Temporal Salvation?

[GDL]

I agree, we are saved when we believe, however it is the way Jesus means believe, not necessarily our post modern definition of believe.


JLB

So, I assume you also mean we are Children of God "when we believe".

Do you mean we become Children of God the moment we first believe (this was my question)?

What do you think is meant in John 1:12 re: being given by Jesus the exousia to become Children of God?

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is what you cannot prove from Scripture.

In fact, "abiding in Christ" is for bearing fruit, not getting or maintaining salvation. Just read John 15:1-7. It's all very clear.

What follows is what I posted, but shows up as what you post. Please learn how to format a post before posting.

I'm going to put quote marks around the following, and color it just to remind you of what I posted about your posts.

"You are guilty of projection. What you charge others, you are the one guilty of.


Inheriting eternal life is a reference to reward in eternity. But your theology has no place for rewards in heaven at all. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of reward for obedience throughout the Bible.


See? Even you agree with me. I've highlighted your own words that fully support what I claim about inheriting eternal life.

The last 4 words are ignored, since you can't find any evidence for them from Scripture.

Those believers who "have followed the Lord, faithfully, and not fallen away from Him, have not deserted Him in time of persecution" WILL absolutely receive eternal reward.

But eternal reward isn't related to "to save their life" in any way.

Except Jesus said nothing about your fantasy idea of "temporary salvation". There is no such thing in Scripture. I keep asking for such verses, and you keep failing to comply.

Sure. John 15:1-7 is about "bearing fruit", as I have just pointed out. Not getting or keeping salvation. Why you keep making that mistake is a wonder.

Bingo! Thanks for agreeing.

Quite a twisted view of Scripture.

In fact, those who "have believed" (note the tense; aorist=past), ARE sealed with the Holy Spirit, who is a deposit that GUARANTEES the inheritance of the believer as God's possession for the day of redemption.

Eph 1:13,14
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Eph 4:30 - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

2 Cor 1:22 - set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

These verses directly support and say what I claim. Unlike your claims.

No, you have the burden to prove that a believer who is sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who GUARANTEES the believer's inheritance for the day of redemption CAN BE UNSEALED.

So, before you try to present any more of your 'claims', where is the verse that teaches that sealed believers can become unsealed?

Nope. Doesn't say anything about any risk of being unsealed.

So, UNTIL you find any verse that specifically teaches that believers can become unsealed, you have no point.

What God seals CANNOT be unsealed.

Now, the ONLY WAY to refute my statement here is to find ANY verse that specifically says that the believer sealed with the Holy Spirit can be UNSEALED.

I know there aren't any such verses, but what verse do you think teaches such an idea?"

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15

This is the end of your OSAS narrative.

No, I've already explained this verse to you many times. But you're just not listening.

If John had meant that murderers lose eternal life, he wouldn't have needed to add the word "abiding". In fact, he wouldn't have even used that word.

But, since you don't want to understand the biblical meaning of 'abiding', there isn't anyting else to discuss with you. It's all about fellowship. And the purpose of abiding in Christ is for bearing fruit, as Jesus made very clear in John 15:1-7.

Unless a believer is IN fellowship with the Lord, they CANNOT bear fruit. That's the point.

So, a believer who murderers is NOT IN fellowship with the Lord, and is NOT living in sphere of (abiding in) Him.

It's pretty obvious.

I share Eph 1:13,14, Eph 4:30 and 2 Cor 1:22 for the express purpose of sharing what God's Word says about His sealing of His children.

And you still haven't provide ANY verse that teaches that a sealed believer can be unsealed.

Therefore, the guarantee mentioned in Eph 1:14 is a permanent guarantee. There will be NO unsealing of believers. Instead, they entrance into heaven is GUARANTEED.

Therefore, it is the END of your OSNAS theory.

Your theory cannot stand up to Scripture.

 

[WordSword]

As long as we continue in the faith, we continue in Christ.


And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. Colossians 1:21-23

if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel

“If ye continue in the faith” is just another identification of one who is truly reborn, same as that which manifests one is still an unbeliever and ceases from the hypocrisy (departs from a hypocritical profession): “if they had been of us, they would have continued” (1Jo 2:19). This is also the same for the “sower” parables. Only those who continue are reborn, and they are the only ones that are not hypocritical and never apostatize.

Those who depart from the faith, are no longer reconciled to Christ.

They show they were never reconciled, or they would have continued unto to end.

