurs in 65 verses. The Greek expression for "everlasting" occurs 15 times, with a 16th time according to some in Revelation 14:11.

 

Well, since John 3:16 is talking about a person actually doing something (works), then either you are saved by your works, or it doesn't have to do with your spiritual salvation. (It's talking about perishing, BTW, which is something that only a saved person can do.)

 

It is false ideology to claim any action on our part is works. This cannot be backed up with scripture. The credit of salvation is not based on action but it is based on power and authority.

John 1:12
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:

The credit for salvation goes to Him that has the power and authority to provide it. What we do in response to God is irrelevant to the question of who provides salvation. This correct view of salvation is backed up in v.13

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Again, we are not saved by any action on our part because we have no power, we have no authority only God. Regardless of the will of man, man cannot save himself, regardless of any blood we could shed we could not save ourselves, regardless of any action on our part we cannot save our selves.

This understanding discredits so many false doctrines.

 

Amen! That's one reason that I find it so appalling that so many saved people try to put work requirements on spiritual salvation, whether it's to get saved, to keep yourself saved, or to prove your saved. Works are works are works are works, no matter how they're dressed up.

If you see works involved, then either spiritual salvation is based on works, or it's talking about something else. Those who think spiritual salvation can be lost or forfeited, see the works involved, and apply it to spiritual salvation and come up with their belief that your salvation can be lost. Others, turn a blind eye to the works and ignore them or try to claim they are not works or try to say that if you're saved, then you'll definitely do these good works, or some other unbiblical explanation for how works are not works.

How do these two sides come to opposing viewpoints from the same passages? Because works are involved and one side thinks that works are not involved in spiritual salvation (with which I whole-heartedly agree) and the other side thinks that the works apply to spiritual salvation. When you see the works that are involved and you realize that they're not involved in you getting saved, then you need to take a look at what they are involved in.

 

In a nutshell (large nut) this man has clearly defined the apparent contradictions in this discussion. One side either refuses to see works or redefines those works to fit their theology. The other redefines salvation to fit their theology. And we who have understood this doctrine of Kingdom Exclusion have been trying to show the other two sides where the error is in their understanding of exactly what God is telling us in His Word. :godisgood:

Thank you sir for laying it on the bottom shelf so that all may reach it.

And thank you to that other fellow who so clearly explained everlasting and eternal. Good job! :thumbs:

I have stayed out of this (mostly) because 35 pages in one discussion and 'umpteen' in this one.....I just can't keep up. Good job to my brethren in Texas, and elsewhere who have carried the torch!!!:1_grouphug:

In His service;
Jim

 

I've already answered that, but just to do it again it was because they were Christ-like which is the very meaning of the word.

Again that's agreeable and has been from the get go. But the whole topic of conversation is that you are taking what is said about this group in Acts and applying it to every Christian that has ever lived. And that just can not be done, because not all Christians are Christ-like. It would be nice if that were to be true, but it is simply not Biblical.

AMEN!

No you are just questioning our salvation and that's just not cool

 

Tim most people when they ask that question it is asked in such a way that I want to know the line so I can do everything put step over the line. I want to live as close to the line as possible, but still be okay. And please understand I'm not saying that about you!

And I will agree with James in that I don't think the Bible specifies the line, because our focus is not supposed to be on the line, it is supposed to be on Christ. If our focus is properly fixed then it doesn't matter where the line is becuase we will not be in danger of crossing it. However if we are not focused on Christ then yes we have something to be afraid of.

Hope that makes sense. I think the Bible is more concerned about telling us what we should be doing as opposed to telling us about what we should not be doing and how much of it we can get away with before it's too late, etc.

Bottom line is keep your eyes upward and fixed upon the Son, the Messiah, the High Priest and everything will be okay!

 

That's why I generally use "saved" and "unsaved", unless I am specifically referring to the subset of the saved who are acting Christ-like. Still doesn't avoid wild accusations, but it is technically more accurate.