Temporal Salvation?

[FreeGrace2]

The promises also include eternal life!

The promise is given WHEN a person believes. I gave you verses that SAY SO.

I said:
"Eternal life is experienced in eternity, but the gift is given (how about this) in the PRESENT TENSE!! John 5:24, 6:47, 1 John 5:11, 13. They all say so."
A gift given, but not yet experienced is inert![/QUOTE]
Maybe your opinions are inert. I'm not interested in opinions, but only what Scripture says. And it NEVER says salvation can be lost.

A gift given, but unable to be experienced until a certain point is a hope!

What isn't experienced in this life WILL BE in eternity, when we enter it.

And, the "hope" isn't a wish, as it is used today, but the Greek means a "confident expectation".

Indeed, a certain hope, but a hope and a trust that the one giving the gift will indeed allow the experience to become actual!

Kinda sounds like a bit of doubt in this.

Let me suggest an example: As a pastor, I have officiated many weddings. We go through the ceremony, the processions, the vows, the songs, until I say "I now pronounce you man and wife," and then introduce them as Mr. And Mrs. Jones. They are now married, but only in a sort of promissory manner, because I, as the minister, must sign the official certificate and send it to the state so it can be entered into the official and legal records. They are not really married until that occurs, but the couple now live their lives with the expectation that I will and have completed the formalities necessary.

Not a good example, because God doesn't have to send anything to the state. When He says believers possess eternal life, they DO NOW.

In a similar concept, we are given (pronounced as having) eternal life but until we reach eternity, eternal life is merely a promissorial expectation that we must trust to be completed by the one who has the authority to make it actual!

"pronounced as having" mean possession of. Just admit it. It's obvious to me that there is a difference between possessing the gift now and experiencing the gift later. But so what? It makes no functional difference.

When a person believes, they HAVE it. And those who have been given it shall never perish. But you cannot agree because you think believers who are saved can still perish.

Your opinions are NOT aligned with what Jesus taught.

We are given the right to become the children of God (John 1:12)

Actually, we ARE children of God. Gal 3:26 says so.

and thereby to expect eternal life will be our ultimate reality in eternity, and thus to live in this world as if it is a reality by faith and in faith that God will do what he promises. And all this is hinged on one thing, being a believer.
Doug

There you go again. Thinking that the Bible SAYS one must actively believe at the point of death, or else!! Nonsense.

You are just ignoring or horribly misunderstanding John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Okay, I'll play your game... If your assertions are correct, John 3:18 should read "Anyone who has believed at any point in the past (aorist punctiliar action) is not condemned" instead of "Anyone believing (presently and actively) is not condemned."

I'm sure you are aware that a statement can be worded in several ways. In fact, what you provide here is EXACTLY the same as what John wrote. What I don't understand is WHY you don't understand that.

Use of the aorist in reference to those not having believed does not negate or mitigate the fact that present tense believing is the associative reality of not being condemned.

Why don't you get this? It's really simple. To say "have not believed" means "have never believed", and you've never shown otherwise.

Both verses say that condemnation will be the case for those who have not believed. Which means they NEVER believed.

But you know in your heart that these 2 verses refute your notions about "presently believing" at the point of death.

It says no one believing, not anyone who has believed!

It says "HAS NOT BELIEVED". That means "never believed".

Just because you once believed, does not necessitate that you are currently doing so, but if you are not now believing, then the first clause of John 3:18 cannot apply to you, for it says "the one believing is not condemned."
Doug

How come you decided to only read the first part of John 3:18?

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Your comment relates to the red words. But you keep ignoring the blue words.

The blue words mean the same thing as "because they NEVER believed". The word is a "perfect indicative active" in the negative.

Why do you insist on ignoring the blue words? The same phrase as found also in 2 Thess 2:12.

You have no case.

 

[TibiasDad]

Of course not. What a silly idea. However, both John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 clears up your confusion. It is ONLY

So then you contradict yourself (again), for you just said, in agreement with me, that "Non-belief of any sort cannot be demonstrated as precipitating eternal life", but then turn around and say that one who has ever believed, even if they do not do so now ( a type of unbelief), is still guaranteed eternal life. That would mean that you think that because I have believed, but yet teach what you deem, as Gr8Grace said , "false doctrine and attacks on His Grace, mercy, justice and righteousness" and what you called "blasphemy against Christ", that I am still going to heaven, even with me not believing your assertions, which would imply me not truly believing in Christ's work!
Wow!

Doug

 

[GDL]

In John3:18 with its present & perfect tenses - the believer is not judged & there is no indication as to whether or not the believer remains a believer - the unbeliever remains/is in judgment with no indication as to whether or not the unbeliever will remain an unbeliever.

