Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
I do to. thats why we do not see what you see.
but thats beside the point, again, lets stick to fact. and not strawmen
What Is "Salvation" In 1 Corinthians 10?
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
but thats beside the point, again, lets stick to fact. and not strawmen
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
when your ready to discuss it.. without attacking everyone who disagrees with you. let the world know. we will gladly discuss it
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
or you could say their is an opportunity for us (including you) to change our view..
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
And again, This is not true. Because they never entered his rest because of unbelief. as proven by the fact they complained and sinned the whole time
people who are saved change, they do not remain in the same rutt
These are in error also. Non of these are required for salvation. They are works a believer who is saved do in appreciation for what God did to them
They were never saved to begin with, as proven by your comment, they continued in sin, they disobeyed God and God was displeased. so they never entered his rest (salvation)
lol. and here yuo go preaching self righteousness.
My friend, You can;pt be good enough to earn salvation. You must trust God. you must believe to the saving of the soul. Believing in your works is not believing to the saving of the soul. The jews learned this the hard way in Pauls day. I pray you will
No, I look forward to adding to, improving, view that I already have, but it cannot change any more could my view that homosexuaity is an abomination to God.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Then your unteachable.
so you should not be trying to discuss anything in a bible discussion forum.
This has already been answered in multiple ways:
1a. You apparently do not comprehend that the fact that the Jews were "saved" only in type and shadow, and not "really saved", like we are, is actually a feature, and not a flaw, in Paul's teaching. He knows that what they went through was only a picture of what we face today.
1b. Being "saved from Egypt" in the type corresponds to being "saved" by faith in Christ in the anti-type--it's not relevant that they weren't "really saved", as that is not an issue my assertion relies upon (contrariwise, my point acknowledges that fact, and has already taken it into consideration).
1c. Accordingly, in the picture, the type, we see that while the blood of the lamb does save from God's wrath in one respect, it does not save anyone from any potential future of wrath one may incur should they veer from God's will, "turn back to folly"--this is nothing other than the doctrine of Hebrews 10 ("if we go on sinning willfully after having received the knowledge of the truth there remains no sacrifice for sins... you have need of endurance, so that after you've done God's will you may inherit the promise... My righteous one will live by faith, but if My righteous one draws back My soul will have no pleasure in him").
2a. "Rest" is doing things God's way, instead of doing your own will/desire: Christ says "Come to Me... you will find rest... My yoke is easy and My burden is light." "Rest" is not "absence of activity", it is "doing things God's way". "Doing things God's way" is called "righteousness". Doing things your own way is "sin". Sin leads to torment, where there is "no rest" (Rv 14:11, 18:7).
When God says they will not enter His rest, it's a response to them not doing things God's way--and, remember, He was testing them to see if they would keep His commands in His Promised land, so the land is the place where they were to settle and keep God's commands, do things God's way, rest, but they did not inherit the Promised Land, and would never enter God's rest, because they made God wrathful by sinning.
This corresponds to whether we abide in Christ during our "wilderness" on earth after having been saved, and, finally, be confessed before the Father and His angels, and told, "Well done, enter into the joy of your master." or whether we will denied, and hear, "'Get away from Me, workers of lawlessness, I never knew you.' For only those who do the will of My Father will enter."
2b. When Hebrews describes "faith" (Heb 11), all those it describes performed righteousness--ie, they did things God's way, not their own way. Those who were told not to go collect manna on the Sabbath rejected that Word (disbelieved), and, afterward, went and performed the sin of attempting to collect manna on the Sabbath. They were guilty of the unbelief first--"they heard the Gospel but it was not mixed with faith" (Heb 4:2).
The error you are making is in concluding that the fact that they sinned "proved" they were in unbelief because God never granted them faith. On the contrary, throughout Hebrews, there is the constant theme of the need for endurance and persistence in doing God's will, which begins with faith in the Gospel, and ends in works of faith. Again, "If we go on sinning willfully after having obtained the knowledge of the truth, there remains no sacrifice for sins... you have need of endurance... My righteous one will live by faith, but if he draws back My soul has no pleasure in My righteous one." Why would God entertain the idea of "need of endurance" and "if My righteous one draws back" if it is a total impossibility?