 

[FreeGrace2]

“If ye continue in the faith” is just another identification of one who is truly reborn, same as that which manifests one is still an unbeliever and ceases from the hypocrisy (departs from a hypocritical profession): “if they had been of us, they would have continued” (1Jo 2:19). This is also the same for the “sower” parables. Only those who continue are reborn, and they are the only ones that are not hypocritical and never apostatize.

They show they were never reconciled, or they would have continued unto to end.

I'm curious about your understanding of Jesus' comment about the second soil in Luke 8:13. He said the soil "believed for a while". You've noted that "true faith" will not apostatize, yet His words were clear that the second soil did. In times of testing/temptation, the second soil ceased to believe.

Thanks.

 

[WordSword]

I'm curious about your understanding of Jesus' comment about the second soil in Luke 8:13. He said the soil "believed for a while". You've noted that "true faith" will not apostatize, yet His words were clear that the second soil did. In times of testing/temptation, the second soil ceased to believe.

Thanks.

Hi FG! The phrase "believe for a while" is a hyperbolic expression of "seem to believe," because common sense shows that one cannot claim they truly believe in Christ and then eventually say they truly do not believe. One can think they believe but can latter confirm they really don't, by revealing their hypocrisy.

Everyone who has the appearance of being in Christ is shown so by their professing Him to others. So when Jesus said, "Every branch in Me" (Jn 15:2), it is in the sense that "everyone professing to be in Me," which is how all begin in Christianity. But the truth of it will soon be known to self and to all concerning whether or not the claim is genuine.

I think it nonsensical to conceive that one could ever find a reason not to believe God after truly believing Him. The trip-up of the Enemy is in one not realizing that a hypocrite is not "departing from," "falling away from," etc. a genuine profession, having never been reborn, but from only looking like he was saved. Simplified, genuine believers remain believers and false believers remain false believers. You can't honestly say you truly have faith and truly be in possession of it if you eventually and ultimately manifest unbelief.

 

[GDL]

I think it nonsensical to conceive that one could ever find a reason not to believe God after truly believing Him. The trip-up of the Enemy is in one not realizing that a hypocrite is not "departing from," "falling away from," etc. a genuine profession, having never been reborn, but from only looking like he was saved. Simplified, genuine believers remain believers and false believers remain false believers. You can't honestly say you truly have faith and truly be in possession of it if you eventually and ultimately manifest unbelief.

You do realize that what you find "nonsensical" today, you may find makes sense to you tomorrow, don't you? If you don't you likely haven't lived very long, relatively speaking.

 

[TibiasDad]

So, I assume you also mean we are Children of God "when we believe".

Do you mean we become Children of God the moment we first believe (this was my question)?

What do you think is meant in John 1:12 re: being given by Jesus the exousia to become Children of God?

Pardon my eavesdropping, GDL, but I think the meaning of exousia in Jn 1:12 is not that we are not children at the point of saving faith, but that the journey now begun as a child of God is within our right to exercise our wills toward accomplishing the ultimate fulfillment of being a child of God, and/or choosing to remain in the vine or not. In other words, Christ alone can give us life and thus make us heirs of eternal life and children of God, but he also, in doing such, gives us the right to exercise our freedom of choice in what do do with what he has done for us!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Hi FG! The phrase "believe for a while" is a hyperbolic expression of "seem to believe," because common sense shows that one cannot claim they truly believe in Christ and then eventually say they truly do not believe. One can think they believe but can latter confirm they really don't, by revealing their hypocrisy.

This proves that you are being circular in your thinking! Common sense is an amalgamation of assumed truths being applied to a question. Your are being circular, because you are assuming facts not in evidence by the context itself. There is no reason to see any hyperbole in "believe for a while". Again, if the simple reading of a text makes sense, there is no need to seek another meaning.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hi FG! The phrase "believe for a while" is a hyperbolic expression of "seem to believe," because common sense shows that one cannot claim they truly believe in Christ and then eventually say they truly do not believe.

Hi WS!

I think the phrase is clear enough as is. What grammar text or any other Greek text say or suggest that "believe for a while" is a hyperbolic expression meaning "seem to believe"? That seems to me to be a denial of the very words.

No disrespect, but using "common sense" as a defense can be made on all sides. So, let's just examine Scripture, or scholarly Greek texts. Truth is the epitome of common sense. There is no better "sense" than truth itself.