RE: 2Thes2:12: An aorist verb, although typically translated with an English past tense, is actually timeless & speaks more of the kind of action than the time of action. Being timeless, it will draw from its context and associated verbs.

In 2:10, the ones perishing did not receive the love of the truth & at the point in time being described, they are in that condition.

In 2:11, God sending the delusion is future, so the aorist infinitive, to believe, picks up its timing from the future verb. God will send the delusion for them to believe the lie.

In 2:12, all of this comes together – they did not & do not believe > they will not believe <> they did not & do not believe.

Analyzing time in the Greek language takes some work for we who think in English.

 

[GDL]

It's painful to watch FG2 teach Greek & accuse others of not understanding it. The lack of humility is tragic.

Brings to mind something like: NKJ Romans 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge

 

[TibiasDad]

"pronounced as having" mean possession of. Just admit it. It's obvious to me that there is a difference between possessing the gift now and experiencing the gift later. But so what? It makes no functional difference.

That depends on the gift, I suppose. If you are gifted a car for your 16th birthday, but are told you can't have the keys until you're 21, that's not a functional gift in any meaningful sense. If the gift of eternal life is "given" at age 20, for example, but isn't experienced until you're 90, that's not very functionally meaningful either. And life is, by definition, a functional entity, so if it is not functionally experienced until eternity, you don't really possess anything meaningful beyond the promise of God to do what he said.

When a person believes, they HAVE it. And those who have been given it shall never perish. But you cannot agree because you think believers who are saved can still perish.

No, I think anyone who is not a believer will perish. Any believer (which is a present tense expression, and one you ironically keep using) will not ever perish. I do not espouse, as you do, that one can be a saved believer and a condemned unbeliever at the same time. Thus, to put it simply, an unbeliever that is now a believer will never perish, but a believer that ceases to believe and thus becomes an unbeliever again will suffer the same fate as if he had never believed, if not to a greater degree of torment. As Peter says, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”" (2 Peter 2:20-22)

You are just ignoring or horribly misunderstanding John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12.

Right back at you!

Not a good example, because God doesn't have to send anything to the state. When He says believers possess eternal life, they DO NOW

God still has to welcome us in to his kingdom and pronounce "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord", only then will eternity be a settled issue experientially; until that time it is a hope that we do not yet have.

Rom 8:22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

It's painful to watch FG2 teach Greek & accuse others of not understanding it. The lack of humility is tragic.

Brings to mind something like: NKJ Romans 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge

I can only say that despite my theological differences with Mounce or others, like Wallace, I would never belittle such a renown scholar, especially not with the flippancy that he seems to have used in reference to Dr. Mounce.

I applaud and agree with your scriptural analysis of John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:10-12. The timelessness of the Greek verb is also a valid point as the primary focus of the verb is the type of action.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Why don't you get this? It's really simple. To say "have not believed" means "have never believed", and you've never shown otherwise.

I do not think that "have not believed" (perfect tense) necessarily implies "have never believed."

You say that a person who believes in the past, but now no longer does is no longer capable of being condemned. But Paul says in Romans 14:23 - "He who doubts is condemned [literally, "has been condemned already and still is]."(perfect tense) So this person was once, before believing, condemned, then starts believing and thus is not condemned, but now, by doing something without faith (doubting) they are condemned again. So why can't a believer who has fallen away from belief be referred to as you are "condemned because you have not believed" ( perfect tense: meaning you have not believed at some point in the past and are still not presently)? There is no need to necessitate that the starting point of unbelief was the beginning of our life. Context determines the logical starting point. I think you are forcing a meaning into the perfect tense that isn't necessary.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I'm sure you are aware that a statement can be worded in several ways. In fact, what you provide here is EXACTLY the same as what John wrote. What I don't understand is WHY you don't understand that.

Which statement is "EXACTLY the same as what John wrote"?

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

So then you contradict yourself (again), for you just said, in agreement with me, that "Non-belief of any sort cannot be demonstrated as precipitating eternal life"

Now, do the impossible and prove that my statement contradicts anything else I said.

but then turn around and say that one who has ever believed, even if they do not do so now ( a type of unbelief), is still guaranteed eternal life.

OK, so here is your "proof". Its not what I say. It's what the Bible says.

1. Those given eternal life (which means they HAVE believed) shall never perish.

2. Those who "have not believed" (which means they NEVER believed) shall be condemned (perish).

Since you disagree, please unpack each point and explain clearly how I'm wrong.

I can't figure out where your hangup is. Maybe a clear explanation will clear it up.

