What Is "Salvation" In 1 Corinthians 10?

[marks]

So, you WEREN'T saying you thought discussing the context would help prove your point?

Accurate translation and interpretation require including the context surrounding the part one is looking at. Personally I don't think so much in terms of "proving my point". It's more about making sure we are giving a thorough look at what we are looking at.

Maybe something to say at this point . . . I don't have a dog in this fight. I think I know what these passages are saying, and present them accordingly, but if I should ever find I've been mistaken that's a huge win for me.

I happen to think that in this instance we would do well to look at the contexts of where the writer was pulling this wording from.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if we are confining ourselves to 1 Corinthians 10.

Much love!

 

[GracePeace]

Accurate translation and interpretation require including the context surrounding the part one is looking at. Personally I don't think so much in terms of "proving my point". It's more about making sure we are giving a thorough look at what we are looking at.

Maybe something to say at this point . . . I don't have a dog in this fight. I think I know what these passages are saying, and present them accordingly, but if I should ever find I've been mistaken that's a huge win for me.

OK, so, I was mistaken in thinking "You think the contexts are going to help prove your point", but not because you thought they would prove my point, but because you do not think along the lines of "proving your point" at all, you're hoping to get a better understanding even if it invalidates your view.

Got it.

I happen to think that in this instance we would do well to look at the contexts of where the writer was pulling this wording from.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if we are confining ourselves to 1 Corinthians 10.

Much love!

To me, I don't mind discussing passages that relate to my understanding of 1 Corinthians 10, as long as: 1) there is not a sense that someone is trying to run and hide from what I'm saying the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10 is without addressing the actual argument I'm making from 1 Corinthians 10 (ie, just using subterfuge), and 2) they first add to the actual discussion, addressing the point, before raising their favorite little verses, which, to me, amounts to nothing more than deflection from the topic (in that case, they should just make their own thread, since they're not interested in discussing topic of the thread I made).

 

[GracePeace]

It does not matter,

If your point is wrong. It is wrong..

I don't mind anyone thinking my point is wrong, but, if I've already answered your point, then, instead of repeating it, as if it had not already been answered, answer the answers that had already been supplied your point. That's how discussions work.

Your right, it was a type.

I know.

The law showed we could not be good enough (cursed is the one who does not obey every word)

The Law shutting every mouth (Ro 3) is not the Law putting forth a "type"--you're mixing apples and oranges--these are two different aspects of the Law's ability to edify.

and showed how remission of sin would occur (blood of an innocent on day of atonement) Jesus said he died once. He is not going to die again for sins he forgot to die for..

Right, that's why if you've been saved by the blood, but you go on sinning, instead of living in righteousness, there's no more sacrifice.

Not sure I agree in point. But we should always learn from those more mature than us

No, I'm saying that we learn about how Christianity (the anti-type) works from the Jews who had been saved (the type)--ie, after they were saved, they sinned, so they fell under God's wrath, despite having been saved from God's wrath.

lol.. THEY NEVER SHOWED PROOF OF REPENTANCE>

But hey, If you want to claim a person who is saved and continues from that point forward in unbelief and loving their sin was saved.

1. The Jews were saved from Egypt, which is a type. I've repeated this over and over, yet you seem not to be able to wrap your mind around it.
2. Paul said the Corinthians were sinning ("...for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?"), so, for anyone who reads the Bible, your idea that Christians automatically live righteously, and don't sin, is inadmissible.

No. the rest in the promised land was purchased by the blood of the lamb.

It seems you are getting mixed up.
"The blood of the lamb" refers to Christ's blood, which is the anti-type corresponding to the type of the blood of lambs whereby the Jews were rescued/saved from Egypt. The Jews did not receive the merits of Christ, and therefore the merits of Christ could not have purchased rest in the promised land for them.

People do not just stop trusting people unless those people become or prove thjemselves to be untrustworthy.

Irrelevant. The discussion in 1 Corinthians 10 is about those who were saved in a typological way, and how that corresponds to life for Christians today.

Its not the writer. It is you

Hebrews is not erring.

