^^^

Image123:

Where are you going to if you're out of the holy city? Is that just a reward. Philippians says work out your own salvation. If we cut that out and only hold 'it is God that works', then we're in danger. I'm with the hope that we're learning and not just trying to have the last word.

There is nothing we can do to obtain salvation - that much we know and agree on. To mix up any idea as if we are working for our salvation is to confuse the work of God altogether.

The admonition in Phil. 2:12 to 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' does not mean we should try to work out anything in order that we might get saved. The working out of our salvation is the demonstration or proof of our having been saved through faith, as we find in Eph. 2:10 - 'we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.'

Image123:

The backslider can be lost while still alive. Jesus spake of Judas as lost. The prodigal Son was lost. You've heard the parable of the lost sheep. Lost sheep can still repent/'re-saving' like we see the prodigal Son was re-saved

There is no 're-saving' in the new covenant. That is the simple point you should try and grasp. If there is a 're-saving', how many times does a saved-and-lost believer have to be redeemed? Perhaps you might want to consider Hebrews 6:4-6 which effectively says that it is impossible for those who fall away to be renewed unto repentance, for that is like crucifying the Lord all over again!

Those who are truly born again do not become unregenerate afterwards. There is no possi9bility shown in Scripture about a 're-saving' or a born again believer. The warnings in Scripture which many have taken to apply to the saved believer for the possibility of losing salvation are actually for those who profess to be born again but are NOT - see 1 John 2:19 ['They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us'].

^^^

Image123:

We can't just take away from the words of the book.rev22v19). That scripture itself tells us that a believer can lose his salvation. The holy city for God's sake is salvation.

No, the holy city is not salvation; and Revelation 22:19 does not tell us that a believer can lose his or her salvation. If anything at all, it tells us that it is possible for a man to lose his rewards, and not his 'salvation' - God shall take away 'his part'.

Salvation involves many things, among which is the redemption, the new birth, and justification. In addition, our souls are quickened - ie., made alive (Eph. 2:1 & 5; Col. 2:13). The 'new birth', for example, is not said to be 'lost' when someone has become saved or regenerated - otherwise, that would be saying that the born again believer became 'dead in sins' after he/she was saved! Is there any verse in Scripture that shows that the new birth was lost after someone became born again?

As regards 'the city' in Rev. 22, verse 14 tells us that the right to enter in through the gates is obtained by doing God's commandments. If therefore you equate salvation to the 'city', you're presenting a salvation by works - a salvation according to "what we do", and we know that is not salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ.

Now, have you ever considered the fact that someone who does not actually belong among the saints could be found even among them? This is what the Lord teaches us in Matthew 22:11-14 >>

[list]'And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.[/list]

So, many are called - but 'called' to what? Matthew 22 tells us they are 'called' to a wedding feast, in the same way that Revelation 19:9 declares 'Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb'. And in the latter texts (Rev. 19), we find that the 'wife' of the Lamb is given fine line to wear, making clear that 'the fine linen is the righteousness of saints' (verse .

But in this context, who is the 'wife' of the Lamb in Revelation 19 and 22? Surprise, surprise - 'she' is the 'holy city', the new (or 'holy') Jerusalem (Rev. 19:7-8; Rev. 21:9-10; see Heb. 12:22).

Go back to Matthew 22 and ask: what disqualified the 'guest' in that wedding? Simply this: he was found at the wedding without a wedding garment. The King had invited all to the feast, "both bad and good", and the wedding was furnished with guests (v. 10). This particular guest did not 'lose salvation' - he simply did not have a wedding garment.

So, it is possible for a man to be found among God's people but not be qualified to be among them. So it is with the 'city' - you cannot equate that to 'salvation', and one has to be careful about drawing conclusions at face value on any verse.

Dear Image123,

Let me answer to both yours posts (#108 and #109) above. They contain issues which are at the core of our concerns regarding the 'salvation' of which we speak.

Image123:
5solas
The salvation of any man depends on many factors but primarily on God and on him/her. We've got our part to play.

Indeed, we've got a part to play (although many theologians disagree).

We have to be careful about what exactly we mean by "our part" in being saved - it does not mean that we did anything in order to be saved. Scripture is consistent in bearing witness that salvation is -

~  "not of yourselves" (Eph. 2:
~  "not of works" (Eph. 2:9)
~  "not according to our works" (2 Timothy 1:9)
~  "Not by works of righteousness  which we have done" (Titus 3:5)

Salvation is not of ourselves or what we have done at all - rather, it is all of God, and that much we are agreed.

However, in saying that we've got a part to play, let me echo what has been sounded by others: it is a matter of "God's sovereignty and man's responsibility." Man obtains salvation from God by his/her response to God's offer of saving grace (Rom. 10:8-10).

5solas:

Viaro,
Thanks a lot for your rejoinders and for the patience you exhibited in the course of posting them. I am 100% in agreement.

Great to read. I'm also open to corrections where need be.

Image123:

Jude in warning us talks of a loss of salvation
V 19. If any OF YOU do ERR FROM the truth, and one convert him.  Verse 20. LET HIM KNOW, that he which converts the SINNER from the error of his way shall save a soul from DEATH, and hide a multitude of sins.
MORAL LESSON:The backslider is a sinner in death who needs a 're-saving'. This is not talking about works or rewards.
Blessings

The reference should be James 5:19-20 (and not Jude 19-20).

Yet I disagree with your summations on that passage, for James does not warn anyone about 'a loss of salvation' at all. If he did, he would also be telling us about a 're-saving', which does not appear at all in his epistle anywhere. This was why a few of us have desired that we seek to understand the meaning and import of the 'salvation' which we have in the new birth, so we could then begin to appreciate the work of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant.

