Enter the Kingdom of God vs Inherit the Kingdom

[d taylor]

Do you see this as losing rewards only, or is the loss of salvation also possible?

Doug

I see this as a loss of rewards possibly at the judgment seat of The Messiah.

I do not believe, that a believer can lose their eternal life.

 

[Andrewn]

I see this as a loss of rewards possibly at the judgment seat of The Messiah. I do not believe, that a believer can lose their eternal life.

If a believer loses his inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, where is going to be rewarded? What happens when he dies?

What happens at the resurrection?

 

[d taylor]

If a believer loses his inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, where is going to be rewarded? What happens when he dies?

What happens at the resurrection?

Rewards are tested with fire 1 Corinthians 3

If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

 

[TibiasDad]

I see this as a loss of rewards possibly at the judgment seat of The Messiah.

I do not believe, that a believer can lose their eternal life.

Okay, thank you for input! I would disagree, but will defer discussion !for another time.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

In some recent conversations, the meanings and distinctions between one entering the Kingdom and one inheriting the Kingdom came to play in the discussion. To be honest, I never really thought to much about it, any distinction between them being largely academic to my point of view, so I thought I would seek out your opinions and reasoning as to the sameness or differences to these two concepts and why they are as you see them.

For my part, it seems to me that the language surrounding these two concepts is so similar that it is nearly impossible to see any clear distinction. For instance, 1Cor 6:9 says,

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men a 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

But Matt 7:21-23 tells us,
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So one says that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom, and the other says that evildoers will not enter the Kingdom. There doesn't seem to be much difference in the language.

So I'll sit back and see what your thoughts are. Thanks for reading,

Doug

Doug isn't responding to my posts, so I'll just reply to everyone else who is following this thread.

One must first understand that there are eternal rewards for faithful service. Anyone can do a word search on "reward" in the Bible and see that rewards are directly related to behavior/service/faithfulness. So I won't do that homework here.

Once it is clear that reward is a biblical teaching based on faithful service, then it is easy to understand the difference between "inheriting the kingdom" and "entering the kingdom". Doug believes they mean the same thing.

He quoted 1 Cor 6:9. Also, Gal 5:21 uses the same phrase. And both verses indicate that "not inheriting the kingdom" is based on sinful behavior.

However, there is a 3rd parallel verse, but instead of the phrase "not inheriting the kingdom", Paul uses the phrase "have no inheritance in the kingdom".

Eph 5:5 - For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Please note that Paul wrote all three passages, and all 3 are parallel in the fact that not inheriting or no inheritance is based on sinful behavior.

If either phrase means to "not enter the kingdom", then it is sinful behavior that will keep believers out of the kingdom.

However, Christ died for ALL sins, so that doesn't make sense.

Also, the Eph 5:5 verse says "in the kingdom". iow, it clearly doesn't say "won't enter" but "have no inheritance IN the kingdom".

iow, the sinful believer won't have any inheritance in the kingdom but won't be excluded from entering the kingdom.

These 3 verse are about how to lose eternal reward.

Now, the question is: what kind of reward is Paul referring to?

He answers that question in 2 verses, that are also parallel.

Rom 8:17 - Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

The red words refer to the guaranteed inheritance mentioned in Eph 1:14 as God's sealed possession. The blue words refer to the eternal reward of "sharing in Christ's glory". This would be the same as "reigning with Him" mentioned in 2 Tim 2:12

"if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us;"

What will be denied (v.12b) is the rewared of "reigning with Him", IF IF IF the believer "endures", which is the same as Rom 8:17b, "sharing in His suffering" in order to "share in His glory".

Unfortunately, those who believe that salvation can be lost do not believe that behavior is the basis for whether the believer receives eternal reward or not.

To them, bad behavior results in loss of savlation, when the Bible teaches that unfaithfulness results in loss of eternal reward.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Matt 25:31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Okay, but the entire context is about where you go, where you will enter for the rest of eternity, either the heavenly kingdom or the hellish kingdom. Verse 46 makes this clear! The results are life and death, and yet the term is inherit, not enter. This just underscores my original conclusion.


Doug

Doug: I think you will like this video:

It's a great wake up call for the church.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In some recent conversations, the meanings and distinctions between one entering the Kingdom and one inheriting the Kingdom came to play in the discussion. To be honest, I never really thought to much about it, any distinction between them being largely academic to my point of view, so I thought I would seek out your opinions and reasoning as to the sameness or differences to these two concepts and why they are as you see them.

For my part, it seems to me that the language surrounding these two concepts is so similar that it is nearly impossible to see any clear distinction. For instance, 1Cor 6:9 says,

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men a 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

But Matt 7:21-23 tells us,
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So one says that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom, and the other says that evildoers will not enter the Kingdom. There doesn't seem to be much difference in the language.

So I'll sit back and see what your thoughts are. Thanks for reading,

Doug

I see inherit the kingdom of God, and enter the Kingdom of God as the same thing. They are different phrases to say the same thing, which is to be with God and to be in His Kingdom. I believe the Bible does this sometimes so as to convey added meaning to the same concept. For inherit the kingdom means we are gaining an inheritance via by Christ. We are sharing in the riches and glory of God's kingdom by our Lord Jesus. Gaining access to His kingdom means we will share in the inheritance. For the Israelites were to inherit the promised land. This also means that they were to enter it, as well. They are each saying the same thing, but the word “inherit” adds another element of meaning to entering the promised land. It means to gain possession, to be rewarded. I can inherit land from my family. This means it was passed down to me. This is what God is doing for us when we inherit the kingdom via by Jesus Christ.

 

[Andrewn]

Please note that Paul wrote all three passages, and all 3 are parallel in the fact that not inheriting or no inheritance is based on sinful behavior. If either phrase means to "not enter the kingdom", then it is sinful behavior that will keep believers out of the kingdom.

Yes, all 3 epistles were written to believers and Paul is telling them that sinful behavior will keep believers out of the Kingdom.

However, Christ died for ALL sins, so that doesn't make sense.

It is only your conclusion that that doesn't make sense.

Also, the Eph 5:5 verse says "in the kingdom". iow, it clearly doesn't say "won't enter" but "have no inheritance IN the kingdom". iow, the sinful believer won't have any inheritance in the kingdom but won't be excluded from entering the kingdom. These 3 verse are about how to lose eternal reward.

The Lord said that evildoers / lawbreakers would not enter the Kingdom:

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

Mat 22:13 Then the king said to his servants, ‘Tie him up hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Mat 25:30 Throw the worthless servant out, into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

Rev 22:15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Now, the question is: what kind of reward is Paul referring to? He answers that question in 2 verses, that are also parallel. Rom 8:17 - Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. The red words refer to the guaranteed inheritance mentioned in Eph 1:14 as God's sealed possession. The blue words refer to the eternal reward of "sharing in Christ's glory".

Dissecting the verse this way is only mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious meaning.

Unfortunately, those who believe that salvation can be lost do not believe that behavior is the basis for whether the believer receives eternal reward or not.

Yes, they do believe that behavior is the basis for whether the believer receives eternal reward or not. This is obvious from the following:

1Co 3:14 If anyone’s work built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss—he himself will be saved, but as through fire.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I see inherit the kingdom of God, and enter the Kingdom of God as the same thing.

Post #25 explains the difference.

They are different phrases to say the same thing, which is to be with God and to be in His Kingdom.

Not at all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes, all 3 epistles were written to believers and Paul is telling them that sinful behavior will keep believers out of the Kingdom.

There is nothing about keeping believers out of the kingdom, or "not entering the kingdom". My post #25 explains specifically what the phrase refers to.

Since you disagree, I invite you to address my post and address each point and explain why it is wrong.

You are free to have your own opinions, but I'd appreciate an explanation of why your opinion disagrees with my explanation, which includes Scripture to support my claim.

It is only your conclusion that that doesn't make sense.

OK, then explain specifically HOW it doesn't make sense.

I do understand that those who believe that salvation can be lost don't understand the doctrine of eternal rewards. Which is what all 3 parallel passages refer to. Maybe that is the issue with you.

The Lord said that evildoers / lawbreakers would not enter the Kingdom:
Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

This passage is about those, at the Great White Throne Judgment, who won't enter the kingdom. And it's not because of sin. It's because of what they were basing their expected entrance to the kingdom on: themselves and their OWN WORKS.

What is missing from this passage is any mention of their faith in Christ alone for salvation. In fact, by their own "defense" they show that they never did believe in Him for salvation.

And Jesus affirms this fact by what He told them: "I NEVER knew you". Would Jesus really say that to anyone who believed in Him and to whom He gave them the free gift of eternal life? Of course not. So His statement is a stark reminder that entrance into heaven is based on faith ALONE in Christ ALONE.

Remember: "not of works, lest any man boast". Eph 2:9

Mat 22:13 Then the king said to his servants, ‘Tie him up hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Mat 25:30 Throw the worthless servant out, into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

These are parables, not clear teaching of doctrinal principles. In fact, Jesus used parables to allow the people "to hear but NOT understand". So it's always a slippery slope to use any parable to teach doctrine.

Rev 22:15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

What does this verse really say? Let me ask you; in the context of the passage, tell me what the word "outside" is in reference to? That should give you some pause.

I said:
"Now, the question is: what kind of reward is Paul referring to? He answers that question in 2 verses, that are also parallel. Rom 8:17 - Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. The red words refer to the guaranteed inheritance mentioned in Eph 1:14 as God's sealed possession. The blue words refer to the eternal reward of "sharing in Christ's glory"."

Dissecting the verse this way is only mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious meaning.

So, do you have something against exegesis? btw, what do you mean by "this way"? What are you insinuating?

Since you disagree with my explanation, please feel free to provide your explanation of the verse.

btw, it exactly parallels 2 Tim 2:12, so you might want to address that verse as well.

And show how they AREN'T parallel, but are speaking of totally different things.

I said:
"Unfortunately, those who believe that salvation can be lost do not believe that behavior is the basis for whether the believer receives eternal reward or not."

Yes, they do believe that behavior is the basis for whether the believer receives eternal reward or not. This is obvious from the following:

1Co 3:14 If anyone’s work built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss—he himself will be saved, but as through fire.

Your posts reveal that you believe that salvation can be lost. So why do you quote a verse that GUARANTEES salvation in spite of the fact that one's works are burned up?

Thanks.

 

[Andrewn]

There is nothing about keeping believers out of the kingdom, or "not entering the kingdom". My post #25 explains specifically what the phrase refers to. Since you disagree, I invite you to address my post and address each point and explain why it is wrong. You are free to have your own opinions, but I'd appreciate an explanation of why your opinion disagrees with my explanation, which includes Scripture to support my claim.

Your post didn't include Scripture to support your claim. As typical of Calvinists, you depend on single words like "inherit" and "in" that you interpret out of context and in violence to the entire biblical message. Did you prove that "enter the Kingdom" is different from "inherit the Kingdom?" No, you didn't. Did you prove that evildoers and lawbreakers will "enter the Kingdom?" No, you didn't. Indeed you cannot. Nevertheless, there are intelligent preachers and lay people who believe these things, which baffles me. But, of course, there are many more who do not believe these ideas.

However, Christ died for ALL sins, so that doesn't make sense.

How do you conclude from Christ dying for ALL sins that all sinners will "enter the Kingdom?" How does this conclusion make sense to a Calvinist?

I do understand that those who believe that salvation can be lost don't understand the doctrine of eternal rewards. Which is what all 3 parallel passages refer to. Maybe that is the issue with you.

Why do you repeat this after I already said that I believe in the doctrine of eternal rewards? People's works are clearly not equal and I quoted 1Co 3:14 where this is clearly taught.

