• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Once saved always saved?

@tps26 and others, thanks for bringing up parables.

Earlier, I suggested we look at the parable of the prodigal son as a sort of primer when contemplating security issues. No parable is a perfect match to all theological contemplations, they often break down when taken to extremes, and I wouldn't suggest that this one is the one solution. But...

The relationship of the Father and son in the parable is never in doubt. Unless I am mistaken, when the son left, he was not renouncing his "son ship". While away, he was without his father's protection and resources. When he returns, he feels like his son ship should be revoked due to his behavior, but the Father was having none of it. He welcomed him back into the fold with full rights and privileges.

Thoughts anyone?

Again, I'm not saying this is THE slam dunk, and I'm not saying there is an easy solution to all of this. It's just something to contemplate.
 
I'd like to see some quotes of all my infractions. I've given Mea culpas in the past and will do so as needed, but you continue to obfuscate. Explain your position on degrees of judgment and I'll be satisfied. I think it's pertinent to defining the issue.

If you look back in this thread, I said I was an agnostic on this whole issue, but leaned in the direction of soul security. But, if you're going to refute others' ideas, then explain yourself. My line of questioning was to help me better understand your position, because it's confusing to me right now. It seems to be so nuanced that it makes it almost indistinguishable from a works based salvation.

But, if you look closely at my position over the years, and just within this thread, I defend the proposition that Torah folks (with some exceptions) believe in Grace salvation, so save your ammunition for somebody else.
I didn’t mean to talk over your head, you see when I said the difference between God’s Judgement on earth is only a matter of degrees different than His Judgement in the next life what I meant was exactly that. I apologize for using the technical jargon.
 
Unless I am mistaken, when the son left, he was not renouncing his "son ship". While away, he was without his father's protection and resources. When he returns, he feels like his son ship should be revoked due to his behavior, but the Father was having none of it
I would say that, in his mind, he walked away from his sonship. He took his inheritance, which is what he would get when his father died. In his mind his father was dead to him. He knew that he deserved nothing. He was starving and was hopeful that he could have the benefits that his father’s servants have.
He knew that he had no right to sonship, it was gifted back to him by his rejected father.

Yes, it does fall apart at that point because the clothing and fatted calf was actually the inheritance of the brother. :confused:
 
The prodigal son was about the divided house of Israel. The prodigal was the ten tribes. YHWH divorcing them was just making public that they had left Him. When they came back they were welcomed and reinstated without work or works. That was what caused the jealousy with Judah. There is a huge difference though between a finite inheritance here from an earthly father or the inheritance that our heavenly father can give. There is no reason for jealousy. He is not limited and we lose nothing when others are blessed.
 
Typically the stories had multiple applications.
 
Was it gifted back, or merely reaffirmed?
Whatever fits ones personal bias, of course. Neither side can provide proof beyond their opinion.

Fun fact: the title of Prodigal had nothing to do with his leaving. It comes from his prodigious spending.

(Is anybody out there going to go all prodigal with their credit cards this season?
If you do , maybe it’s best that you don’t go home until they really miss you?)
 
Whatever fits ones personal bias, of course. Neither side can provide proof beyond their opinion.
Very true.

Does that apply to this whole topic as well?
 
Does that apply to this whole topic as well?
I reckon nobody has converted anybody.
As usual, we are playing to the bleachers. Giving people who didn’t have their minds made up reasons to see the truth as we know it.
 
I know it's convoluted, and I could be wrong, but Paul is trying to explain why the sinner needs justification by God's grace through Jesus Christ our Lord. That is sort of thematic in the Book of Romans.
 
I reckon nobody has converted anybody.
As usual, we are playing to the bleachers. Giving people who didn’t have their minds made up reasons to see the truth as we know it.
That's the way this debate usually ends. We all just agree to disagree, and those on the fence get to decide based on the arguments presented.
 
That's the way this debate usually ends. We all just agree to disagree, and those on the fence get to decide based on the arguments presented.
Seems reasonable to me.
I’m not ready to step up to dueling pistols at ten paces.

Call me chicken, but I’m not convinced that defending the Gospel was intended to go that far.
 
I know it's convoluted, and I could be wrong, but Paul is trying to explain why the sinner needs justification by God's grace through Jesus Christ our Lord. That is sort of thematic in the Book of Romans.
Or it could just mean what it says. It’s not convoluted it’s a really transparent attempt to convolute what should be a pretty obvious point.
 
What does the phrase “...be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” In Mark chapter 9 mean? It doesn’t sound like you just fall asleep there.

The first question to ask when you see a translator has chosen the word "hell" is, "which one?"

Most times, geographical places retain a transliteration of their original name, but this verse is too great an opportunity to pass up for those running the sin-management companies (i.e. churches).

The arbitrary "hell" in your translation of this verse is actually Gehenna. Here is a picture of Gehenna from TripAdvisor:

upload_2020-12-17_18-47-12.png

Seems like a nice place for a picnic. So why does Jesus say the fire will not die out here?

A little back story about Gehenna. This word means Valley of Hinnom. A lot of people were burned here in Israel's history. This was the place where their children were sacrificed to Molech (2 Kings 23:10; 16:3; 21:6) and there are some inferences in Isaiah to a large army of Assyrians being burned here as well.

We read in Jeremiah 7:31‭-‬33:
"And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord , when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere. And the dead bodies (dead bodies means bodies that are not alive, btw) of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away."

This valley is also known to historians as having later become the dump outside Jerusalem's walls. From a city the size of Jerusalem there would have been a constant supply of garbage and corpses to feed the worms and flames here during the time of Jesus's teaching.

There is some prophetic emphasis here as well though. Jesus is actually quoting the closing words of the book of Isaiah:

“And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Dead bodies are dead bodies, I can't say it any clearer. There is nothing in Jesus's teaching about living immortally in Gehenna. That is only read in by your subconscious due to your conditioning by the same people who told you monogamy is the only way to do marriage.

The only thing that doesn't die here is the worms. I am sure that is great news to any worms reading this message. Actually, the point here is not that the worms are magical, immortal worms but that the fire and worms do not cease to do their work in the Valley of Hinnom as long as there is trash and corpses (dead bodies) to feed the worms and flames.

I do think that during the millennial reign, corpses will again be buring here. This is the period Isaiah is referring to –and the kingdom that Jesus has in view in his teachings.

What Jesus is saying is: It is better to lose a limb than face the capital punishment dictated by the law, and subsequently have your corpse burned on the municipal trash heap.

Ask yourself. Do you really think the church got marriage so completely wrong but happened to get everything else right?
What I am finding is that where there is smoke there is fire. The real question is, do today's Pharisees teach anything right?
 
Or it could just mean what it says. It’s not convoluted it’s a really transparent attempt to convolute what should be a pretty obvious point.
I wasn't trying to argue that the passage is convoluted. Trying to explain what I have come to understand, is convoluted.
 
So you are saying there are two resurrections from the dead. First, everyone is resurrected, to judgment. Then, those not in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire, and destroyed. Then, all of them are resurrected a second time.

I completely agree with the first resurrection, that's clear from scripture. I also agree that the lake of fire is the second death, and I'd be comfortable if you stopped there and were simply teaching annihilationism.

But the second resurrection you speak of is pure conjecture. Because death is to be abolished, you assume that means that all must come back to life. I don't see any reason to think that. Surely if nobody dies any more, death has been abolished. There's no need for a whole new resurrection to make that true.
Is animal death to be abolished, along with human death? If so, does that mean that every animal that has ever lived must be resurrected (or recreated really) for death to be no more? This seems illogical to me.
Do you have any scripture to directly support that idea of a second resurrection?

I do.
There are multiple ressurrections that God effects.
To be quite exact, the first ressurrection was actually Christ Jesus. He was the Firstfruits, the firstborn from the dead.

Revelation 20 speaks of a former/first ressurrection (more correctly rendered former from the Greek: πρώτη (prōtē) as it is in the CLNT) I think we are all more than familiar with mia being Greek for first. "Former" makes more sense considering Christ’s ressurrection has already occured.

Why mention a first or former resurrection if there is not a second (or third) or latter? Why not just call it The resurrection?

Here it is in context:

"Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4‭-‬6

So there is a ressurrection of some, and then a thousand years goes by, and then this happens:

"And I saw the dead (this is a figure of speech referring to those who were collectively dead up until this point, notice how they are standing and being judged), great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:12‭-‬15

This is now the third ressurrection
1. Christ
2. Those at the beginning of the millennium
3. The great white throne

Notice a couple things from the Great White Throne passage. The dead are brought to life without the word ressurrection being used. I can't give you a verse that literally says "second/third/fourth ressurrection" but yet this one is clearly a thousand years seperated from the former resurrection, which itself followed Christ's ressurrection. At this ressurrection some of the dead are in the book of life and are ressurrected beyond the power of death, i.e. vivified. Others are not in the book of life and die the second death.

A long long long time passes before the consummation of all of 1 Corinthians 15. Those who died the second death are dead and unconscious of this passage of time. To put in perspective how far off the consummation is, note that at this point Christ who has had all things subjected under himself will then himself be subjected to God so that God may be All in all. (1 Cor 15:28)

Sometime before this occurs death is abolished. Before Christ is subjected to God all things are subjected to him:

"By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’"
Isaiah 45:23

The end state is that God is All in all.

Surely if nobody dies any more, death has been abolished. There's no need for a whole new resurrection to make that true.

Think about this. If you are dead, is death abolished for you? As long as you are dead, death still exists.

If death being abolished just means no one else dies and you are forgotten, what then of the Great Human Question posed by Job? "If a man dies, shall he live again?" Who did Christ die for? How many?

For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified. Yet each in his own class: 1. The Firstfruit, Christ; 2. thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence (I think these are those both before and after the millennium); 3. thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father.
1 Corinthians 15:22-24


“Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. He comes out like a flower and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not. And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one. Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you, and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass, look away from him and leave him alone, that he may enjoy, like a hired hand, his day. “For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grow old in the earth, and its stump die in the soil, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put out branches like a young plant. But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep. Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my renewal should come. You would call, and I would answer you; you would long for the work of your hands. For then you would number my steps; you would not keep watch over my sin; my transgression would be sealed up in a bag, and you would cover over my iniquity."
Job 14:1‭-‬17
 
I write all this out, not because I am looking for someone to say I am "right", but because a man named Samuel once wrote an article on marriage that changed my life and launched me on a journey discovering the furthest dimensions of love.
This is where it has led me.
That God, who is love, is the savior of all mankind, especially of believers. (1 John 4:8 / 1 Timothy 4:10)
 
I write all this out, not because I am looking for someone to say I am "right", but because a man named Samuel once wrote an article on marriage that changed my life and launched me on a journey discovering the furthest dimensions of love.
Thankyou. It is very encouraging to hear feedback like that, I greatly appreciate it.
There are multiple ressurrections that God effects.
The moment after I posted my above post I thought about the resurrection of the martyrs, which I had ignored in my brief post, which obviously splits things into multiple resurrections. But it still doesn't split it in the way you have proposed. The resurrections are:
1: Christ
2: Martyrs, to complete security from the second death ("This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power")
3: All mankind, to judgment. Those found in the Book to life (with the martyrs who are already there), those not found in the Book to the lake of fire - the second death.

However, you are proposing an additional resurrection of all, from the second death. That, I cannot see in scripture. Yes, I am aware of the passages about "every knee shall bow" etc, but these can be interpreted in several ways (including being entirely pre-second-death - bowing in surprise and even terror at the time of judgement but without changing the outcome of that judgement). So they are not evidence of a post-lake-of-fire resurrection. They can be read to be consistent with it, but are not in themselves evidence of it.

But I understand how you have got to this understanding. God is love, and this is an interpretation that appears to be consistent with his love nature. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

I agree with you regarding "their worm dieth not". I don't believe this particular phrase indicates eternal torment. I personally tend towards annihilationism, because if death and evil is to be abolished, how can evil people continue to exist in torment, a torment called "the second death"? That would mean that neither evil nor death had been abolished, as both continued to exist - and it is difficult to mentally reconcile with God's love. Like you, I don't think humans would last long in a lake of fire, it makes more sense as a fire of destruction. However, I am aware that various passages appear to contradict this in different ways (e.g. suggesting torment lasting for longer), so I'm not asserting it as fact, just saying that's the direction I tend towards in my thinking these days. I haven't got this all worked out.

But trimming it back to the basics, it just seems clearest to take the words "death" and "life" literally, not symbolic of something else. In other words, the wages of sin are truly "death", not eternal life in undesirable circumstances. And the gift of God that we seek is truly "eternal life", rather than eternal life being something we already have a guarantee of so do not need to be given, and we're just seeking better circumstances during that eternal life.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
And I think that you have reached a similar view - but then you've added more complicating layers to it.

Your understanding appears to abolish eternal torment - but replace it with purgatory. The final destination of sinners becomes purgatory, a temporary torment, refining by fire until they too are resurrected again. That seems to me to be several layers of human reasoning formulating a hypothetical future that is palatable to the human mind, but is not directly from scripture. Just as the Catholic version of purgatory is not directly from scripture.

In your understanding, why should we follow Christ? What is the purpose of faith? Why should we reach the lost, if they will all be saved anyway? Is it so they avoid a temporary period of torment?

Personally, I think it's simpler to understand that we are to follow Christ to avoid "death", and to receive "eternal life".
 
Back
Top