That would mean that you think that because I have believed, but yet teach what you deem, as Gr8Grace said , "false doctrine and attacks on His Grace, mercy, justice and righteousness" and what you called "blasphemy against Christ", that I am still going to heaven, even with me not believing your assertions, which would imply me not truly believing in Christ's work!
Wow!
Doug

I have to conclude that your confusion is too deep to penetrate.

Many believers have left the faith, for a lot of reasons. But the FACT that they DID believe, and therefore were given the gift of eternal life, they shall never perish, because Jesus said so.

I'm always amazed at the cheekiness of those who directly oppose what Jesus said so clearly.

The result of being given eternal life is to never perish. That's what John 10:28 means.

 

[FreeGrace2]

In John3:18 with its present & perfect tenses - the believer is not judged & there is no indication as to whether or not the believer remains a believer - the unbeliever remains/is in judgment with no indication as to whether or not the unbeliever will remain an unbeliever.

Correct.

RE: 2Thes2:12: An aorist verb, although typically translated with an English past tense, is actually timeless & speaks more of the kind of action than the time of action. Being timeless, it will draw from its context and associated verbs.

The point still stands, that it is only those who 'have not believed', which means they NEVER believed, will be condemned. There is no other way to understand both verses.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's painful to watch FG2 teach Greek & accuse others of not understanding it. The lack of humility is tragic.

To ease your pain, just put me on "block". That should do it.

I only point out what Greek grammar texts teach. So if you have a problem with that, you are beyond help yourself. Tibiasdad seems to have no grip on the present tense. I point out the meaning of the Greek present tense, which refutes his opinion about it.

If that's painful for you to see, don't see it. Or maybe you mean it's painful to watch someone who claims to have had Greek classes make such obvious mistakes.

Brings to mind something like: NKJ Romans 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge

You are free to block me or correct me. Take your pick. But what I present comes straight from Greek grammar texts.

So prove me wrong.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That depends on the gift, I suppose.

I don't care what you suppose. We're talking about the gift of eternal life, not some old junker. Or any other object.

If you are gifted a car for your 16th birthday, but are told you can't have the keys until you're 21, that's not a functional gift in any meaningful sense.

Wrong on several levels. First, as a gift, with the guarantee of future completion (keys), it's something to look forward to. Nothing wrong with that. Second, it is STILL yours NOW. Of course I can't experience eternity now, but I HAVE the gift of eternal life.

If the gift of eternal life is "given" at age 20, for example, but isn't experienced until you're 90, that's not very functionally meaningful either.

If you can't grasp the fact that possession of eternal life is part of the real change in every believer (as a new creation), then I guess there's no use in even trying to explain it to you.

And life is, by definition, a functional entity

More error. Just visit ANY nursing home and see how "functional" many of the patients are. Yet, all of them are categorized as alive.

So you just don't really know what you are talking about. Regarding a number of subjects.

so if it is not functionally experienced until eternity, you don't really possess anything meaningful beyond the promise of God to do what he said.

Pitiful comment.

No, I think anyone who is not a believer will perish.

That's not what Jesus SAID. He said recipients of eternal life shall never perish. You would have been biblically correct to have said this instead:

Anyone who has not believed will perish. That would be in alignment with John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12.

Any believer (which is a present tense expression, and one you ironically keep using) will not ever perish.

The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that "believer" means a new creation. A child of God. Those aren't expressions of tense.

I do not espouse, as you do, that one can be a saved believer and a condemned unbeliever at the same time.[/QUOT]
I don't believe that bit of contradiction either. So why do you ascribe it to me??

Only those who "have not believed" or "have NEVER believed" will be condemned.

The difference between us is that I believe what the Bible says.

Thus, to put it simply, an unbeliever that is now a believer will never perish

There is no such thing as "an unbeliever that is now a believer". It's as though you actually accept blatant contradictions.

If an unbeliever becomes a believer, you CANNOT now call them an unbeliever. And you just did that. Once a person believes, they HAVE believed, and it CANNOT be said of them that they "never believed", or that they "have not believed".

but a believer that ceases to believe and thus becomes an unbeliever again will suffer the same fate as if he had never believed

if not to a greater degree of torment. As Peter says, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”" (2 Peter 3:20-22)

One must understand the meaning of "at the end" in order to properly understand the passage. I know Arminians use this passage as support for loss of salvation, but it doesn't say that. Not here, and not anywhere else either.

The words "at the end" refer to the end of their physical life. iow, when a believer turns away from the faith, they ARE "worse off" than before they turned away.