Now, let's make a few observations on James 5:19-20.

1.   It is possible for a Christian to 'err', for James himself warns: 'Do not err, my beloved brethren' (Jam. 1:16); and there are many ways in which we may err -

either through:
(a)  not knowing the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29), or:
(b)  craving the love of money (1 Tim. 6:10), or:
(c)  tolerating heresies among Christians (1 Cor. 11:19);
(d)  profane and vain babblings or false knowledge
      (1 Tim. 6:20-21)

2.   In any of these and more ways that a Christian may 'err', he may find himself in 'the error of his way' which may or may not lead to "death". We know that sin in the life of a believer may lead to 'death' but not the 'losing of salvation'. This is especially clear from 1 Cor. 5:5 where a brother was delivered unto Satan 'for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.'

3.^^^ Further to (2) above, we know there is a sin unto death; and a sin that is not unto death (1 John 5:16). In just the same way, James 5 does not speak about a sin unto death but rather a sin that is NOT unto death - which is why he speaks of trying to 'save a soul from death' (v. 20).

4.   Yet, it is clear that when when James addresses Christians as "ye sinners" in Jam. 4:8, he did not consider them as having lost their "salvation". He says, 'Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded'. Reading from verse 1 shows why he addresses erring Christians in such a manner; and as if that was not enough, he calls them 'Ye adulterers and adulteresses' in verse 4. In all of these, he does not suppose that these Christians had lost their salvation; or he would have made recommendations to them on how they could be 're-saved' which he does NOT!

There certainly are more points about this to discuss; but the basic point in all these is that James refers to erring Christians as "sinners" without considering them to have lost their salvation. He had earlier acknowledged the new birth (James 1:18); but he goes on to remonstrate with erring believers as regards their careless living.

The difference between an erring Christian and an unregenerate believer is given in Hebrews 12:6-8 >>

[list]For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof ALL are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.[/list]

The erring Christian receives chastening as a 'son'; but it is a sure sign that one is not a 'son' if he does not receive chastening while living a sinful life, though such a person may be a professing 'Christian'.

Image123:

@viaro
Sorry I wasn't explicit when I said that if you can lose your life savings, then you can lose your salvation. My thinking in saying that, is that salvation is most precious than life savings. And if what many count as precious(life savings), and are careful about can be lost, then beware, salvation which we're often more negligent about and often commit into other(God, denomination, leaders and shepherd) hands, can be lost.

The clarification is well appreciated.

However, it still amounts to the same thing I tried to point out in post #89 in previous page. The basic question (and it is enormously important) is whether salvation is by grace or by works.

There are many things in life that are precious to people. For some, their marriages are far more precious to them than their life savings; for others, it could be something else ( ____ fill the gap with whatever it may be) and they are far more precious than life savings. In all of these examples, we would be looking at what people work for: thus, that is why it is their 'life savings'.

Yet, salvation is not like that at all - for it is entirely God's work. It may be precious to us (and indeed it is, and ought to always be); but from start to finish it is all a matter of God's work in the life of a believer.

This is why it is difficult to find any warning about losing 'salvation'; but we find a plethora of warnings about losing 'rewards'.

Image123:

@viaro & toluxa1
I was quoting Acts 16v31 where someone asked Paul and Silas "What must I do to be saved". The answer given was that simple. Jesus said in John 3 he that believes is not condemned, he that does not believe is condemned already. Another place, Jesus says he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
Salvation can get that simple. I realise the need for growth and teaching and continuing in doctrine but this are not steps to salvation, less it become not of faith but of works.
Knowing the inside-out of how to get saved doesn't necessarily translate to salvation. One may know doctrine, and regeneration, and remission, and size and color of the paschal lamb and not be saved. One can have a healthy heart without knowledge of ventricles and auricles AND vice versa. Doctrine doesn't save us, it's faith that saves.

In this, you have spoken so well, thank you. Good to note the bolded line.

^^^
@Image123,
The good news is that the Christian's righteousness is not based on the position of Ezekiel 33:13 where someone is trusting to "his own righteousness". Indeed, the apostle Paul says that he would not trust in his own righteousness (Phil. 3:9- 'not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law'). Instead, the Christian's righteousness is based on faith in the work of God Himself - and this is what the same prophet Ezekiel declares (Ezek. 36:21-32), as do other prophets and apostles in both the OT and NT. Let's see a few:

Romans 3:21 & 28, KJV:

²¹But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; . . . Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Timothy 1:9, KJV:
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

Titus 3:4-7, KJV:
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Everywhere you turn, dear brother, you need to ask a basic question: on what basis is a man resting his salvation? If it be of 'works' (any work at all which a man does), then it is not according to 'grace'; but and if it be on the basis of GRACE, then it could not be based on any man's 'work' at all (Romans 11:6). It is in this regard you have to consider carefully what Ezekiel 33 is saying, especially where the key is in verse 13 and shows a man who is trusting to "his own righteousness", whereas Isaiah declares that all our righteousnesses are filthy rags before God (Isa. 64:6).

Our salvation in Christ is of 'grace' and not of 'works', and that distinction is so important in all things considered on this subject.

Hello again Image123,

Image123:

Sorry for my absence. Pls, i hope not to be seen as stubborn.

Well, I don't count you as being stubborn. We are here to learn, and learn we shall.

You will have to forgive the lengthy reply. I'm not trying to rebut you, my brother - rather, since we are all here to learn, please let me share with you the things that I'm persuaded about as regards these matters.