The one who thinks people who never had faith and never repented are saved is the one in error

Again, you're completely missing my point.
I do not know how to make it more clear than I already have.
I hope the readers will be able to see this.
I have always denied that the Jews who were saved in a merely typological way were actually saved in the substantive way that believers are saved today--"they never believed and had their lives changed", therefore, is irrelevant, especially because it is PAUL who is drawing the parallel between how the Jews were "saved" and STILL fell under God's wrath for sinning AFTER HAVING BEEN SAVED, and forfeited the promise God made them, and how that very same thing is true of Christians today. It is not myself who is inventing the parallel, so your argument that "well, they weren't really changed, so they never believed, so they never fell away from faith" is completely unwarranted--you either believe what Paul is saying about how their experiences mirror our own or you reject it, but there is no argumentation that can debunk it.

And you were wrong every time

You never furnished any reason to believe differently than what I asserted.

lol. I am not thorough. Dude give me a break.. I have been just as thorough as you are..

You're being more thorough now.

No one said christians do not sin, Moses sinned

Oh, OK, then you should have no problem with what I've stated.

There is a huge difference between LIVING IN SIN, and not being perfect.

Well, the authors of Scripture warn Christians about going back to living in sin--1 Corinthians 10 says we can understand by looking at what happened to the Jews God saved that, despite having been saved from God's wrath, you will fall under God's wrath, and forfeit the promise He made, if you do that.

Yes, Christians are rebuked and corrected.

It does not mean they lose salvation.

Stop responding to things I never said.
I never said that if a Christian sins, and needs correction, that he is, in fact, lost and hellbound.
I said the Scripture warns Christians against sinning because, despite having been saved from wrath, you will fall under wrath and forfeit the Promise God made.

We can;t sin ourself out of grace. because we can't obey ourselves into grace.

Adam sinned himself out of what God gave him.
I have a lot more I could say on this, but it's hard enough getting the basic points across to you, in particular, so I'm not going to open a whole nother can of worms.

No. Your drawing the wrong conclusion

Describe how I am drawing the wrong conclusion about Paul's parallel.

No argument here

But he saved us,, He is not in the process of saving us, Salvation is a completed action.

Not by works of righteousness but by his mercy HE SAVED US

Yes, and, according to 1 Corinthians 10, "saved" isn't what you think it means--as I have been explaining all along.

I gift can not be earned
A gift can not be purchased
A gift can not be unearned.

You need to learn what a gift is.. not me my friend

According to Scripture, God gives gifts that must be laid hold upon (Deut 1:8; 1 Ti 6:12).
What is your response to those Scriptures proving God's gifts must be taken and laid hold of by conquest?

God gave it to them, David understood this..

David wasn't alive in that generation that entered the Promise.

Those who had faith allowed God to work through them, God already gave the victory

Again, and again, and again: I never alleged the Jews referred to in 1 Corinthians had anti-typical "saving faith"; I always said they were saved typologically to show us what salvation is and is not. That's what the discussion is about. By describing their falling under God's wrath on account of their sinning after having been saved, we can know that salvation is not what you are claiming it is. You have a malformed, a warped, vision of what salvation is and is not, because it has no fidelity with the constrictions Scripture places upon it; your vision and version of salvation is uninformed and is a misrepresentation of reality.

But you still think you can be good enough. You have not even been taught by the law. let alone the word of God

The Law is the Word of God, so I don't know why you would want to say "let alone the Word of God".

 

[GracePeace]

In verse 1 Paul is speaking about The exodus of the Jews, and his audience is....>"our Fathers"..... so, He's talking to Jews.

Well, not that it's that important, but there is speculation that this is an inference that Paul believes that part of Gentile believers being grafted in to Israel includes this aspect of inheriting the fathers--eg, Abraham is their father.

Also, whether Paul is addressing Jewish believers or Gentile believers is irrelevant: he is telling believers about how Christianity works, and how Christianity follows the pattern that was previously laid out, and how we can therefore know that if we go on sinning we also will fall under God's wrath, despite having already been "saved" from it, and we will forfeit the promise God made just as they forfeited the promise God made them.

And he recounts the journey... to come to this context...

12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Nope, he consistently warns the Christians not to DO THE THINGS, THE SINS, WHICH THE SAVED JEWS COMMITTED, OR ELSE THE SAME THINGS THAT HAPPENED TO THEM WILL ALSO HAPPEN TO US--WE WILL FALL UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD AND FORFEIT THE PROMISE GOD MADE US.

And here we see that Paul is describing someone who is trying by self effort, to do what can only be done as "Christ in you"... "I can do all things through Christ"..