You're misunderstanding: "salvation" was from the House of Bondage (corresponding to satan's kingdom), and was by the blood of lambs on their doorposts (corresponding to Jesus's blood)--ie, my entire point is that "salvation" happens first, and, afterward, you can still fall under wrath if you "go on sinning".
The having been saved, having received the Spirit, having been baptized, having eaten communion do not exempt anyone from wrath if they, despite having experienced all these things, go on sinning: "Do not be deceived, the unrighteous will not inherit God's Kingdom".
No, again, they were "saved" typologically--and it is Paul who says we are to learn about what may happen to us in the anti-type, in substance, by reading about what happened to them in type, in shadow.
Walking in faith, as unto the Lord, is not "trusting in oneself that one is righteousness and viewing others with contempt", but God's righteousness revealed from faith to faith--doing things you doubt are correct is sin, unto condemnation, not justification (when you do things that are "correct", but they are not done in faith, as unto the Lord, that meets the threshold of "a righteousness of my own")--Hebrews 11 is not full of men who were "self righteous", but men who walked by faith, and were justified. You're accusing them of self righteousness if you're accusing me of self righteousness.
You've completely missed my point: salvation isn't earned, it's a gift; I'm discussing what happens after you are saved.
Would you also say that someone who will never change their mind that homosexuality is an abomination is also "unteachable", or wouldn't you say they simply know something that is so basic and plain that there is no place for changing that view?
Where are you quoting this from? I'm not aware of any passage which reads this way.
Much love!
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!
Last edited:
Who's being "coy" now?
You know it's Hebrews 10--and you know I'm saying "My righteous one" instead of "he", because people have the remarkable and convenient "ability" of "forgetting" the subject.
You need to define "gift" as Scripture defines "gift", not as naked (ie, uninformed by Scriptural precedent) "logic" defines it: God "gave" the Jews the land, yet they were to go and "take" the land by conquest (Deut 1:8)--this is in exact keeping with eternal life being a "gift", and with Paul, yet, saying, "Lay hold on eternal life. Fight the fight of faith." Why is faith, by which we "lay hold" on eternal life (which is a gift) described as a "fight", or a "race", if it only happens "once and done"? Such a view has no Scriptural coherence. No, after having been saved by faith, the lifestyle must be a lifestyle of faith and obedience, and not a lifestyle of unbelief and sin whereby one who had previously been justified becomes condemned.
After having been saved, we are to remain in the Lord, living as unto the Lord, by both believing in His Name ("God is Salvation") and loving others (1 Jn 3:23,24). "Faith works by love", so "walking in faith", or doing those things we ourselves are completely convinced are correct as we live before the Lord (Ro 1:17, 14) (and we only got to live before the Lord by His mercy on our sins) is how we remain before the Lord. If we do something we do not believe is correct before the Lord, we need forgiveness so that we can remain living before the Lord, living life (doing what we are convinced is correct) before His presence.
If not, what drew us away from the Lord? An idol (1 Jn 5:21), which is a demon, telling us He doesn't forgive and accept us, so that we do our own will, the will of the flesh, which walking after the flesh is by the influence of a demon, trying to do things to get God to accept us, which is pride, so that we draw back, and cannot live before or as unto the Lord (none of our deeds, even done in complete conviction, count as "as unto the Lord", so they're not really works of faith).
Last edited:
There are 4 places in the Bible which use these words, but none as you've "quoted" it.
Quote the real passage, include context, and we will look at it. Not your rewrite of Scripture though.
You cannot quote the place, that was why I challenged you, to put a fine point on it.
Hebrews is actually pulling together quotes from a few places if memory serves, you should go back to each of those places also to see the contexts.
It's just no good rewriting Scripture to match your view and then acting as though you hadn't.
Much love!
Contrary to your empty accusation, I can quote the passage--and my quoting the passage isn't going to help you.
Hebrews 10
38BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH;
AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
Who is the "he"? "My righteous one". That was why I said "If My righteous one shrinks back".