Image123:

Ezekiel 33v11-16 is God's Word,not our thoughts.
13. When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall SURELY live, if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall NOT be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.
i believe that God has not changed.

Indeed, He has not changed - especially as regards His declaration in Ezekiel 33:11-16. That passage is consistent with His dispensation according to Law.

Let me explain:

We have to ask: is that Scripture (Ezekiel 33:11-16) warning us about losing 'salvation' or losing 'reward(s)'?

We shall try to answer that question by proposing yet another in context, viz -

          if that passage presents an idea of 'salvation',
          is it based on grace or on works?

We are sure that Ezekiel 33 is consistent with a righteousness under the dispensation of the old covenant - it was a righteousness based upon 'works' and not of 'grace'. Check this out:

[1].   Under the dispensation of Law, 'righteousness' was based on "what a man did" - and even the same prophet Ezekiel recognized this fact, as did other prophets and apostle(s). See ~~

Ezekiel 20:11, KJV:
And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.

Romans 10:5, KJV:
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Deuteronomy 6:25, KJV:
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

[2].   However, man's own righteousness (which is based on Law, and hence a 'righteousness of works') does not save or justify anybody in either of the OT or NT. Let's review some:

Isaiah 64:6, KJV:
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Isaiah 57:12, KJV:
I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

Galatians 3:10-12, KJV:
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

[3].  Yet, the passage you cited (Ezekiel 33:11-16) presents us with a righteousness that was based on "what a man did". Look again at Ezek. 33:13 that you quoted:

      'When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall SURELY live;
      if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity,
      all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered;
      but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it'

Bro, what you did not see there is the bold line: 'if he trust to his own righteousness'!!  We have seen that a 'righteousness' which is based on "what a man did" (as in [1] above) does not profit anybody (as in [2]) above, citing Isaiah 64:6 and 57:12). I could as well say that any man who is trusting in his own righteousness is basing his salvation on his own works, and not seeking salvation by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Krayola:

But this is all inconsequential so I thing beating this into the ground is pointless. We can just agree to disagree.

I have to run. . . I'll respond to the rest later. . . or we can finish via email. I can't spend much time online for the next month or so.

Krayo my man! Apologies for the delay, been a bit busy of late. I'll email you during the week. Thanks for your take on the issue, though.

@toluxa1,

toluxa1:

@viaro. For the first time I'm going to respond to you. The reason I have not earlier is because I discovered you have a light of the truth of this matter and a better understanding of how God's Salvation plan is but you have been sitting on the fence ever since you surfaced.

I apologise - and you caught me red-handed! Indeed, I had not been forward to argue strongly on this subject for several reasons, especially because it is possible that I might be ignorant of some other verses which some more mature Christians have studied. Forgive me for sounding initially like I was sitting on the fence.

toluxa1:

Now with you last post you have hit it on the head. This are exactly the things I've been trying to point out to Image. He says the discussion is not about how Salvation is gotten, but whether or not it can be lost. But thats not possible is you don't even know how its gotten. Salvation is much more than 'Believe in the Lord, and thou shall be saved'. I think you should check the thread "Not Ordained to Life Eternal" on this page. We're discussing related things there.

The discussion in the recommended thread is quite interesting. I hope to add my bit sometime much later. Cheers.

Now, we look at your question:

Krayola:

WHy does this become such a big issue during the Paul era?

I may not know exactly why; but here is my view:

1.  First and most importantly, we understand from the foregoing that circumcision was not founded upon Judaism, but was rather carried over from pre-Judaism. I think Jesus' statement in John 7:22 bears directly upon this - 'Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers). . .'[ESV].

2.  Second, for the Jew, circumcision had so become tied in to the Law that it assumed a strictly Jewish contrivance from the original thought of pre-Judaism. Paul seems to have particularly noted this in saying 'thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law' and goes on to say 'circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law' (Rom. 2:17 & 25). However, from John 7:22 and others, we see that circumcision was not strictly an original Jewish concept (in the sense that it emerged from Judaism) - but the Jew who assumed it so had taken things to far-reaching dimensions which were uncalled for.

3.  I should also note the place of circumcision in the greater scheme of things as regards the covenant: Galatians 3:17 speaks directly to this issue -  'And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.'

From these, it is my view that Judaism is a covenant (the OC) that largely occupies the OT; but that does not therefore mean that the OT in its entirety is just Jewish.  No, it is not 'just' Jewish; but within the OT are foundational histories and concepts that are NOT Jewish but which we find carried over largely into Judaism - all the more so that Judaism was attested in both OT and NT to be 'tangential' to God's covenant.

Krayola:

I'm really excited to read the arguments u are goin to make about the OT being anything other than a Jewish document.

Lol, don't get all that excited. I was only expressing my own views to you, which I acknowledge do not have to appeal to many other thinkers. The point was that, for me the OT is not all about the Jews, even though within its pages we find a Judaism prominent.

Krayola:

(I need to point out that the "OT" is a loaded term, and I'm only using it for convenience. I think the "Hebrew Bible" is more appropriate and neutral)

That's precisely the point I was trying to make in delineating between the OC and the OT. The more convenient term is not an argument (at least, not for me), as I understand that the 'Hebrew Bible' accentuates the point we are both expressing.

Wikipedia: 'The term "Hebrew Bible" is an attempt to provide specificity with respect to contents, while avoiding allusion to any particular interpretative tradition or theological school of thought. It is widely used in academic writing and interfaith discussion in relatively neutral contexts meant to include dialogue amongst all religious traditions, but not widely in the inner discourse of the religions which use its text.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

Krayola:

What implications does the fact that those ideas and people are mentioned have on the fact that the OT describes Jewish history, and beliefs, as understood by the writers of the documents, and why? If I'm reading a book on Canadian history/beliefs, and Winston Churchill and Mussolini are mentioned, does it now become a European history book? We know that there are parallels between Jewish beliefs and that of their neighbors, but, IMO, the OT is describing Jewish beliefs, and often even puts them in opposition to their neighbors'. I really don't understand what you are getting at . . . . I asked because from what I know, stories like Noah's Ark are generally not believed to be historical. The creation story, etc, are generally believed to be "truth-filled" stories, and not "true" stories. SO a debate about Noah's Ark being found would be of little to no consequence, since they do not claim that Noah actually put all those things on a boat and saved life on earth.

Thanks for your comments, but I don't assume broadly that the view one takes of the OT would have overarching consequences on claims of Noah's Ark being found - that was why as far as the claims about such purported findings go (for which this thread was set up), I did not broach any significant substance therefrom to draw any conclusions.

Krayola:

If the OT is not Jewish, in your opinion, what is it, and why?

I thought my explanations should have sufficed. First, I noted that I don't take the view that many people take about seeing the OT as entirely Jewish from start to end; and the reason is primarily that Judaism is a late entry to, and only a part of, the OT. To this end, I observe a distinction between various covenants contained within the OT that are carried over into the Judaism of the 'old covenant'. I went on to limit my previous comments to just two specific and ready examples: the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Jethro which are NOT Jewish, and which concepts were incorporated into Judaism.

You have a good point in the analogy of reading a Canadian history mentioning non-Canadians (Winston Churchill and Mussolini) which does not make the Canadian into European history. However, if I were to proffer by extension that one reads a book on world history and they were reading a volume within that anthology of World History, we cannot therefore argue that the entire anthology was about that particular volume within it. The volume in question may take up a large part of that anthology; but the whole anthology itself is not determined by that particular volume within it.

For me, Judaism as the 'old covenant' (OC) is contained within the anthology (or canon) forming the Old Testament (OT). However, within the OT itself are found histories which are NOT Jewish nor determined by Judaism. They are not merely 'mentioned' in passing, nor do they appear as Jewish beliefs of those histories or cultures. This was why I mentioned just a few (the pre-Jewish priesthoods) ... and if we might add, such books as Job are not particularly founded on Judaism (this is debatable, but that is my view). Please understand - this is my view of the OT, although anyone has a good right to disagree.

Krayola:

Circumcision. . . . sign of covenant of who, to whom, to symbolize what? WHy does this become such a big issue during the Paul era?

Not many people realise this, but circumcision was carried over into Judaism. Let me try and answer your questions the way it appears to me, from Genesis 17 -

(a)  Circumcision . . . 'sign of covenant of who'?
It was a sign of God's covenant (Gen. 17:9-10 - 'God said unto Abraham . . This is my covenant,')

(b)  Circumcision . . . 'sign of covenant to whom'?
It was a sign to all who came into a covenant relationship with God through the Abraham (which is one reason why it was an Abrahamic covenant - 'a token of the covenant betwixt me and you', verse 11); but extends also to his seed ('thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations' - verse 10), and then even unto those who were not Abraham's seed ('he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed' -  verse 12).

(c)  Circumcision . . . 'sign of covenant to symbolize what'?
There is a three-fold answer to this:
1. It was a sign to symbolize singleheartedness of one who is called into covenant relationship with God ('for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee' - Gen. 17:7).
2. It symbolizes the faith which Abraham had before even Judaism emerged: 'And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being un[/b]circumcised'.
3. It was a sign that was given to Abraham to show indeed that both Jews and Gentiles were to be partakers of God's promises in His covenant: 'And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be [b]the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised' (Rom. 4:11-12).

Of course, as I noted - rather than having sprung up from, it was was carried over into, Judaism. The reason I say so is because Abraham was NOT a Jew when circumcision was given him; and from Deut. 5:2-3, we know that Abraham was not called into the Jewish covenant.

Image123:

viaro
Yes there are lot of questions but fortunately lot of answers given by God as well.
I think Matthew 19v28 captured the 12thrones analogy better.
"Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

True, we can find veritable answers in God's Word to those questions. I like the thought that Matt. 19:28 presents an 'analogy', as I don't think it was meant to be taken literally (otherwise we could extend it to mean that Judas is expected to be among those who judge the twelve tribes of Israel).

In all, I believe the biggest lesson still comes from the mouth of Christ. He says what I say to you, I say to all, WATCH. Whatever side of the divide, we should not be careless or lascivious with God's grace as some boldly proclaim. Blessings

Truer words, thank you.

However, just to clarify on what I said earlier:

viaro:

I once tried to look at the verses used by either side of the divide - to me, most of the inferences gathered do not help either position.

By that I meant that some of us who use analogies to buttress our persuasions should be careful. The salvation that Christ gives us goes deeper than many of the analogies we use (and I ask forgiveness for not having read through every single post in this thread).

Here's an example of what I'm trying to say:

Image123:

If you can lose your life savings, then you can lose your salvation. It's that simple.

No, it's not that simple - the analogy does not fit. One's 'life savings' pertains to what they worked for; but salvation is a gift by grace and it's free. We already know that we cannot confuse work for grace (Romans 11:6 - 'And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work'); and thus we cannot destine them to be on the same pedestal.

Indeed, there are warnings to believers in Scripture (both OT and NT): but what is the nature of such warnings to us? Are they warning us about losing salvation or about losing rewards?

Rewards pertain to our works that follow salvation - and there is more than enough to show that we can lose our reward(s) [2 John 1:8 for example].

Salvation pertains to God's work in us following our genuine repentance - I don't know if the Bible warns us of the possibility of becoming 'unsaved' after having been 'saved'. And this is where it all gets knotty for many of us who are grappling with a clear understanding of the 'salvation' of which we speak.

Considering these two issues (between rewards and salvation) in this manner, I think aletheia has captured the essential answer to the basic question of the thread much earlier:

aletheia:

Yes . . .and No

From a human viewpoint-Yes

But from God's perspective-No

I could elaborate where need be. Cheers.

Image123:

I won't like to expound salvation more.( We observe the possibilities of such in the thread yonder)

True - I've been trying to go through the interesting inputs in some of those threads. The threads move quickly.

Image123:
But betraying him or denying him do not rule out the possibility that they were saved before these actions. Salvation is believing in Jesus, the 12disciples believed in Jesus and they were assured of a place in the kingdom, judging the 12tribes.

Although the possibility is hard to deny outrightly, there are a load of questions when it comes to details around specific cases, don't you think so? Peter, Judas, and "some" of the other disciples ... just intriguing.

However, although the book of Revelation makes a case for the names of apostles who judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:12-14), should that not rather be symbolic? Just my thinking, but it seems so to me in view of the fact that the Church had/has more than twelve apostles (if you consider Paul and Barnabas at the very least in addition to the Twelve, Judas having fallen to go to his own place while Matthias takes his place - Acts 1:26).

In all, it's an interesting subject - but our views would perhaps remain our views. There are some who believe that a saved person might become unsaved afterwards; others are persuaded that is not the case. I once tried to look at the verses used by either side of the divide - to me, most of the inferences gathered do not help either position.

nuclearboy:


@Lord Viaro:

welcome to this thread!

@commander nuclearboy! Haha . . . please don't soak me in hot soup. "Lord"?? Who?

Anyhow, I read through your posts above and like what appears in them. I think this one stands as a pinnacle:

nuclearboy:

See what you guys have become? For this is one you set and sprung for yourself i.e. - you are planning to study the works of men to know if God's Word is telling the truth.[/b]

I think this point should resonate with many of us, not just the WOFers. I don't know for others, but that point will be resonate with me for long. Thanks.

Bastage:

As you clearly don't want to answer my question, ignore the truth of my quotes and are hiding behind semantics, I reckon it's time I just ignore you. I have clearly stated what conclusion I have accused you of making yet you've totally ignored it and burbled on about Randall again.

There's no point talking to you as you evade the points put to you and just burble off at a tangent.

That's okay - just ignore me simply because of your own false accusations. What happened that you did not consider the points I clearly outlined? Enjoy.

Krayola:

@ Viaro. I'll respond to your post later, can't really type much now. My email is [========]. Let me know when u have it so I can delete. Looking forward to discussing with u.

Thanks Krayo my man! Got the e-addy. Delete pronto.

Bastage:

The conclusion has nothing to do with Randall.

Bastage:

This claim was defeated the next day by the exhibitions main investor J. Randall Price in a letter[32] saying,

When you can, please let me know what you meant by "This claim" in your quote above; and also why you had excerpted a report ascribed to Randall and yet screaming that it "has nothing to do with Randall". I find your doublespeak most childish, if anything - although I do not expect at your level of dubious accusations you would try to be reasonable even now.

Yet, at least, let me show you why I had commented earlier that I did not make any conclusions. This is based on what appears presently on Randall's website:

Randall's website:
Dr. Price was the archaeologist with the Chinese team in 2008 when the alleged discovery of the structure in a cave on the southwest side of Mt. Ararat was first made. He worked with this team for a month and obtained the same photos of the inside of the wooden structure now being distributed to support the alleged discovery. After the public announcement was made of this discovery in late April, Dr. Price issued a private communique giving his opinion concerning the discovery. This was sent exclusively to a select e-mail list of his ministry supporters and was not intended for the public. Unfortunately, this document was posted on the web without his authori-zation and has been widely quoted by various news sources to the effect that Dr. Price asserts the structure is a hoax perpetrated by the Kurdish guide and his partners to extort money from the Chinese evangelical Christians.

While Dr. Price does not retract his statements, he wants the public to understand that these only represent his opinion as informed by his experience with the Kurdish guide and the Chinese and other sources in eastern Turkey. However, Dr. Price is currently working with his sources in eastern Turkey to obtain such documentation. Nevertheless, his primary source cannot be exposed to media scrutiny because an untimely exposure would compromise the plans and preparations for an expedition to Mt. Ararat in which he is involved as archaeologist this summer.

Therefore, the only public statement he wishes to make at this time is that he believes that the greater the claim the greater the evidence needs to be to support it and urges the Chinese-Turkish team to make their collected samples from the structure available to scientists and scholars for comparative analysis. While he has reservations about the nature and procedure of the Chinese-Turkish expedition and the artifacts related to it, he believes that a decision concerning this matter must wait until independent examinations of the site and the structure can be made and published.

http://www.worldofthebible.com/news.htm

Perhaps this may not mean anything to you (I doubt it could, please surprise me - after seeing your doublespeak up and down the thread already). However, when you make accusations that are unfounded with your duplicity geared towards forcing your drama into other people's posts, try to quote them directly for what they have said, rather than arguing what you do not find in their posts.

Bastage:

A long meaningless post consisting of nothing but semantics.

I understand you're not interested in reason, so no problem.

Bastage:
Here's my post where I accuse you of making conclusions.

Thanks for the accusation - but your accusations are based on outright lies - which was why I posted three of my previous posts in #24 above to show that I did NOT draw any conclusions. To insist that I did so and yet not quote me directly is dubious. Please end your falsehood.

Bastage:

As you can see, it has nothing to do with Randall.

It has everything to do with Randall - which was why I replied you directly on your own quotes from the same Randall.

Bastage:

It has everything to do with this:

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

I did not make any conclusions - see my post above in post #24.

Bastage: The very fact that you are giving the story some credence means that you have come to the conclusion that the literal Bible story is true.

I already said this:

viaro: The 'claim' in this thread was about having discovered the Ark - Randall's opinion has no substance whatsoever because his report was mischievously couched and self-contradictory (and I left a link for background checks). Further, I highlight the fact that he explained absolutely nothing and only grumbled about people moving beams to the top of Ararat while yet acknowledging that was his opinion based merely on other people's info. One way or another, Randall's opinions have absolutely no weight/substance to any "claims" - which particularly is a 'claim' on the DISCOVERY of the Ark.

From this (and if you ever cared to read the links already provided and of which you have been reminded several times), you will see that I did not make any conclusions on the story of the OP - viz: "Noah Ark Have Been Discover On The Mountains In Turkey".

Bastage:

The conclusion has nothing to do with Randall. It regards your belief in the literal Bible Flood story.

Unless you can't read: my first reply has to do with your dubious argument from the excerpts on Randall! I have also quote your opening remarks where you said:

Bastage:

This claim was defeated the next day by the exhibitions main investor J. Randall Price in a letter[32] saying,

What claim did you mean by "This claim"? Please answer that question honestly, if you care to show a bit of honesty at all. And who else was in your opening lines by that name "J. Randall Price"? Please just let me know what you meant by "This claim" in your quote, or carry on forcing your duplicity into my posts and yet cannot even quote me directly!

Bastage:

Why are you still deliberately ignoring my question?

Why are you being deliberately dubious? What have you said about post #24 where I quoted my previous rejoinder about not having drawn any conclusions on your Randall's excerpted opinions? I'm not deliberately ignoring your question - I find your rejoinders quite dubious; and after trying to reason with you and finding you've been deliberately ignoring the points I made, i think it's time you try turn on your own query and check yourself.

Thanks for your reply and clarification, Biox.

Biox:

@viaro
did you read verse 13 and 39, i think you should

I think I did so, which was why I mentioned that -

viaro:

So, because these two verses are certain of the fact that some of the OT saints actually received or obtained "promises", it would be important to identify the particular "promise" that they did NOT receive as in verse 13 and 39.

In any case, let's see your other comments:

Biox:

@viaro
no that wasnt my answer, this is my answer the promise is the promise of his son,the death burial and resurection,and the life after.

Well, I really cannot begin to argue to counter your interpretations. We are all here to learn; and I might add that your view has added to my understanding. However, I don't know if it could be substantiated as to mean directly that Hebrews 11 hinted that "the promise" (v. 13 & 39) meant God's Son, the death, burial and resurrection and the life after. I'm not saying that it may not; rather, I'm saying that "the promise" might be referring to the consummation of the believer's faith. If that is the case, the the 'consummation' thereto might be what Hebrews 11 terms the "city" in an "heavenly country". Let me share with you why that is so.

Perhaps verse 10 highlights the view that the promise might refer to the "city":

'For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God'.

Could verse 13 on to verse 16 buttress the point? Possibly, as we find that the reference seems to be pointing to what the OT saints had seen and been persuaded of, as well as embraced them -

(a) verse 13 - 'These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. '

Now, why would these folks have confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth? This is explained in the next two verses -

(b) verses 14 and 15 - 'For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.'

Then we see the point of these verses been pooled together in verse 16 -

(c) verse 16 - 'But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.'

Now, reading on from verse 17, it becomes apparent why we find "the promise" in verse 39 saying the same thing as in verse 13 - "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise".

Hence, verse 40 says - "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

There are two things in v. 40 - (a) "for us"; and (b) "they without us should not be made perfect". These two seem to be saying that the "made perfect" is to be enjoyed together. It does not hint that we are to "teach"  the OT saints as if they are to "learn from" us. If you disagree, please let me know why, and then I could post some more.

Image123:

Viaro
Welcome back from where you went. is it me or did someone else notice that a 'one after the order of viaro' shows up anytime you take a leave? Should we wish for more disappearances or build 3tabernacles right away. Good to see you back though.

Haha ... the ways of the Lord are mysterious, so they say. It so happens that when viaro appears, the 'order' somewhat disappears! Not even a peek into any one of the 3 tabs would suffice. Funny.

Image123:
I've seen John 6v70,71. I like to note though that John was writing in retrospect. I know ONE was a 'devil', but I'M NOT SURE the exact one was known prior.

Okay, that's great to know. I lean a bit towards your take on those verses ... just a bit. Apart from the clarification offered in John 6:71 that the Lord was referring to Judas Iscariot, I'm also at this time not so sure about all that surrounds Judas. Especially so is the case, when we read Acts 1:20 - 'For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.'

However, although I drew from your previous quote about Judas having been a saved man (which I noted is doubtful), there's just another disciple that was remonstrated in similar terms by the Lord: "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matt. 16:23).

So, someone else could make a similar argument as to whether Peter was also a saved man. And should the answer be a resounding yes, the logical question would be: on what basis? For we see that although the Lord had indicated that Judas was 'a devil' among the Twelve whom he had chosen (John 6:70-71), yet His remonstrance of Peter was even stronger (thou art an offence unto me). Phew.

What now? The argument could even be made that the matter did not rest merely on these two disciples, but on a few others (although it does not seem that these others were particularly named). See again in that same John 6:64 where Jesus said to His disciples - "But there are some of you that believe not. . . " Just so we make no mistakes about it, the other part of that verse seems to have delineated between these groups: "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him".

It is at this point, we might need to consider again a basic question: what is 'salvation'? Perhaps when we have considered that question, it might become easier to understand what follows as to whether a saved person can then become unsaved afterwards. Just a thought for now.

Now I need to go check those 3 tabernacles.

viaro:

^^
Should I take those verses as your answer to the question: "what was the 'promise'?" in Hebrews 11:39-40? There is a reason I'm asking this, please indulge me. Thanks.

Alright, let me share some of the reasons why I was asking that question.

We find the interesting verse - "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise" (Heb. 11:39) - and in quoting that verse, some believe therefore that Christians are somewhat superhuman beings who are supposed to be 'teaching' the OT saints.

However, for me, it is important that people who quote Heb. 11:39 for such ideas need first to identify what is meant by "the promise" in that verse - especially when in that same chapter (Hebrews 11), we learn that some of the OT saints actually received promises. Check the following -

1. "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son," (verse 17)

2. "Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions," (verse 33).

So, because these two verses are certain of the fact that some of the OT saints actually received or obtained "promises", it would be important to identify the particular "promise" that they did NOT receive as in verse 13 and 39.

There - those are some of the reasons why I asked that question of you earlier. I will appreciate your reply. Thanks again.

Biox:

1 john2:2
and he is the propitiation for our sins,and not of ours only,but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 j0hn 5:9-12
this is what so many men of old long for,they talk about they wished for it but didnt expirience it.but now its manifest to us,for them its is a mistery but for usits a reality.( little wonder the bible says christ in you,the hope of glory)like i said there is more to life after a man is born again

^^
Should I take those verses as your answer to the question: "what was the 'promise'?" in Hebrews 11:39-40? There is a reason I'm asking this, please indulge me. Thanks.

Bastage:

And I'll repeat my statement yet again.

Which part of that don't you understand? The very fact that you are giving the story some credence means that you have come to the conclusion that the literal Bible story is true.

So for all your denials, my assertion that you have made a conclusion is correct.
Got it?

By the way. I love how you've avoided answering my question three times now whereas I've answered yours three times (even if you're too dumb to understand that answer). Why won't you answer?

Please slow down. I did not make any "denials" but pointed out to you several times what I focused on. Should I remind you, or you would yet again just not be interested in being reasonable?

If you care, here again:

Bastage:

And I'll repeat my statement yet again.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

I made no conclusions - that was why I posted at least 3 of my quotes where I showed that I did not draw any conclusions (see post #24 above). It should be easy enough to see, and I would appreciate your acknowledgement of that simple fact rather than your attempts to force your own misgivings into my post to the contrary - that's not mature on your part.

Then again, let me help to clarify your misgivings here:

Bastage:

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

As can be seen, I focused on the excerpt you made from Randall - and even at that, I did NOT draw any conclusions. I guess you have reasons why you want to ignore the fact I already stated that point; but see again this quote:

(3)

viaro:

No conclusions have been drawn yet - that is the point. Your haste in drawing on Randall to "defeat" the claim was what I focused on, and left a comment in my subsequent post that I was not drawing any conclusions from anywhere - not even from the news conference link.

So, what was the "claim" in question - it is simply that which is expressed in the title of this thread - "Noah Ark Have Been Discover On The Mountains In Turkey" (sic). That has been the point on 'claims', and that has been the very same thing that I focused on with particular reference to Randall's gaping opinions - which again was what drew my first response to your initial entry into this thread. This was what you said:

(a)

Bastage:

This claim was defeated the next day by the exhibitions main investor J. Randall Price in a letter[32] saying,

. . . and this was what I said in response:

(b)

viaro:

^^^
J. Randall Price did not 'defeat' the claim, and any such conclusions of 'defeating' any such claims are merely Randall's puerile conjecture. This is especially the case when he admits that his conclusions are based on secondhand reports and NOT on actual firsthand experience -

The 'claim' in this thread was about having discovered the Ark - Randall's opinion has no substance whatsoever because his report was mischievously couched and self-contradictory (and I left a link for background checks). Further, I highlight the fact that he explained absolutely nothing and only grumbled about people moving beams to the top of Ararat while yet acknowledging that was his opinion based merely on other people's info. One way or another, Randall's opinions have absolutely no weight/substance to any "claims" - which particularly is a 'claim' on the DISCOVERY of the Ark.

The point, as I said earlier, is that no one has drawn any "conclusions" anywhere - this is why archeological work is on-going. This should be simple enough for you to see; and if you are not satisfied, you can do as you please. It would have been interesting to see you deny the fact that I thrice over did NOT draw any conclusions (see post #24 again) - but for some reason you choose to deliberately misread your unfounded insinuations into my posts. Enjoy.

Biox:

@ enigma
hebrews 11:39-40
specificaly said that both sarah noah moses name that,that having obtained a good report,throught faith received not the promise,

Hang on ... but what was the 'promise'?

Image123:

Judas Iscariot was NEVER a saved man? wetin we no go hear.What? You thought I was quoting my biology textbook?

Interesting thread. However, one cannot argue Judas Iscariot being a saved man - those who do not see it so may appeal to any number of verses for their arguments. An example is this one:

[list]Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. [John 6:70-71][/list]

I don't know, but did you consider that also?

Bastage:

Are you usually this silly?

I wasn't being silly - you are and it shows so well. I outlined for you the statements I already made earlier that I did not draw any conclusions on what the thread discusses - I quoted those quotes just incase you might be so forgetful. I would like to see you draw on your silliness and deny the fact.

tpia.:

this is old news- its been done to death previously.

I was wondering about that.

proper:

i used this forum 2 appeal 2 all 2 start praying now.

I don't want to sound negative, but though praying is important, what are we to "start praying" for now in respect to the subject of this thread? Since it is not a recent event, what has happened between Benny and his (former) wife since then?

It seems to me that Benny Hinn himself welcomed the divorce. I may be wrong, and would be gladly corrected on that. However, it does not seem that Hinn was concerned about serious issues that informed his wife filing for divorce.  Perhaps this poster had the same concerns:

Blazing99:

As for Benny, maybe his wife bore with some stuff about him for 30 years that she can't deal with again, you never can tell.

Howdy Krayo my man! Yes, quite an age ... life's good - and I hope same to you.

Krayola:

@ Viaro. How r u? long time o. Hope all is well. Was just reading thru this thread and have a question. It's not related to this exact topic but opening another thread for this wouldn't make sense.

Since most Christians tend to view the OT as sort of out-dated, and, to some extent, it's teachings even inconsequential as far as the central beliefs of Christianity goes; in your opinion, how come the views of adherents of Judaism (Jews), at least in it's orthodox expression, are almost never considered when OT issues are being debated; and do u think this is positive or beneficial? Jews take it as authoritative, it describes their "history", is their tradition, so I would assume that it is reasonable to believe that they may have some insight that others may not.

Perhaps we could exchange views by email (loads of things occupy me these busy days and I can only manage limted time on the forum).

Nonetheless, I agree with you that "most Christians" tend to give less regard to the OT. Another thing is the question of who exactly is almost never considering the views of adherents of Judaism?

My views on these things are just that - my views. However, I don't think it is beneficial to ignore any view expressed on any Biblical subject(s), although not all views are necessarily carried or weighty (even more so in view of so-called academic authorities priding themselves to be 'scholars'). Yet, I'm not one of those who views the entire OT as mainly focusing on Jewish history and tradition to the large exclusion of non-Jewish history.

For example, BEFORE the emergence of Judaism and the people of Israel, there were non-Jewish histories that highlight foundational tenets and concepts which are carried over into the Jewish faith. The first mention of a priest is not Jewish but was rather Gentile in the person of Melchizedec (Genesis 14). We also find that Moses' father-in-law Jethro was a priest (the priest of Midian - Exodus 3:1), and though himself not part of the Jewish covenant, he nonetheless rejoiced in the welfare from God that attended the people of Israel (Exodus 18:9).

It is for reasons like these that I don't count among those who give less regard to the OT, or even among those who assume that the OT is Jewish. Indeed, the OT speaks largely of the Old COVENANT (and this old covenant is what many understand as Judaism); yet, we find within the same OT that there are several other covenants (such as the Abrahamic and Noahic covenants).

Perhaps we might have the fortune of discussing more offline ... or, if you can endure me not being online as often as in the past, then online on the forum here would be okay by me.

@Bastage,

viaro:

Randall drew a conclusion based on what - secondhand report, thanks.

Bastage:

Yet you're drawing on the conclusion based on what? Thirdhand? Forthhand? Thousands of years worth of editing and tweaking.

What conclusions have I drawn, Bastage? This was what I have said several times:

(1)

viaro:

Please go back and see the point I made: I did not draw any conclusions either way, and we're quite aware that some are too hasty to have drawn conclusions here and there.

(2)

viaro:

This is why enthusiasts like Randall Price (not just him, there are many others) do not add anything fresh either way (positively or negatively) to the whole subject. It does not mean that I had drawn any conclusions elsewhere; but we all have to be careful about the substance of reports around subjects like this one. Just my view.

(3)

viaro:

No conclusions have been drawn yet - that is the point. Your haste in drawing on Randall to "defeat" the claim was what I focused on, and left a comment in my subsequent post that I was not drawing any conclusions from anywhere - not even from the news conference link.

Would it help to please carefully consider what I have said and not argue your misgivings into my rejoinders? If it does not help you, no worries - at least, it might just help to leave you making unfounded insinuations that do not appear in my posts. Thanks.

Bastage:

Apologise!!!!

That's the best joke I've heard for ages.

Your joke, yes - and no one's struggling to laugh. You drew a very laughable conclusion that went nowhere, so no biggy there. Point was simple enough: Randall "defeated" nothing, live with it.

And you still haven't answered my question. How are eye-witness reports no good when the whole of the Bible is purported to be nothing more than the same? That seems to be peurile hypocrosy.

Minus the typo, the hypocrisy could be yours. You did not attempt answering any questions in my reply, did you? Randall drew a conclusion based on what - secondhand report, thanks. And by that you were so gleeful he had "defeated" any claims about the Ark, no?

Please go back and see the point I made: I did not draw any conclusions either way, and we're quite aware that some are too hasty to have drawn conclusions here and there. It was not my call, but Randall's and yours to be chancing on reports that are very questionable. The irony is that Randall made claims that he came back to disavow - in other words, he was countering his own claims. That was why I left a link for the background - did you bother to check? It's no big deal if you didn't, but drawing on Randall's opinions does not in any way make any conclusions about the Ark.