So, this is simply Christianity 101, where the new believer does not understand their Salvation, so they are trying to do it.

They are trying to be good, because they dont yet understand they have been "made righteous".. so, this believer is a Hebrews 6:1... diaper baby... they are a "babe in Christ" and have no understanding of what it means to have become "The righteousness of God, in Christ"..

Then Paul talks about temptation.... and teaches that there is always a God given way out, and that can be to empower you to "resist the devil and he will flee from you"


13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man:... and God will provide the escape.

My point was and is that "salvation" isn't what you guys make it out to be: we are saved by the blood of Christ, "our Passover sacrifice", just as the Jews were saved from the House of Bondage, by the Passover lambs, and YET they fell under God's wrath because they sinned after having been saved, and how that Paul draws the parallel to Christians and how these very same thing are warnings to Christians about what can happen to them.

You are not addressing that point, you are rambling about what some "youth pastor", or your "pastor", told you about the Gospel--it's completely beside the point.

 

[GracePeace]

yes I do.

You don't.
You think anything anyone does, any "activity", is a "work".
That's not the testimony of Scripture.

When, for instance, Paul reprimands the Galatians (his reprimanding them to bring them back into the faith, again, disproves your idea that Christians automatically live as God intends) for trying to be justified by the works of the Law, his solution to their problem is NOT "faith in Christ alone". Rather, his counsel is that they walk by faith, serve one another by faith which works by love. Walking in faith is walking in love. There is faith in Christ, and then there is the faith, the conviction, that God's love works in our hearts that we are to walk in before Him and as unto Him.
Now, Romans 1:17 says God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, which is why Romans 14:5 says each man must be fully convinced in his own mind, and why Romans 14:23 says what ever someone does that is not from faith, but from doubt, is a sin whereby they are condemned. How are they condemned if there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ? Because they're not abiding in Christ! How would they have abode in Christ? By keeping God's commands--believe in the Name of God's Son and love one another (walking by faith is walking by love because love is the root of one's faith or conviction about what is right and wrong). And by not abiding in the Son they're not abiding in the life either because the life is in the Son.
Nevertheless, when one is walking by faith, they are not revealing their own righteousness, but God's righteousness: those are not "works of the Law" whereby one has "a righteousness of their own".

To add to my point, in the Torah, when the Land has its Sabbath, its rest, it is still active.
The land is resting, yet it is active, it's just not working.
You do not know Scripture.
IF the land it is tilled, if its vines are pruned, if a harvest is performed--things that establish a Master-Slave relationship with it--then it is "working", and being caused to break its Sabbath, its rest. However, when it is left alone, and these things are not done to it, it is STILL active during its Sabbath rest, producing fruit which people may pass through and enjoy (just not "harvest"), but this activity doesn't qualify as "work", whereby its Sabbath rest would be broken, because no Master-Slave relationship has been established with it.
Therefore, again, not all "activity" is "work": you, and all others who share your view, approach Scripture with naked "logic", not giving any respect to the definitions and precedents before established.

We work to earn a wage, we work to earn a reward.

"Works" result in "a righteousness of my own"; walking in faith reveals God's righteousness, not "a righteousness of my own".

If your working to earn what God calls a gift. then you are doing self righteous works. and they will be rejected.

You don't know what "works" are.

If your working BECAUSE you have been saved, You will earn reward based on the fruit you produce with those works..

You don't know what "works" are.

 

[GracePeace]

That is disengenous, though, because you are asserting that having received a gift, you then must go on to pay for it by good works. That is, you may lose it if you don't do the right things. So the continued payment is to preserve your salvation. No?

Much love!

Romans 8:12,13
We are indebted to God--if we walk after the flesh, we will die, but if by the Spirit we mortify the deeds of the flesh we will live.

Salvation is a gift, it just doesn't mean what you think it means, if we read 1 Corinthians 10--you're adding to and subtracting from its definition.

 

[marks]

Romans 8:12,13
We are indebted to God--if we walk after the flesh, we will die, but if by the Spirit we mortify the deeds of the flesh we will live.

Salvation is a gift, it just doesn't mean what you think it means, if we read 1 Corinthians 10--you're adding to and subtracting from its definition.

One cannot arrive at the correct destination without taking in the whole counsel of God.

Much love!

 

[GracePeace]

You cannot arrive at the correct destination without taking in the whole counsel of God.

Much love!

Right. That's why I raise the topics and points I do--you guys ignore certain things.

 

[marks]

Right. That's why I raise the topics and points I do--you guys ignore certain things.

Feel free to continue to talk about me, but I'm not interested, I'm out.

Much love!

 

[GracePeace]

Feel free to continue to talk about me, but I'm not interested, I'm out.

Much love!

I said nothing that you didn't say about me--you said I was uninformed about "the whole counsel of God", and I said the same of you and yours, except I have been furnishing proof.

 

[GracePeace]

I just want to clarify: just because I think (and, I think, can prove--and have proven) you all have an inaccurate explanation of the Gospel, that does not mean I also think you all are condemned or cut off from God. Far from it. Your own personal knowledge of God would refute me if I said that.

I recognize that God is gracious to those on all sides of the issue--ie, that there are Catholics, Orthodox, and all manner of Protestants who know God through faith in Christ, imperfect as their understanding of that faith may be. It really is a difficult thing to accept, but I have observed it, and I accept it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 Co 10 discusses those who were typologically "saved", and what happened to them bc they sinned after typological salvation, in order to teach us who are actually saved in the anti-type.

I don't accept Typology as a valid exegetical technique. Paul is not using typology here.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't mind anyone thinking my point is wrong, but, if I've already answered your point, then, instead of repeating it, as if it had not already been answered, answer the answers that had already been supplied your point. That's how discussions work.

Yes, That was my point to begin with.

I know.

The Law shutting every mouth (Ro 3) is not the Law putting forth a "type"--you're mixing apples and oranges--these are two different aspects of the Law's ability to edify.

The law was given for one purpose. to lead us to Christ. Gal 3 makes this clear. But since you are not willing to go outside of 1 cor 10.. then you will nto understand that

Right, that's why if you've been saved by the blood, but you go on sinning, instead of living in righteousness, there's no more sacrifice.

But you have not been saved by the blood. if you go on living in sin.

Again, (we have to go outside) John said he who sins (lives in) has never seen or known God. they have never been saved, so why would you claim they have been saved?

No, I'm saying that we learn about how Christianity (the anti-type) works from the Jews who had been saved (the type)--ie, after they were saved, they sinned, so they fell under God's wrath, despite having been saved from God's wrath.

But they were not saved from Gods wrath.

1. The Jews were saved from Egypt, which is a type. I've repeated this over and over, yet you seem not to be able to wrap your mind around it.

I understand completely. BUT THEY NEVER HAD FAITH.. You seem to be saying they were saved apart from faith. where do you get this in the word of God that it is possible?

2. Paul said the Corinthians were sinning ("...for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?"), so, for anyone who reads the Bible, your idea that Christians automatically live righteously, and don't sin, is inadmissible.

I never never made such a statement, You are bearing false witness. If your going to dscuss something, you should at lease understand what the person your discussing with believes.

It seems you are getting mixed up.
"The blood of the lamb" refers to Christ's blood, which is the anti-type corresponding to the type of the blood of lambs whereby the Jews were rescued/saved from Egypt. The Jews did not receive the merits of Christ, and therefore the merits of Christ could not have purchased rest in the promised land for them.

do what?

I think you are confused.

God said he offered them rest. Due to their lack of faith in God. they never entered that rest. stop trying to make things so difficult.

Irrelevant. The discussion in 1 Corinthians 10 is about those who were saved in a typological way, and how that corresponds to life for Christians today.

But they WERE NOT SAVED!!!

Again, you're completely missing my point.
I do not know how to make it more clear than I already have.
I hope the readers will be able to see this.
I have always denied that the Jews who were saved in a merely typological way were actually saved in the substantive way that believers are saved today--"they never believed and had their lives changed", therefore, is irrelevant, especially because it is PAUL who is drawing the parallel between how the Jews were "saved" and STILL fell under God's wrath for sinning AFTER HAVING BEEN SAVED, and forfeited the promise God made them, and how that very same thing is true of Christians today. It is not myself who is inventing the parallel, so your argument that "well, they weren't really changed, so they never believed, so they never fell away from faith" is completely unwarranted--you either believe what Paul is saying about how their experiences mirror our own or you reject it, but there is no argumentation that can debunk it.

PAUL NEVER SAID THEY WERE SAVED. Your the one saying this..

They NEVER had faith, so they were never saved.

they are like people who go to church with us, While they are in the church and or hanging out with us, they are not in the world. and are blessed by association with us. But if they are not saved, thats all they have, they are not saved just because they go to church with us.

Just because people left with Moses did not mean they were saved.. If they were truly saved through faith, they would have entered his rest. (Gods)

You never furnished any reason to believe differently than what I asserted.

lol Yes I have

You're being more thorough now.

I have done anything different

Oh, OK, then you should have no problem with what I've stated.

I have a major problem with what you have stated.

Well, the authors of Scripture warn Christians about going back to living in sin--1 Corinthians 10 says we can understand by looking at what happened to the Jews God saved that, despite having been saved from God's wrath, you will fall under God's wrath, and forfeit the promise He made, if you do that.

Um, so your saying the word of God contradicts itself?

Concerning living in or habitual ongoing sin.

1 John 3:
6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

A child of God can not live in sin.. If you say they can, You do not understand salvation

Stop responding to things I never said.
I never said that if a Christian sins, and needs correction, that he is, in fact, lost and hellbound.
I said the Scripture warns Christians against sinning because, despite having been saved from wrath, you will fall under wrath and forfeit the Promise God made.

You just totally contradicted yourself.

You said I misrepresented you. saying they did not lose salvation. then you said they forfiet the promise God made (lose their salvation)

Do you even understand what you believe, or are you confused?

need to split up to many words

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Adam sinned himself out of what God gave him.

Adam was perfect. and he was told. if you do this, you will die

Adam died.

Adam could not save himself. God had to save him.. This adam could not unsave himself. since he could not save himself.

I have a lot more I could say on this, but it's hard enough getting the basic points across to you, in particular, so I'm not going to open a whole nother can of worms.

The only can of worms is your legalistic belief that salvation must be earned and can be lost.

Describe how I am drawing the wrong conclusion about Paul's parallel.

Go back and read every post I have made in this thread. I have done this already..

Yes, and, according to 1 Corinthians 10, "saved" isn't what you think it means--as I have been explaining all along.

Saved certainly does not mean what you think it means.

According to Scripture, God gives gifts that must be laid hold upon (Deut 1:8; 1 Ti 6:12).
What is your response to those Scriptures proving God's gifts must be taken and laid hold of by conquest?

I think like the gift of salvation. we must lay hold of it and take it

we are told how to do it. For by GRACE we HAVE BEEN SAVED By FAITH.

If you do not trust the gift. you will never recieve it.. Just like Israel that left egypt never received it, because they refused to trust God..

David wasn't alive in that generation that entered the Promise.

I never said he was. i said he understood it.. Or does that confuse you?

Again, and again, and again: I never alleged the Jews referred to in 1 Corinthians had anti-typical "saving faith"; I always said they were saved typologically to show us what salvation is and is not. That's what the discussion is about. By describing their falling under God's wrath on account of their sinning after having been saved, we can know that salvation is not what you are claiming it is. You have a malformed, a warped, vision of what salvation is and is not, because it has no fidelity with the constrictions Scripture places upon it; your vision and version of salvation is uninformed and is a misrepresentation of reality.

And your 100% wrong in your assertion.

Paul is using them to explain why they never entered Gods rest. Not using them to show us we can be saved and forfeit that salvation.

The Law is the Word of God, so I don't know why you would want to say "let alone the Word of God".

The law is a part of the word of God. the word of God is so much more than the law.

You still do not understand it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You don't.
You think anything anyone does, any "activity", is a "work".
That's not the testimony of Scripture.

I never said any such thing.

You have just bore false witness, and destroyed your own testimony

Lets try one more time for you

A work is what we do to earn a reward or a wage

I work to earn money to support my family
I have worked to serve others and recieve the reward of service
I worked hard in school to run sorts in order to earn a reward.

Salvation is of Grace through faith not works.

We do nto work to earn salvation, it can not be earned, We work because we are saved, and will be rewarded for that work.

Now misrepresent me again why don;t you!

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, That was my point to begin with.

No, if that were your point, you wouldn't have kept using an already-answered reply, you would've interacted with the replies already supplied.

