Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you see this as losing rewards only, or is the loss of salvation also possible?
Doug
If a believer loses his inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, where is going to be rewarded? What happens when he dies?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?
Okay, thank you for input! I would disagree, but will defer discussion !for another time.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.
Doug isn't responding to my posts, so I'll just reply to everyone else who is following this thread.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
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
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
Yes, all 3 epistles were written to believers and Paul is telling them that sinful behavior will keep believers out of the Kingdom.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.
It is only your conclusion that that doesn't make sense.However, Christ died for ALL sins, so that doesn't make sense.
The Lord said that evildoers / lawbreakers would not enter the Kingdom: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.
Dissecting the verse this way is only mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious meaning.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".
Yes, they do believe that behavior is the basis for whether the believer receives eternal reward or not. This is obvious from the following: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.
Post #25 explains the difference.I see inherit the kingdom of God, and enter the Kingdom of God as the same thing.
Not at all.They are different phrases to say the same thing, which is to be with God and to be in His 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.Yes, all 3 epistles were written to believers and Paul is telling them that sinful behavior will keep believers out of the Kingdom.
OK, then explain specifically HOW it doesn't make sense.It is only your conclusion that that doesn't make sense.
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.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.’
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.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.’”
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.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.
So, do you have something against exegesis? btw, what do you mean by "this way"? What are you insinuating?Dissecting the verse this way is only mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious meaning.
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?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 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.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.
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?However, Christ died for ALL sins, so that doesn't make sense.
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.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 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?"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 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.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.
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).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
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: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.
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."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.
Exegesis done by dividing passages and even verses into tidbits is not valid.So, do you have something against exegesis?
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.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'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'."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 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.
As a matter of fact, I did. This is what I posted:Your post didn't include Scripture to support your claim.
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.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.
What is clear to me is that you cannot prove your own opinions.Indeed you cannot.
We can just stop with this "Calvinist thing" of yours. I"m not one of them.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?
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?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.
Obvious reason: what is NOT from faith (as this crowd was) is 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?"
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.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.
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.It also presupposes that that their works were without faith!
You're going to have to prove your empty claim here. I've dealt directly with ONLY the text, and what it plainly says.Too many presuppositions. Too much reading into the text, rather than accepting the plain reading of the text.
Please enlighten me about what Matt 7:21-23 does mean then.This is a fantastic example of how Calvinists dissect the passages into little tidbits that seem to say what they want them to say!
You would do well to read Scripture, if you really think this.I disagree. The Lord's parables are exact teachings.
It seems to me that you have rejected the clear teaching of Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9.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.
Good luck with your holiness.Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord,
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.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."
Says who? I mean, besides you.Exegesis done by dividing passages and even verses into tidbits is not valid.
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".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.
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.The problem is that you made the 1st part of Rom 8:17 say something different from the second part.
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 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'."
While this may sound admirable and all, where in Scripture is this clearly communicated in very plain and direct language?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.
Every Christian has either Calvinist or Arminian understanding. Your understanding is Calvinist, and it is wrong.btw, I'm no more a Calvinist than an Arminian. Both have serious flaws in them.
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.
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.
You're right that Episcopalians / Anglicans can be either way.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.
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 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
Like Lutherans, Arminians confess that irresistible conversion is possible.
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!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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?