This passage is about those, at the Great White Throne Judgment, who won't enter the kingdom. And it's not because of sin.

The Lord called them "workers of lawlessness," that is evildoers, lawbreakers (depending on the translation). Why do you contradict the Lord by saying "not because of sin?"

It's because of what they were basing their expected entrance to the kingdom on: themselves and their OWN WORKS. What is missing from this passage is any mention of their faith in Christ alone for salvation. In fact, by their own "defense" they show that they never did believe in Him for salvation. And Jesus affirms this fact by what He told them: "I NEVER knew you". Would Jesus really say that to anyone who believed in Him and to whom He gave them the free gift of eternal life? Of course not.

It is typical for Calvinists to read too much into the text and come out with unwarranted conclusions. "Would Jesus really say that to anyone who believed in Him and to whom He gave them the free gift of eternal life?" Your circular logic presupposes Predestination. It also presupposes that that their works were without faith! Too many presuppositions. Too much reading into the text, rather than accepting the plain reading of the text.

So His statement is a stark reminder that entrance into heaven is based on faith ALONE in Christ ALONE. Remember: "not of works, lest any man boast". Eph 2:9

This is a fantastic example of how Calvinists dissect the passages into little tidbits that seem to say what they want them to say! What is Ephesians 2:1-10 about? v. 2 those who are disobedient are followers of satan. v. 1 those who are now believers used to be followers of satan and thus dead. v. 3 this is because believers used to carry out the will of the flesh. v. 4-9 God saved us and made us alive by grace through faith in Christ. v. 10 the purpose is that we may walk in good works. See how important good works are _after_ being saved. Of course, good works are energized by God (Phi 1:6).

These are parables, not clear teaching of doctrinal principles. In fact, Jesus used parables to allow the people "to hear but NOT understand". So it's always a slippery slope to use any parable to teach doctrine.

I disagree. The Lord's parables are exact teachings. Evildoers will not inherit the Kingdom. But if you want clearer teaching about eternal life here it is:

Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord,

What does this verse really say? Let me ask you; in the context of the passage, tell me what the word "outside" is in reference to? That should give you some pause.

Looking into the context is always a good idea. Rev 22:12-16 is obviously about the 2nd coming of Christ with the Church / Heavenly Jerusalem. And v. 15 is about evildoers who will not enter the Kingdom but remain in the outer darkness / outside the City. This passage is quite fitting in our discussion. It refutes your claim that believers who are evildoers will somehow "enter" but not "inherit."

So, do you have something against exegesis?

Exegesis done by dividing passages and even verses into tidbits is not valid.

btw, what do you mean by "this way"? What are you insinuating? Since you disagree with my explanation, please feel free to provide your explanation of the verse. btw, it exactly parallels 2 Tim 2:12, so you might want to address that verse as well. And show how they AREN'T parallel, but are speaking of totally different things.

Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him.

2Ti 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us;

Both verses are exactly parallel: if we are children of God / suffer with Christ / endure with Him, we will inherit the Kingdom / be glorified with Christ / reign with Him. The problem is that you made the 1st part of Rom 8:17 say something different from the second part.

Your posts reveal that you believe that salvation can be lost. So why do you quote a verse that GUARANTEES salvation in spite of the fact that one's works are burned up?

I'm not sure why this should come as a surprise. In Arminianism, preservation is conditional upon continued faith in Christ; with the possibility of a final apostasy. Apostasy "means the deliberate disavowal of belief in Christ made by a formerly believing Christian." "Cremer states that apostasia is used in the absolute sense of 'passing over to unbelief,' thus a dissolution of the 'union with God subsisting through faith in Christ'."

I'm not saying that salvation can be lost because of every little sin, but because of the willful rejection of Christ and our belonging to Him, God forbid.

 

[TibiasDad]

I see inherit the kingdom of God, and enter the Kingdom of God as the same thing. They are different phrases to say the same thing, which is to be with God and to be in His Kingdom. I believe the Bible does this sometimes so as to convey added meaning to the same concept. For inherit the kingdom means we are gaining an inheritance via by Christ. We are sharing in the riches and glory of God's kingdom by our Lord Jesus. Gaining access to His kingdom means we will share in the inheritance. For the Israelites were to inherit the promised land. This also means that they were to enter it, as well. They are each saying the same thing, but the word “inherit” adds another element of meaning to entering the promised land. It means to gain possession, to be rewarded. I can inherit land from my family. This means it was passed down to me. This is what God is doing for us when we inherit the kingdom via by Jesus Christ.

Yes, and there is no indication that any believer ever loses the right to rule with Christ, as those who make a distinction between the two descriptions assert, for the body of Christ cannot be separated from the activities of the head! There can be no division in the parts of the body. It is necessarily a unified whole!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your post didn't include Scripture to support your claim.

As a matter of fact, I did. This is what I posted:

"Rom 8:17 - Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

The red words refer to the guaranteed inheritance mentioned in Eph 1:14 as God's sealed possession. The blue words refer to the eternal reward of "sharing in Christ's glory". This would be the same as "reigning with Him" mentioned in 2 Tim 2:12

"if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us;"

What will be denied (v.12b) is the rewared of "reigning with Him", IF IF IF the believer "endures", which is the same as Rom 8:17b, "sharing in His suffering" in order to "share in His glory"."

As typical of Calvinists, you depend on single words like "inherit" and "in" that you interpret out of context and in violence to the entire biblical message. Did you prove that "enter the Kingdom" is different from "inherit the Kingdom?" No, you didn't. Did you prove that evildoers and lawbreakers will "enter the Kingdom?" No, you didn't.

If you think I'm wrong, where is your own proof that my interpretation is "out of context"? Just throwing out charges, and without any evidence to back up your own claims, proves nothing. Yes, you've got opinions. But that is all.

I showed how Rom 8:17 is parallel to 2 Tim 2:12. And did you even address either verse? No. You just ignored them and claimed I never "included Scripture". With such errors, why should I consider your claims credible?

btw, I'm no more a Calvinist than an Arminian. Both have serious flaws in them.

Indeed you cannot.

What is clear to me is that you cannot prove your own opinions.

How do you conclude from Christ dying for ALL sins that all sinners will "enter the Kingdom?" How does this conclusion make sense to a Calvinist?

We can just stop with this "Calvinist thing" of yours. I"m not one of them.

However, I don't see any relevance in your question to the issue. By Christ dying for everyone means that anyone can be saved. And, btw, Calvinists don't universally believe that Christ did die for everyone. Don't you know that?

And I DON'T believe, nor said that "all sinners will enter the Kingdom". If that's your "conclusion" of what I posted, I conclude that you need to read with much more care.

I said:
"I do understand that those who believe that salvation can be lost don't understand the doctrine of eternal rewards. Which is what all 3 parallel passages refer to. Maybe that is the issue with you."

Why do you repeat this after I already said that I believe in the doctrine of eternal rewards? People's works are clearly not equal and I quoted 1Co 3:14 where this is clearly taught.

Do you believe in eternal security or conditional security? I'm still not clear about what you believe. OK, you do believe in reward, but do you believe in eternal security?

The Lord called them "workers of lawlessness," that is evildoers, lawbreakers (depending on the translation). Why do you contradict the Lord by saying "not because of sin?"

Obvious reason: what is NOT from faith (as this crowd was) is sin.

Rom 14:23 - But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

I already showed from the context that they had NEVER believed in Christ for salvation.
1. Their appeal for entering the kingdom was based on what THEY DID for Christ, not what Christ did for them.
2. Jesus told them, "I NEVER knew you."

It is typical for Calvinists to read too much into the text and come out with unwarranted conclusions. "Would Jesus really say that to anyone who believed in Him and to whom He gave them the free gift of eternal life?" Your circular logic presupposes Predestination.

Again, I'm no Calvinist. And, where is your explanation of what constitutes "circular logic"? My question is legitimate. If any of those in that crowd HAD believed in Jesus, that means He would have given them eternal life. So, explain HOW Jesus could say "I never knew you" IF IF IF He had given any of them eternal life.

Not only that, but Jesus said those He gives eternal life shall never perish, in John 10:28. That is eternal security. The crowd didn't have eternal security because they never believed in Him for salvation.

It also presupposes that that their works were without faith!

You may keep your own opinions out of the discussion. There is no "presupposition" in the text. That's only in your own mind and opinions.

I have shown that their appeal was based on works, and not faith. And Jesus told them He never knew them.

Too many presuppositions. Too much reading into the text, rather than accepting the plain reading of the text.

You're going to have to prove your empty claim here. I've dealt directly with ONLY the text, and what it plainly says.

If you think the text means something else, please enlighten me. Or would you rather I continue to stumbe along in the dark?

This is a fantastic example of how Calvinists dissect the passages into little tidbits that seem to say what they want them to say!

Please enlighten me about what Matt 7:21-23 does mean then.

I disagree. The Lord's parables are exact teachings.

You would do well to read Scripture, if you really think this.

Matt 13:10-15
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

Evildoers will not inherit the Kingdom. But if you want clearer teaching about eternal life here it is:

Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

It seems to me that you have rejected the clear teaching of Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9.

Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord,

Good luck with your holiness.

Rom 3:23 - for ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory.
Rom 3:20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

You think you have the answers about how to have eternal life. You don't even know what you are talking about.

Here's a list about how to have eternal life.
Eternal Life:

John 3:15-16
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36
36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 5:24
24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:40
40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

1 Tim 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

1 John 5:13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Looking into the context is always a good idea. Rev 22:12-16 is obviously about the 2nd coming of Christ with the Church / Heavenly Jerusalem. And v. 15 is about evildoers who will not enter the Kingdom but remain in the outer darkness / outside the City. This passage is quite fitting in our discussion. It refutes your claim that believers who are evildoers will somehow "enter" but not "inherit."

Nice dodge!! I asked about the immediate context for "outside" in v.15. Since you either do not understand my words, or you just didn't take the time to actually read v.14, I'll help you out.

14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

All the red words are the immediate context for "outside" at the beginning of v.15..

Exegesis done by dividing passages and even verses into tidbits is not valid.

Says who? I mean, besides you.

Actually, exegesis is done by one word at a time.

Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him.

2Ti 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us;

Both verses are exactly parallel: if we are children of God / suffer with Christ / endure with Him, we will inherit the Kingdom / be glorified with Christ / reign with Him.

You are correct that both verses are exactly parallel. But you have jammed together "children of God" with "suffer with Christ". Rom 8:17 shows an unconditional inheritance on the basis of being a child of God, and a conditional inheritance (IF IF IF) on the basis of "sharing in the suffering of Christ".

Now, explain how that can't be true.

The problem is that you made the 1st part of Rom 8:17 say something different from the second part.

Only because they ARE different. But it does take a bit of spiritual discernment to see that. And I explained it above. And challenged you to prove me wrong.

I said:
"Your posts reveal that you believe that salvation can be lost. So why do you quote a verse that GUARANTEES salvation in spite of the fact that one's works are burned up?"

I'm not sure why this should come as a surprise. In Arminianism, preservation is conditional upon continued faith in Christ; with the possibility of a final apostasy. Apostasy "means the deliberate disavowal of belief in Christ made by a formerly believing Christian." "Cremer states that apostasia is used in the absolute sense of 'passing over to unbelief,' thus a dissolution of the 'union with God subsisting through faith in Christ'."

How can you claim that salvation is guaranteed yet can be lost? That's a very serious conflict within your own theology.

I'm not saying that salvation can be lost because of every little sin, but because of the willful rejection of Christ and our belonging to Him, God forbid.

While this may sound admirable and all, where in Scripture is this clearly communicated in very plain and direct language?

Note; I'm not asking for a any specific words, but language that is so clear it doesn't need any interpretation.

I know that everyone who has believed in Christ has been given eternal life. John 5:24, 6:47, 1 John 5:11, 13.

And I know that those given eternal life by Jesus shall never perish.

Therefore, NO ONE who has ever been given eternal life CAN perish. Because Jesus said they "shall never perish".

You have the problem of explaining how "shall NEVER perish" is equivalent to "can perish". Can you do this?

 

[Andrewn]

btw, I'm no more a Calvinist than an Arminian. Both have serious flaws in them.

Every Christian has either Calvinist or Arminian understanding. Your understanding is Calvinist, and it is wrong.

This is all you need to know for now.

 

[TibiasDad]

I see this as a loss of rewards possibly at the judgment seat of The Messiah.

I do not believe, that a believer can lose their eternal life.

But the gospel, Jesus, and apparently the people and teachers of his day, though of eternal life as part and parcel of the "inheritance" of God. (Matt 19:29) if they can lose one aspect of their inheritance, why not all of it?

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Every Christian has either Calvinist or Arminian understanding. Your understanding is Calvinist, and it is wrong.

This is all you need to know for now.

Not quite sure of this statement. Certainly Lutherans are different from either one, and I don't think Traditionalist would consider themselves Arminians, though I'm not quite sure why. (I've always had a hard time figuring them.out for some reason.)
I don't know about Episcopalians, but I don't think I've ever heard of them being associated with either Arminians or Calvinists.

Doug

 

[Andrewn]

Certainly Lutherans are different from either one, and I don't think Traditionalist would consider themselves Arminians, though I'm not quite sure why. (I've always had a hard time figuring them.out for some reason.) I don't know about Episcopalians, but I don't think I've ever heard of them being associated with either Arminians or Calvinists.

You're right that Episcopalians / Anglicans can be either way.

Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics are definitely very close to Arminianism. Arminius did not invent the theology attributed to him. Several years ago, I defended Arminianism based on the Catholic Catechism exclusively. (But there are differences.)

Lutherans confess belief in single Predestination but when carefully questioned about their view, it turns out to be very similar to Arminianism. Like Lutherans, Arminians confess that irresistible conversion is possible.

So, the great majority of Christians subscribe to Arminian-like beliefs. The exception is the Reformed tradition and most Baptists. John Calvin's double predestination was severely condemned by Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, and Methodists.

 

[d taylor]

But the gospel, Jesus, and apparently the people and teachers of his day, though of eternal life as part and parcel of the "inheritance" of God. (Matt 19:29) if they can lose one aspect of their inheritance, why not all of it?

Doug

It is, that part of eternal life, the part acquired in the future and connected to inheritance and actions or works can be lost.

But the eternal life received as a free gift from God and received in the present immediately when a person trust in The Messiah for Eternal Life can not be lost.

This verse from John states: who believes is not condemned (as a present event), and not: who believes will not be condemned (as a future event)

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

He who believes has eternal life, Not, He who believes will have eternal life.

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Eternal Life is in the son (The Messiah) and not in our actions good or bad that we have done.

And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

 

[TibiasDad]

Like Lutherans, Arminians confess that irresistible conversion is possible.

Arminians do not in any way support irresistible grace in conversion! Here is an article about the Arminian rejection of the five points of Calvinism.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

This verse from John states: who believes is not condemned (as a present event), and not: who believes will not be condemned (as a future event)

I have no problem with any of this, and will only point out that the present tense "not condemned" is irretrievably tied to the present tense reality of belief! Wherever one reality exists, the other reality exists as well. The absence of one is an indicator of the absence of the other! Thus, the concept of both the present tense reality of belief and no condemnation, and a potential "future" present tense reality of belief and no condemnation are equally valid. In other words, since present tense "no condemnation" is dependent on present tense "believing", there is the necessity for the same realities at any future point of time for it to be equally true at that future point in time. You cannot separate the the two realities and say that " no condemnation " is permanent, but the believing may not be!

Doug