The law was given for one purpose. to lead us to Christ. Gal 3 makes this clear. But since you are not willing to go outside of 1 cor 10.. then you will nto understand that

1. You're not addressing the point I made. I said you were mixing apples and oranges of the Law's ministry. You are confusing things.
2. I never said the Law wasn't given to lead us to Christ, so you're not making a relevant point.
3. As anyone can read, I've been happy to discuss Scripture outside of 1 Co 10, I just haven't tolerated people trampling the discussion by immediately raising other verses without addressing the topic, or running and hiding behind other verses without addressing the verses I raised. This thread was made to discuss a particular subject, and I'm not going to let people change the subject.

But you have not been saved by the blood. if you go on living in sin.

1 Co 10, among other passages, refutes that.

Again, (we have to go outside) John said he who sins (lives in) has never seen or known God. they have never been saved, so why would you claim they have been saved?

1 Co 10 shows that people who've been saved can live in sin and fall under wrath.
1 John, we know, was written, in part, to refute gnosticism, which taught that bc the physical world is innately evil, 1) Christ didn't come in the flesh, but was a spirit, and 2) as long as we are in the world we will continue on in living in open sin.
John is refuting gnosticism there, not teaching what you're teaching.
That's why your teaching can't align with anything else in Scripture, but scrambles it, and makes a complete mess of it, and confuses everything.

But they were not saved from Gods wrath.

Yep, the salvation from God's wrath in Egypt didn't guarantee their salvation from God's wrath they incurred later by sinning. That's my point.

Paul says their salvation was a type of ours, thus the parallels he draws, thus, since our Passover Lamb saves us from wrath in the anti-type, their Passover lambs saved them from wrath in the type.

You continue to struggle with this basic reality.

Inderstand completely. BUT THEY NEVER HAD FAITH..

I'm going to direct everyone to what I've been repeating over and over. Not going to keep beating a dead horse. You simply do not comprehend that Paul draws the parallel, he doesn't say "they didn't have faith", like you're doing.

You seem to be saying they were saved apart from faith. where do you get this in the word of God that it is possible?

I literally denied that--not once, not twice, but over and over I've denied it.

I've never never made such a statement, You are bearing false witness. If your going to dscuss something, you should at lease understand what the person your discussing with believes.

You actually did, and I welcome anyone to go read it for themselves. It goes together perfectly with your abuse of John's statement against gnostics.

do what?

I think you are confused.

God said he offered them rest. Due to their lack of faith in God. they never entered that rest. stop trying to make things so difficult.

You said "the blood of the lamb purchased them rest in the promised land". That was the reason I said what I said: you are completely lost.

But they WERE NOT SAVED!!!

PAUL NEVER SAID THEY WERE SAVED. Your the one saying this..

Again, they were saved in type, or else Paul wouldn't be pointing to them as a parallel for the anti-typically saved to learn from.

They NEVER had faith, so they were never saved

Already addressed this misunderstanding you're struggling with an infinite amount of times.

they are like people who go to church with us, While they are in the church and or hanging out with us, they are not in the world. and are blessed by association with us. But if they are not saved, thats all they have, they are not saved just because they go to church with us.

If your view had validity, Paul wouldn't have taught the Church, the saved, that they are to learn about their saved reality from these unsaved peoples' reality--there would be no parallel.

Just because people left with Moses did not mean they were saved.. If they were truly saved through faith, they would have entered his rest. (Gods)

Well, that's the entire point of the discussion: you all don't understand what salvation by the blood of the lamb is. The Scripture limits it to being delivered to Egypt, but you all stretch it from there all the way to entering the promised land. Thank you for exposing your error to everyone.
On the contrary, those who are saved must thereafter behave themselves in the "wilderness", or else they'll never enter the "promise".

I have a major problem with what you have stated.

Because you're inconsistent.

Um, so your saying the word of God contradicts itself?

Concerning living in or habitual ongoing sin.

1 John 3:
6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

A child of God can not live in sin.. If you say they can, You do not understand salvation

Already addressed this.

You just totally contradicted yourself.

You said I misrepresented you. saying they did not lose salvation. then you said they forfiet the promise God made (lose their salvation)

Do you even understand what you believe, or are you confused?

need to split up to many words

Not sure what's so difficult to understand here. There's a difference between me thinking a single sin makes a Christian hellbound, and me thinking a Christian who goes on sinning wilfully. You can't see that distinction? Not surprised actually.

 

[GracePeace]

Adam was perfect. and he was told. if you do this, you will die

Adam died.