The "context" you wrongly think will help you is "If we go on sinning willfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no sacrifice for sins", and "you have need of endurance".
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
It does not mean it was refuted.
You apparently do not comprehend they were not saved in any way. Thats the point God made when he said I swore in my wrath they would not enter his rest.
Your in error. What would be comparable would be entering the promised land, or entering the rest that God promised to them before they even left.
They never entered due to unbelief
This is nothing but self righteous propoganda
The blood of Christ cleansed me from all sin.. Not just my past sin, Jesus died because I could not save myself. The jew could not save themself either. Sadly Many never trusted God and never experienced salvation
You completely missed the point. God saves his children. When he does. they are created as new creatures. They do not live like they did before. they are changed. John said they can no longer live in sin.
The people you use to prove salvation can be lost where never changed, the complained from day one. They made golden calf. they always cried they wanted to go back. and they lived in sin.
I guess you preach one can be saved and continue to live in sin.. Well thats not the gospel.
No You completely missed the point
If I say something is free.. then say I must earn it. it was never free to begin with, it always came with a cost.
The cost was the cross. Your tryign to replace the cross with your works.. Good luck with that
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Your trying to mix grace and works.
Then saying that if we disagree with you, we are in error.
That makes you unteachable..
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
My point was not that "you must agree", but that you ought to have answered those answers already supplied, and not have brought the same point that had already been answered, as if it had not already been answered.
No,
Paul teaches that the Law is a type and shadow of things to come--the "things to come" is the substance and reality of Christ, and the "type and shadow" was what occurred back then. They were saved in "type" by the blood of lambs, and we are saved "in substance" by the blood of Christ. Those lambs were "passover lambs", Christ is "our Passover Lamb".
Paul's point is the Church, the saved, are to learn from others who have been "saved".
Again, Christ is our Passover Lamb, so, the saving blood of Christ corresponds to the blood of the lambs that saved them from the Death Angel whereby the power of Egypt was destroyed and openly humiliated.
The blood of the lambs was not the promise of the land, so, no, the promise of entering the land does not correspond with being saved from Egypt, the House of Bondage.
The point of Hebrews is that people "need endurance", because "My Righteous one will live by faith but if he shrinks back My soul has no pleasure in My righteous one"--not that "so and so never had faith", but "you had faith, so, continue in faith and in works of faith."
Wow, I didn't know the writer of Hebrews was a heretic! LOL!
Or... maybe you are the one who is erring.
I'll go with you are erring instead of thinking the writer of Hebrews is erring.
1. Yep, He cleansed us. I never denied that.
2. Already addressed this issue of Jews "not being saved" back then many times.
1. I was thorough in my response to you, but you are not thorough in your responses to me. I can't make you be thorough.
2. According to you, then--if "they are new creatures and they don't live as they did before (in sin), because they are changed"--there is no need for rebuke, because Christians don't sin. Paul was in error to write 1 Corinthians, then, because they didn't need to repent of their boasting. ALL of the times Christians are rebuked and reproved in the NT (Revelation 2 and 3 come to mind) are meaningless, because they don't sin! 1 Corinthians 10, also, has no purpose, since he's warning them against sinning (and warns them as to the outcome of those who "go on sinning").
Paul draws the parallel, not me.
The Gospel is that Christ saved us from our sins, and that we are to live before Him, not "wickedly depart from my God", as is taught in Romans 14, in 1 Jn 2:28, 3:23,24, 5:21, etc, etc,.
As I said to marks, you need to define "gift" as the Bible does, not as you prefer: when God "gave" the land to the Jews, they were to "take the land" by conquest, just as Paul says "Fight the fight of faith. LAY HOLD on the [gift of] eternal life to which you were called." If "faith" were "one and done", and not a lifestyle , then there would be no need to describe faith as a "race" or as a "fight", which connote an issue of "length of time" which require "endurance" (as Heb 10 says). Yes, eternal life is a gift, and it is by faith, but it is not "one and done"--Romans 14:23 says anything a believer does that is not from faith is sin, and they are condemned, not justified, so that believer is risking his eternal life by not remaining in faith.
Last edited:
