Page 2 of 17
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:36 am
by SoCalExile
Nicki wrote:SoCalExile wrote:Ultimately, the issue you have is with the words Christ used.
When Christ said "eternal life" (or sometimes translated as "everlasting life" He used a
word that means, "perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well)".
So when Christ said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47), He meant we that when we believe, we have life that is forever in the future (and the past, see Ephesians 1:4). How can Christ promise that if we might lose it?
See also John 10:27-29, 2 Timothy 2:13, Ephesians 4:30, Romans 8:38-39...oh, and see this principle that has already been applied to modern Israel in the partially-fulfilled prophecy of Ezekiel 36:16-36.
I've known the John 10 scripture for a long time but I always assumed we could jump out of his hand. There's a big difference between that and being snatched. Same with the other scriptures - God will stay faithful but some people don't stay faithful to him and some are never faithful.
No one means
no one; that includes you.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:30 am
by Philip
Or, a child dying before he's accountable, will STILL have to accept Jesus, once he's made aware of Him. And does a child that dies grow up in heaven, or does he enter Heaven as an adult?
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:49 am
by Jac3510
Nicki wrote:Could be right. I don't see much difference though between having eternal life and being born alive and innocent. A different kind of eternal life, perhaps?
There are not different kinds of eternal life. Eternal life is just that--life that never ends. It necessarily and only comes from a relationship with God (which God has chosen to make available only through Christ). The difference in the two ideas is the difference in innocence and righteous. I may be righteous. I am certainly not innocent. I am as guilty as they come, but I am righteous because the work God has done in me, and so I have eternal life. A child is born innocent but not "righteous" in this sense. He needs to be "confirmed" in that righteousness by placing his trust in Christ. Or if he dies in a state of innocence, he can be confirmed in that righteousness upon seeing Christ (as far as I can tell). The analogy, it seems to me, is Adam. He was created innocent but had to be confirmed in righteousness. Sadly, he was not. He was confirmed in unrighteousness, and so the whole sordid story that is human history. Just so, in this life, children are innocent and confirmed in unrighteousness the first time the sin, and so the whole sordid history that is their life. Jesus, to use another analogy, was born innocent and confirmed in
righteousness, making Him the Second Adam.
But all that is just getting a bit too deep, I think. Your question doesn't strike me as
that complicated. Babies don't go to hell because they haven't sinned. It's as simple as that. An easier, less theological, analogy than the ones above might be a person getting cancer. Suppose I get it and die. You can open my corpse and cut out the cancer and technically I'll be cancer free. But does that solve my problem? Of course not. I'll still be dead! So sin is like a cancer. It kills. Christ's death removed the cancer, but the effects remain. We are still dead, and
that is why we go to Hell: for being what we are (dead), not strictly for what we did (sinned). So a child is born alive. He has not yet sinned. He has not been killed. So when he dies, he "goes to heaven," being alive as it were. That doesn't mean he had "eternal life" at the moment of birth. Again, remember that eternal life, by definition, is a life that can't be lost.
So you can say that there are two kinds of
life--the eternal kind and the contingent kind. All people are born with the latter. All people lose the latter the moment they sin. Only those who have Christ have the former kind, and the former kind is had by grace alonet through faith alone in Christ alone.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:50 am
by SoCalExile
One more thing. God hates divorce, right (Malachi 2:16)? Then why would He divorce us, His bride?
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:56 pm
by RickD
SoCalExile wrote:One more thing. God hates divorce, right (Malachi 2:16)? Then why would He divorce us, His bride?
He wouldn't. But then the argument is that we could divorce him.
I don't buy the argument, but that's what it is, fwiw.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:11 pm
by SoCalExile
RickD wrote:SoCalExile wrote:One more thing. God hates divorce, right (Malachi 2:16)? Then why would He divorce us, His bride?
He wouldn't. But then the argument is that we could divorce him.
I don't buy the argument, but that's what it is, fwiw.
Good thing there is no one in the Bible that was "unsaved" and had to get saved again. Solomon and Samson are good examples of this.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:14 pm
by crochet1949
Eternal life Is what happens to a person after they die. We all die physically -- but the spiritual part of us lives on forever, either in heaven or hell. A born-again believer receives a glorified body as soon as they die / united with Jesus Christ / just like after He rose from the dead, He had a glorified body.
At the moment of salvation, we become the Bride of Christ -- and we will never be 'divorced'. And a believer would never want to 'divorce' Christ.
A person has to be able to understand right from wrong -- that person needs to be able to realize the need For salvation -- what is he being saved From.
All babies are aware of is being hungry and wanting to be fed. Everyone Else is aware of the resulting dirty diaper that needs changing. And babies are aware of the sore bottom they get when they are left in a soiled diaper.
And, yes, there is an age of accountability -- varying from person to person. That is why parents need to be teaching from very early on about Jesus and the cross and His bodily resurrection -- and give them examples early on about what a sin Is. Teaching the child right from wrong. There are some tender-hearted children who realize their sins and want forgiveness from a very early age. Others seem oblivious of being naughty and need more attention / more teaching from parents. Saying 'Johnny, you just hit your sister, that is Wrong, naughty -- and maybe even gently swat the little hand that did the hitting and then have Johnny apologize to sister. Making sure he understands the 'wrong' and instruct him in how to be Nice. Or when they say a 'bad' word. The same thing, why is that word Wrong and supply the Better word and apologize for saying the Wrong word and say "I'm Sorry'. And let them know that Jesus doesn't want them saying that word. Let them know it's Jesus Christ's word they are disobeying and not simply Mom or Dad.
So -- it's not eternal life that is lost or kept-- we will All be Somewhere after this physical , earthly life is over. It's Where it's spent. We can be 'lost' forever without Christ / total darkness / agony like satan is destined for. Or we can choose to accept God's gift of salvation and be in heaven with God / and Revelation tells us that Actually -- 'heaven' will actually be brought down to earth. The last two chapters or so tells about that. But it's the concept that we are forever with Jesus Christ / God. We will spend eternity with all other believers from all time past.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:20 pm
by Jac3510
Whoever believes in me has [not "will have"] everlasting life ~ John 6:47.
It is wrong to say that eternal life is what happens after we die. It is what believers have right now, in the present. This is not mere semantics or even good theology. It is the key to sanctification, for growing in the spirit, for bearing good fruit, for overcoming sin in this life, and for storing up and enjoying rewards in glory.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:56 pm
by crochet1949
What I meant is that when our physical life ends -- that is not the end of the person. And, you're correct -- 'eternal' life begins the moment we accept Jesus Christ as personal Savior. And all the rest of what you said, yes.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:07 pm
by jpbg33
the bible says we all die with Adam so we are born sinners and if we do not accept Jesus as our savior as soon as we are aware of this then we will go to hell.
the bible does not teach that you can not lose your salvation. that is non sense.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:57 pm
by jpbg33
Jac3510 your whole deal about eternal life not being a commodity is not right. You say that eternal life is not something you can have or lose but God said eternal life is a gift and a gift is something we can have and a gift is a commodity how you are using the word commodity. So eternal life is something we can have and lose.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:38 am
by RickD
The gospel according to Jpbg, is that whosoever continues to believe in Christ until the day he dies, may or may not have eternal life, because there's no way of knowing for sure if we actually believe at that moment of death.
And jpbg's false gospel also says that God does not indwell anyone who has believed in Christ for salvation. And God lied when He promised everlasting life, at the moment one believes in Christ.
Jpbg's false gospel at best, only offers temporary life that one can gain or lose multiple times. Only with some crappy hope that the gain/lose coin lands on gain at the moment of death.
Pardon me, but I think I'll rely on God's promises, not on the warped interpretation of some guy who "dose" not know what everlasting life really is.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:37 am
by jpbg33
RickD You seem to like science so I will illustrate everlasting life like this. Actually I don't know it you like science or not but I will still use science to illustrate it.
Say there was a man that invented a perpetual motion machine. Then he took his machine and had it tested by 100's of scientist and it was determined that it was perpetual motion. Then a year later he was walking passed the machine and he dropped something on it and it stopped. would that discredit him of making a perpetual motion machine? Would all the scientist have been wrong. Would they come out and say that we though it was perpetual motion but we just found out that it wasn't.
the same thing is true with eternal life it is life that will last for ever if you do not kill it with sin.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:29 pm
by RickD
jpbg wrote:
the same thing is true with eternal life it is life that will last for ever if you do not kill it with sin.
And as it always is with you, straight back to a works salvation.
If we can "kill" eternal life by sinning, then we'd have to stop sinning, in order to keep eternal life.
Which means keeping eternal life would be based on works, or our ability to stop sinning.
Please trust in Christ for salvation. Stop relying on your works to have everlasting life.
Re: 'If you could lose eternal life it wouldn't be eternal'
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:40 pm
by jpbg33
Really that was just a really good illustration of how something that last for ever can stop.
I know that our salvation is not of works but the evidence of our salvation is. Faith without works is dead.
So what make our fiath die? It is our unbelief and our unbelief is shown by our lack of works.
So if you are living in sin then you are on your way to hell because you have no faith.