The actual Greek of Luke 8:13 says "who for a time believe". The verse indicates that they actually believed, but only "for a time".

iow, the second soil changed their mind.

Since you don't believe that a believer can actually change their mind, is there a verse that makes this clear from plain and direct language?

One can think they believe but can latter confirm they really don't, by revealing their hypocrisy.

Even believers can be hypocrites, so this statement appears to be an opinion, rather than fact.

Everyone who has the appearance of being in Christ is shown so by their professing Him to others. So when Jesus said, "Every branch in Me" (Jn 15:2), it is in the sense that "everyone professing to be in Me," which is how all begin in Christianity. But the truth of it will soon be known to self and to all concerning whether or not the claim is genuine.

I disagree. When Jesus said "every branch in Me", He wasn't referring to what people were "claiming", which is what you are saying that He meant. I don't see any such dots to connect.

Those who are in Christ ARE IN Christ. It has nothing to do about what people claim.

I think it nonsensical to conceive that one could ever find a reason not to believe God after truly believing Him.

Well, Jesus gave us a reason in Luke 8:13 when He said "in time of 'peirasmos' fell away".

The Greek word is translated "testing, trial, temptation".

And this is what happened to Charles Templeton. He was an evangelist who mentored a young Billy Graham when he began his ministry as an evangelist. Both of them toured Europe together in the 40's. The "test" or "trial" that led Chuck to cease to believe was his inability to reconcile a young earth view with science. He left the faith, fulfilling Luke 8:13 directly.

The trip-up of the Enemy is in one not realizing that a hypocrite is not "departing from," "falling away from," etc. a genuine profession, having never been reborn, but from only looking like he was saved.[/QUOTE]
But Luke 8:13 makes a clear statement about the fact that the second soil did believe.

Simplified, genuine believers remain believers and false believers remain false believers.

Chuck Templeton refutes your claim here.

You can't honestly say you truly have faith and truly be in possession of it if you eventually and ultimately manifest unbelief.

Jesus said the second soil did, and Charles Templeton did. Just 2 examples out of many many others.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm in no way arguing for leaving the faith. In fact, I warn anyone who thinks they can and still be saved that such action will result in very severe discipline from the Lord. Heb 12:11 says God's discipline is painful. We have a number of examples in Scriptures that prove this.

1. The Exodus generation. 1 Cor 10:1-11
2. Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5s
3. Incestuos man. 1 Cor 5:5
4. Hymaneus and Alexander. 1 Tim 1:19,20

The difference between me and Arminianism is that they simply default all disobedience and apostasy to loss of salvation. In fact, they seem to have no concept of God's discipline for His own children.

The difference between me and Calvinism is they simply default loss of faith as having never had true faith to begin with.

In both the Arminian and Calvinist camps, the end result for such people is hell.

In my understanding, the end result for such people is entrance into heaven, after being under God's heavy hand of discipline in time, and loss of eternal reward when they enter heaven.

1 Cor 3:14,15 show clearly that a believer can have all their efforts burned up (loss of reward) but "they will be saved". I don't see that either Arminianism or Calvinism believe that.

 

[GDL]

Pardon my eavesdropping, GDL, but I think the meaning of exousia in Jn 1:12 is not that we are not children at the point of saving faith, but that the journey now begun as a child of God is within our right to exercise our wills toward accomplishing the ultimate fulfillment of being a child of God, and/or choosing to remain in the vine or not. In other words, Christ alone can give us life and thus make us heirs of eternal life and children of God, but he also, in doing such, gives us the right to exercise our freedom of choice in what do do with what he has done for us!

Doug

No problem Doug. Thanks for the thoughts. Happy to have you.

The issue I'm looking for more certainty on takes into account both exousia & genētai with the latter very possibly telling us something we typically gloss over.

When chasing terminology like "Children of God" and "born from God" we end up with instruction that equates such with doing righteousness, etc. (1J3 for example). So, you've picked this up in the way you've explained it with your "ultimate fulfillment" statement.

What I'm saying is I think there's more to such terminology than we typically apply to it. The same can be found for many such terms - they ultimately display the most definition in Scripture tying them to obeying God (keeping His commandments, etc.). This is why I found the earlier questions in this thread such as when one is "born again" interesting. I'm normally open to many questions & find red flags in "everybody knows that" attitudes - even if they may be correct in the end.