Adam could not save himself. God had to save him.. This adam could not unsave himself. since he could not save himself.

So, again, Adam sinned himself out of what God gave him. Which disproves your point.

The only can of worms is your legalistic belief that salvation must be earned and can be lost.

You can sling as much mud as you want, but you're utterly incapable of addressing the Scripture.

Go back and read every post I have made in this thread. I have done this already..

I invite the readers to do so, and see if what you're saying is true. I find all of your responses to be extremely sloppy and confused.

Saved certainly does not mean what you think it means.

1 Co 10 shows that it certainly doesn't mean what you think it does. I addressed this in my most recent reply.

I think like the gift of salvation. we must lay hold of it and take it

we are told how to do it. For by GRACE we HAVE BEEN SAVED By FAITH.

But Paul is telling Timothy to continue fighting. Why would he do that if it's "one and done" as you state? Makes no sense.

If you do not trust the gift. you will never recieve it.. Just like Israel that left egypt never received it, because they refused to trust God..

You really are confused.
The Blood of the Passover lambs whereby they were saved from Egypt corresponds to the blood of the Lamb, Christ.

I never said he was. i said he understood it.. Or does that confuse you?

Why is it relevant? Lol

And your 100% wrong in your assertion.

Lol

Paul is using them to explain why they never entered Gods rest. Not using them to show us we can be saved and forfeit that salvation.

Nope, that's not Paul's point at all. As always, you're completely lost. Paul is not saying "You have to have faith or else you won't be saved just as the Jews were never saved", he's saying "Despite the fact that they were saved, because they went ahead and sinned freely, they fell under God's wrath and forfeited the promise, so you must know that you will suffer the same fate if you do the same."
You are very confused.

The law is a part of the word of God. the word of God is so much more than the law.

Yet the Law is the Word of God.

 

[GracePeace]

I never said any such thing.

You have just bore false witness, and destroyed your own testimony

Lets try one more time for you

A work is what we do to earn a reward or a wage

I work to earn money to support my family
I have worked to serve others and recieve the reward of service
I worked hard in school to run sorts in order to earn a reward.

Salvation is of Grace through faith not works.

We do nto work to earn salvation, it can not be earned, We work because we are saved, and will be rewarded for that work.

Now misrepresent me again why don;t you!

I'm not going to fall into your drama.

1. Salvation, as I've proven, doesn't encompass what you dream it encompasses.
Separately, yep, salvation isn't of works. Never said it was.
2. When someone walks by faith, that is God's righteousness, not "works" whereby one establishes their own righteousness. You wrongly categorize walking in faith as "works". You do not comprehend the distinction. I was correct in my assertion.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, if that were your point, you wouldn't have kept using an already-answered reply, you would've interacted with the replies already supplied.

whatever. Good think what I do or do not do does not depend on what you think.

1. You're not addressing the point I made. I said you were mixing apples and oranges of the Law's ministry. You are confusing things.

No. I have adressed it. You do not like my answer. so like always, you throw around the accusation I have not addressed it.

2. I never said the Law wasn't given to lead us to Christ, so you're not making a relevant point.
3. As anyone can read, I've been happy to discuss Scripture outside of 1 Co 10, I just haven't tolerated people trampling the discussion by immediately raising other verses without addressing the topic, or running and hiding behind other verses without addressing the verses I raised. This thread was made to discuss a particular subject, and I'm not going to let people change the subject.

Just because we go outside does not mean we do not adress the subject. You have been screaming at people for doing that. Now your backtracking.. Typical

1 Co 10, among other passages, refutes that.

1 Co 10 shows that people who've been saved can live in sin and fall under wrath.

No it does not. Because the jews were not saved.. You can say they were until your blue in the face. They did not believe. You can not be saved if you continue in unbelief.

He who BELIEVES is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already..

The people of 1 cor 10. did NOT believe, hence they continued in condemnation.

When you finally understand this FACT, You may start to understand 1 cor 10.

1 John, we know, was written, in part, to refute gnosticism, which taught that bc the physical world is innately evil, 1) Christ didn't come in the flesh, but was a spirit, and 2) as long as we are in the world we will continue on in living in open sin.
John is refuting gnosticism there, not teaching what you're teaching.
That's why your teaching can't align with anything else in Scripture, but scrambles it, and makes a complete mess of it, and confuses everything.

That does not change the fact. Whoever is born of God DOES NOT LIVE IN SIN.

it does not matter who it is written to. The fact still stands..

Yep, the salvation from God's wrath in Egypt didn't guarantee their salvation from God's wrath they incurred later by sinning. That's my point.

God did not save them from wrath in egypt. where you you get this nonsense?

Paul says their salvation was a type of ours, thus the parallels he draws, thus, since our Passover Lamb saves us from wrath in the anti-type, their Passover lambs saved them from wrath in the type.

You continue to struggle with this basic reality.

I'm going to direct everyone to what I've been repeating over and over. Not going to keep beating a dead horse. You simply do not comprehend that Paul draws the parallel, he doesn't say "they didn't have faith", like you're doing.

I literally denied that--not once, not twice, but over and over I've denied it.


You actually did, and I welcome anyone to go read it for themselves. It goes together perfectly with your abuse of John's statement against gnostics.

You said "the blood of the lamb purchased them rest in the promised land". That was the reason I said what I said: you are completely lost.

Again, they were saved in type, or else Paul wouldn't be pointing to them as a parallel for the anti-typically saved to learn from.

Already addressed this misunderstanding you're struggling with an infinite amount of times.

If your view had validity, Paul wouldn't have taught the Church, the saved, that they are to learn about their saved reality from these unsaved peoples' reality--there would be no parallel.

Well, that's the entire point of the discussion: you all don't understand what salvation by the blood of the lamb is. The Scripture limits it to being delivered to Egypt, but you all stretch it from there all the way to entering the promised land. Thank you for exposing your error to everyone.
On the contrary, those who are saved must thereafter behave themselves in the "wilderness", or else they'll never enter the "promise".

Because you're inconsistent.

Already addressed this.

Not sure what's so difficult to understand here. There's a difference between me thinking a single sin makes a Christian hellbound, and me thinking a Christian who goes on sinning wilfully. You can't see that distinction? Not surprised actually.

I am inconsistent.

You are saying non believers are saved.

Now there is an inconsistency.

yet you can not see this because of your hatred of OSAS..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So, again, Adam sinned himself out of what God gave him. Which disproves your point.

No. Because God told him if he sinned he would die.

This was not said to anyone else. we are born dead, as being in adam. so it does not fit.

You can sling as much mud as you want, but you're utterly incapable of addressing the Scripture.

I am not slinging mud my friend. properly addressing the scripture is not mud slinging

I invite the readers to do so, and see if what you're saying is true. I find all of your responses to be extremely sloppy and confused.

I invite them to also.. My words are open for all to see. I have no fear..

1 Co 10 shows that it certainly doesn't mean what you think it does. I addressed this in my most recent reply.

It does not way what you think, this is for sure. Again, your saying non believers are saved, hence they are no longer condemned. that is not in scripture my friend..

But Paul is telling Timothy to continue fighting. Why would he do that if it's "one and done" as you state? Makes no sense.

I continue to fight. why? Not for myself. but for others. why? Because God gave me a mission, If I stop the mission it not only affect me, but those whom God placed in my life.

But I am fully convinced of this, He who began a good work in me WILL (not might) Continue until the day of Christ.

You can not take my assurance or hope away from me or anyone because of your hatred and lack of faith in God and his followers who rely on him in security (anti OSAS rhetoric)

You really are confused.
The Blood of the Passover lambs whereby they were saved from Egypt corresponds to the blood of the Lamb, Christ.

Yes, as a type. BUT IT DOES NOT SAVE THEM (it only saved the first born.. But I understand, you can not see anything that would refute your legalism)

Why is it relevant? Lol

So if David or another man of God understood it. and you do not.

Who should I listen to?

It is very relevent.

Lol

Nope, that's not Paul's point at all. As always, you're completely lost. Paul is not saying "You have to have faith or else you won't be saved just as the Jews were never saved", he's saying "Despite the fact that they were saved, because they went ahead and sinned freely, they fell under God's wrath and forfeited the promise, so you must know that you will suffer the same fate if you do the same."
You are very confused.

lol. If I have to rely on myself. I am condemned, Because I have sinned, and I continue to sin, I am not perfect and will not be until I get to heaven.

Until then, I will rely on God not how good I think I am like your doing.

Point to Christ, stop pointing to self.

Yet the Law is the Word of God.

and? Does not prove your point.

You do not understand the law..