Why? Because of God's very painful discipline. loss of blessings, and the pain of discipline will make their life post-faith MUCH WORSE than if they hadn't turned from the faith.

How is that not only reasonable, but aligns with Scripture?

God still has to welcome us in to his kingdom and pronounce "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord", only then will eternity be a settled issue experientially; until that time it is a hope that we do not yet have.

That's only your own opinion. The point is that parable you partially cited is about eternal reward. And God will only say that to those who endured in the faith. There will be many in heaven who won't hear those words. Like Chuck Templeton.

Rom 8:22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Doug

OK, now explain why you quoted this passage. What was your point?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I do not think that "have not believed" (perfect tense) necessarily implies "have never believed."

I think that you could have stopped typing with "I do not think".

It doesn't matter (reality) what you think. What matters is truth (reality).

And the words "have not believed" does mean "has never believed". How could it mean otherwise?

Or, explain to me how someone who HAD believed in the past can be described as "have not believed".

You say that a person who believes in the past, but now no longer does is no longer capable of being condemned.[/QUOTE]
Not I. John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 say that.

But Paul says in Romans 14:23 - "He who doubts is condemned [literally, "has been condemned already and still is]."(perfect tense) So this person was once, before believing, condemned, then starts believing and thus is not condemned, but now, by doing something without faith (doubting) they are condemned again. So why can't a believer who has fallen away from belief be referred to as you are "condemned because you have not believed" ( perfect tense: meaning you have not believed at some point in the past and are still not presently)? There is no need to necessitate that the starting point of unbelief was the beginning of our life. Context determines the logical starting point. I think you are forcing a meaning into the perfect tense that isn't necessary.

Doug

Here is the verse:

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.

Do you really think that a person who doubts about certain foods yet eats them will go to hell????? Seriously??? The word "condemned" is used in various ways, not always about eternal condemnation to the lake of fire.

However, I want to focus on this part of your paragraph:

"So why can't a believer who has fallen away from belief be referred to as you are "condemned because you have not believed" ( perfect tense: meaning you have not believed at some point in the past and are still not presently)?"

They CAN'T for the obvious reason that is found in your own statement!! You begin with a 'believer'. That means they HAVE believed. Therefore, it CANNOT be said of them that "you have not believed". Because they HAVE believed. But just not doing so now.

And that is exactly what John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 are saying.

Once a person HAS believed, they won't be condemned. Which is just another way of expressing John 10:28 that says recipients of etenral life (they HAVE believed) shall never perish (not be condemned).

If you can't understand and accept this, I have no reason to continue discussion with you. Lack of discernment and basic understanding of the meaning of words prevents any advancement of the discussion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I'm sure you are aware that a statement can be worded in several ways. In fact, what you provide here is EXACTLY the same as what John wrote. What I don't understand is WHY you don't understand that."

Which statement is "EXACTLY the same as what John wrote"?

Doug

You need to go back to where I posted that. It was a response to what you posted. That's where you'll get the context for my statement.

I keep my responses very close to the posts of others. So, find the post where I posted that, and you'll see what YOU posted that I responded to.

And if you disagree, then provide what you said, what I said, and explain how I'm wrong.

 

[TibiasDad]

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.

Do you really think that a person who doubts about certain foods yet eats them will go to hell????? Seriously??? The word "condemned" is used in various ways, not always about eternal condemnation to the lake of fire.

1) You do realize that Paul calls it "sin"? People who sin, and do not repent of and cease said sin, end up in hell.

Gal 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Remember, Paul is warning Christians about this type of behavior. That is why he said, "So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh' in 5:16. if you gratify the desires of the flesh rather than walking by the Spirit (and "walking" means how we conduct our lives; so what happens after we believe does matter, and that eternally) you will do the "acts of the flesh" and "will not inherit the Kingdom of God".

I anticipate that you will say the "kingdom of God" is merely a "reward of reigning with Christ", and so will answer that tomfoolery with Paul's words is Eph 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For 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. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.

God's wrath is not a matter of "loss of reward" but of absolute rejection and condemnation.

And Paul says again, in 1 Cor 6, "7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9Or 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.


2) "The word "condemned" is used in various ways, not always about eternal condemnation to the lake of fire"

The Greek word, katakrinó, "condemned" is used 18 times in the NT, and every time is concerned with utter destruction and/or death, both physical and eternal, and many time both! It is never used in reference to "loss of reward".


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I said:
"I'm sure you are aware that a statement can be worded in several ways. In fact, what you provide here is EXACTLY the same as what John wrote. What I don't understand is WHY you don't understand that."

You need to go back to where I posted that. It was a response to what you posted. That's where you'll get the context for my statement.

I keep my responses very close to the posts of others. So, find the post where I posted that, and you'll see what YOU posted that I responded to.

And if you disagree, then provide what you said, what I said, and explain how I'm wrong.

So, you don't know to which statement you were referring? Doesn't surprise me.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I'm always amazed at the cheekiness of those who directly oppose what Jesus said so clearly.

You do realize that calling me "cheeky" is, in itself, and act of "cheekiness"?

cheekiness - the trait of being rude and impertinent; inclined to take liberties. insolence, impertinence, impudence, crust, freshness, gall. rudeness, discourtesy - a manner that is rude and insulting. chutzpa, chutzpah, hutzpah - (Yiddish) unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity.

But I guess you can do that kind of stuff (and worse) and still have eternal life in heaven! (I mean you can't do much of anything, not having any rewards and all, but at least you can stand with the angels and over look the lake of fire at the people who were doing the same kind of things you were doing and gloat! Whata ya got to lose?)

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

1) You do realize that Paul calls it "sin"? People who sin, and do not repent of and cease said sin, end up in hell.

I challenge you to quote ANY verse that says this.

Gal 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Nope. "inheriting the kingdom" is about reward IN the kingdom. There are 3 parallel passages that say the same thing. Technically 2 say the "same thing", or "not inherit the kingdom the kingdom of God". The 3rd one says "have no inheritance IN the kingdom". All are about behavior, or what prevents one from inheriting the kingdom or having an inheritance IN the kingdom.

The reason I emphasize the word "IN" is because it shows that entrance is not being denied, but instead, having an inheritance IN the kingdom.

Rom 8:17b has the same principle; being a co-heir with Christ is based on "sharing in His sufferings" in order to "share in His glory". Obviously the Millennial Kingdom will certainly be "His glory", and only those believers who "shared in His sufferings", or "endured" (2 Tim 2:12) will inherit His kingdom.

The issue is what the believer can expect IN the kingdom; not whether they will enter the kingdom.

Remember, Paul is warning Christians about this type of behavior. That is why he said, "So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh' in 5:16. if you gratify the desires of the flesh rather than walking by the Spirit (and "walking" means how we conduct our lives; so what happens after we believe does matter, and that eternally) you will do the "acts of the flesh" and "will not inherit the Kingdom of God".

See above.

I anticipate that you will say the "kingdom of God" is merely a "reward of reigning with Christ"

I will say NOTHING of the sort, that it's "merely" a reward. How absurd. To attach the absurd word "merely" to any eternal reward only shows your own personal disdain for what God has promised faithful believers.

and so will answer that tomfoolery with Paul's words is Eph 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For 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. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.

There it is. Thanks. "no...person...has any inheritance IN the kingdom of Christ and of God". The issue is about what is IN the kingdom, not the foolish idea about not entering the kingdom.

But you seem to be clearly not interested in "mere" doctrine.

God's wrath is not a matter of "loss of reward" but of absolute rejection and condemnation.

That is only your opinion. God's wrath is directed toward sin, and believers sin.

And Paul says again, in 1 Cor 6, "7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9Or 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.

This is the 3rd parallel passage. 2 say "not inherit the kingdom" and 1 has "have no inheritance IN the kingdom". They all mean the same thing. It's about what certain believers will NOT have IN the kingdom.

The Greek word, katakrinó, "condemned" is used 18 times in the NT, and every time is concerned with utter destruction and/or death, both physical and eternal, and many time both! It is never used in reference to "loss of reward".
Doug

You want to argue with Strongs?

katakrinó: to give judgment against
Original Word: κατακρίνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katakrinó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ak-ree'-no)
Definition: to give judgment against
Usage: I condemn, judge worthy of punishment.
HELPS Word-studies
2632 katakrínō(from 2596 /katá, "down, according to" intensifying 2919 /krínō, "judge") – properly, judge down, i.e. issue a penalty (exactly condemn); to judge someone "decisively (decidedly) as guilty."

Any time a believer sins, he is judged as guilty. All of the red words can easily refer to a believer who has sinned.

Haven't you read Isa 1:18-20, where God makes clear the consequences of obedience and rebellion? You need to.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So, you don't know to which statement you were referring? Doesn't surprise me.


Doug

Good grief! You're the one asking about my comment, which was a direct response to one of YOUR OWN comments. And I always include the quote of the poster to which I am responding, for context. If you didn't read my post thoroughly, that's not my problem. Or are you not that interested in looking back to the post I commented in? It can't be that far back in the thread.

I guess you don't read my posts very carefully. However, the answer to your question is found in what YOU posted, to which I responded.