To encapsulate it in a way, IMO from personal studies and an overall view, God will have lovingly obedient Children in the end just as He has a perfectly lovingly obedient First-Born Son - our First-Born Brother, Lord, Savior who paved & leads the way. There will be no other types of Children of God.

 

[WordSword]

I'm curious about your understanding of Jesus' comment about the second soil in Luke 8:13. He said the soil "believed for a while". You've noted that "true faith" will not apostatize, yet His words were clear that the second soil did. In times of testing/temptation, the second soil ceased to believe.

Thanks.

Thanks you too. Just wanted to share this:
"Which for a while believe:" their faith is a temporary one, like that of Simon Magus; which shows it is not true faith; for that is an abiding grace, Christ, who is the author, is the finisher of it, and prays for it, that it fail not. The Persic version renders it, "in the time of hearing they have faith"; and such sort of hearers there are, who, whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it. The Arabic version renders it, "they believe for a small time"; their faith do not continue long, nor their profession of it, both are soon dropped" -J Gill

 

[TibiasDad]

Thanks you too. Just wanted to share this:
"Which for a while believe:" their faith is a temporary one, like that of Simon Magus; which shows it is not true faith; for that is an abiding grace, Christ, who is the author, is the finisher of it, and prays for it, that it fail not. The Persic version renders it, "in the time of hearing they have faith"; and such sort of hearers there are, who, whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it. The Arabic version renders it, "they believe for a small time"; their faith do not continue long, nor their profession of it, both are soon dropped" -J Gill

The problem with the Simon Magus example, in my view, is that when confronted by Peter, Simon seems to repent and ask for forgiveness! (Acts 8:24) While there is nothing said about his fate, there is an expectation that Peter would certainly have prayed for Simon's forgiveness and God would certainly have forgiven him. As a new believer, his old ways of thinking would not have changed, and Peter's rebuke (and subsequent forgiveness) would go a long way toward teaching him the correct way of thinking. What probably didn't happen, is what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.
I'm discovering that you are a Gill groupie, which is not a bad thing per se, anymore than I am a Wesley groupie, but they are not infallible, and I still find Gill's reasoning short sighted and circular. His description of "such sort of hearers there are, who, whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it" does not fit the description that Jesus gives, which is one of persecution.

Doug

 

[WordSword]

The problem with the Simon Magus example, in my view, is that when confronted by Peter, Simon seems to repent and ask for forgiveness! (Acts 8:24)

I can see why one might think that of the sorcerer by the way it reads, but I think the correct inference is that he never chose to truly believe, and since it's certain enough to me that he never chose to repent and ask for forgiveness he remained unregenerate; because one cannot confess, repent or ask for forgiveness of sin for another.

 

[TibiasDad]

I can see why one might think that of the sorcerer by the way it reads, but I think the correct inference is that he never chose to truly believe, and since it's certain enough to me that he never chose to repent and ask for forgiveness he remained unregenerate; because one cannot confess, repent or ask for forgiveness of sin for another.

The text says that Simon believed and was baptized and then that Simon said "“Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me", which would have included "you have no part or share in this ministry". To me, it sounds very much like repentance!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I'm curious about your understanding of Jesus' comment about the second soil in Luke 8:13. He said the soil "believed for a while". You've noted that "true faith" will not apostatize, yet His words were clear that the second soil did. In times of testing/temptation, the second soil ceased to believe.

Thanks."

Thanks you too. Just wanted to share this:
"Which for a while believe:" their faith is a temporary one, like that of Simon Magus; which shows it is not true faith

Would you agree that your statement 'which shows...' is an opinion, rather than fact?

for that is an abiding grace, Christ, who is the author, is the finisher of it, and prays for it, that it fail not.

The Bible says that Jesus prayed for Peter, that his faith would not fail. I am not aware of any verse where Jesus prays for all believers that their faith would not fail. And we have the second soil, as an exampe. If Jesus prayed for all believers, then why would He have given us that example?

The Persic version renders it, "in the time of hearing they have faith"; and such sort of hearers there are, who, whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it.

I think you just affirmed my position by the admission that they "either forget it" or "falling into bad company are prevailed upon to doubt of it". These words indicate that believers can and do change their minds.

The Arabic version renders it, "they believe for a small time"; their faith do not continue long, nor their profession of it, both are soon dropped" -J Gill

Yes, this is what Jesus said. But He said nothing to indicate that their belief for a while was a nonsaving faith. Nor do any other verse.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I can see why one might think that of the sorcerer by the way it reads, but I think the correct inference is that he never chose to truly believe

Where would you point to such "inference" in the case of Simon the sorcerer that "he never chose to truly believe"? What I read is that he did the exact same thing as the rest of the people:

Acts 8-
12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

In the Greek, the word "believed" is the same tense: aorist indicative active. The only difference is in the plural in v.12 and singular in v.13.

and since it's certain enough to me that he never chose to repent and ask for forgiveness he remained unregenerate

How is it certain that "he never chose to repent/ask for forgiveness"?

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!
21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God.
22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.
23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

What is certain to me is that Simon believed what Peter warned him of, which was God's divine discipline of physical death (perish) for his sin. And he was concerned enough about that to ask Peter to pray for him. Remember, he was a brand new believer. He knew very little, as all brand new believers do.

It is certain that his response was as appropriate as possible given his babyhood believer status.

because one cannot confess, repent or ask for forgiveness of sin for another.

Simon didn't ask Peter to do any of these things for him. His request was simple enough. He wanted Peter to pray that none of what Peter warned him of would not occur.

So, how would YOU pray for someone who asked you the same thing?

I would pray that God would reveal His plan for Simon to Simon and that Simon would understand God's will for him.

But what is clear is that an unbeliever would not likely ask what Simon did.

 

[GDL]

Pardon my eavesdropping, GDL, but I think the meaning of exousia in Jn 1:12 is not that we are not children at the point of saving faith, but that the journey now begun as a child of God is within our right to exercise our wills toward accomplishing the ultimate fulfillment of being a child of God, and/or choosing to remain in the vine or not. In other words, Christ alone can give us life and thus make us heirs of eternal life and children of God, but he also, in doing such, gives us the right to exercise our freedom of choice in what do do with what he has done for us!

Doug

Doug:

This is the type of detail I was speaking of when it comes to allowing the Scripture to define terminology such as "born again." This is also why I find interesting those questions re when someone becomes, for example, born again.

In this case I'm using "Children of God" as the example. We like to speak of how those who simply believe in Jesus Christ are born again & Children of God. But the Scripture defines Children of God quite differently, more strictly, and in much more detail. BTW, this is also some of the types of detail in our Text that lead me out of the FG camp, which IMO overemphasizes the entrance & under-emphasizes or almost explains away the necessity of things like continuous belief, growth, etc., by making things like rewards essentially optional. In reality, I see the Text telling us that we should be quite cautious in how we refer to ourselves. So, here's some detail PER THE SCIPTURE re who are the Children of God ("CoG"):

1. Jesus gave the capability to become CoG to whoever received Him – to those who believe in His name J1:12

2. CoG are those Jews & Gentiles (J11:52) who:

A. Confess Jesus Christ came in flesh 1J4:4

B. Do Righteousness 1J3:10

C. Keep God’s commandments/Love God 1J5:2

D. Love their fellow CoG; 1J3:10

E. Suffer together with Jesus Christ while being led by the Spirit & by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body Rom8:13—17

F. Are free from & thus no longer enslaved to corruption/depravity Rom8:21

G. Imitate God as His beloved Children Eph5:1

H. Obey Apostolic instruction to: (i) work to accomplish their Salvation in fear & trembling while God works in them to will & do what pleases Him, and; (ii) do all things to become blameless & innocent CoG without complaining & arguing as they hold fast the Word of Life Phil2:12—16

I. Will see Jesus Christ when He is revealed, and will be like Him 1J3:2

When I use this detail to let God explain to me who His Children are, it leaves little to no room for this immediate born again concept with no obedience to the commanded growth, or born again & walk away as warned & commanded not to do. As you said, there is an "ultimate fulfillment" to such terminology. The problem with the non-fulfillment theory is that when a Child of God is defined, the non-fulfilling do not fit the definition and would seem to be left out.

 

[TibiasDad]

Doug:

This is the type of detail I was speaking of when it comes to allowing the Scripture to define terminology such as "born again." This is also why I find interesting those questions re when someone becomes, for example, born again.

In this case I'm using "Children of God" as the example. We like to speak of how those who simply believe in Jesus Christ are born again & Children of God. But the Scripture defines Children of God quite differently, more strictly, and in much more detail. BTW, this is also some of the types of detail in our Text that lead me out of the FG camp, which IMO overemphasizes the entrance & under-emphasizes or almost explains away the necessity of things like continuous belief, growth, etc., by making things like rewards essentially optional. In reality, I see the Text telling us that we should be quite cautious in how we refer to ourselves. So, here's some detail PER THE SCIPTURE re who are the Children of God ("CoG"):

1. Jesus gave the capability to become CoG to whoever received Him – to those who believe in His name J1:12

2. CoG are those Jews & Gentiles (J11:52) who:

A. Confess Jesus Christ came in flesh 1J4:4

B. Do Righteousness 1J3:10

C. Keep God’s commandments/Love God 1J5:2

D. Love their fellow CoG; 1J3:10

E. Suffer together with Jesus Christ while being led by the Spirit & by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body Rom8:13—17

F. Are free from & thus no longer enslaved to corruption/depravity Rom8:21

G. Imitate God as His beloved Children Eph5:1

H. Obey Apostolic instruction to: (i) work to accomplish their Salvation in fear & trembling while God works in them to will & do what pleases Him, and; (ii) do all things to become blameless & innocent CoG without complaining & arguing as they hold fast the Word of Life Phil2:12—16

I. Will see Jesus Christ when He is revealed, and will be like Him 1J3:2

When I use this detail to let God explain to me who His Children are, it leaves little to no room for this immediate born again concept with no obedience to the commanded growth, or born again & walk away as warned & commanded not to do. As you said, there is an "ultimate fulfillment" to such terminology. The problem with the non-fulfillment theory is that when a Child of God is defined, the non-fulfilling do not fit the definition and would seem to be left out.

Amen, my brother. What I marvel at, is that one could possible read scripture and come to a different conclusion.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

Amen, my brother. What I marvel at, is that one could possible read scripture and come to a different conclusion.

Doug

Maybe kinda like when you read Johbn 10:28 and come to a diffrerent conclusion.

 

[Gr8Grace]

Doug:

This is the type of detail I was speaking of when it comes to allowing the Scripture to define terminology such as "born again." This is also why I find interesting those questions re when someone becomes, for example, born again.

In this case I'm using "Children of God" as the example. We like to speak of how those who simply believe in Jesus Christ are born again & Children of God. But the Scripture defines Children of God quite differently, more strictly, and in much more detail. BTW, this is also some of the types of detail in our Text that lead me out of the FG camp, which IMO overemphasizes the entrance & under-emphasizes or almost explains away the necessity of things like continuous belief, growth, etc., by making things like rewards essentially optional. In reality, I see the Text telling us that we should be quite cautious in how we refer to ourselves. So, here's some detail PER THE SCIPTURE re who are the Children of God ("CoG"):

1. Jesus gave the capability to become CoG to whoever received Him – to those who believe in His name J1:12

2. CoG are those Jews & Gentiles (J11:52) who:

A. Confess Jesus Christ came in flesh 1J4:4

B. Do Righteousness 1J3:10

C. Keep God’s commandments/Love God 1J5:2

D. Love their fellow CoG; 1J3:10

E. Suffer together with Jesus Christ while being led by the Spirit & by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body Rom8:13—17

F. Are free from & thus no longer enslaved to corruption/depravity Rom8:21

G. Imitate God as His beloved Children Eph5:1

H. Obey Apostolic instruction to: (i) work to accomplish their Salvation in fear & trembling while God works in them to will & do what pleases Him, and; (ii) do all things to become blameless & innocent CoG without complaining & arguing as they hold fast the Word of Life Phil2:12—16

I. Will see Jesus Christ when He is revealed, and will be like Him 1J3:2

When I use this detail to let God explain to me who His Children are, it leaves little to no room for this immediate born again concept with no obedience to the commanded growth, or born again & walk away as warned & commanded not to do. As you said, there is an "ultimate fulfillment" to such terminology. The problem with the non-fulfillment theory is that when a Child of God is defined, the non-fulfilling do not fit the definition and would seem to be left out.

Religion always puts the cart before the horse. Not one human being can do anything on your list unless one IS born again. We Have to be saved and sealed by the Spirit and operate under the filling of the Holy Spirit to do ANYTHING that is DIVINE good.
Yeah, we can try to make your list and a lot of us can fool many around us...........But our human good is like used menstrual rags to God.

We have to be saved, PERIOD. We have to be children of God BEFORE we can do ANYTHING that pleases Him.

We can't even understand your list nor His word unless we are saved and have His Spirit.......let alone try to fulfill it!