Search results

Salvation is already assured, but not executed (looking for the right word...not sure this one is correct) until the resurrection.

as long as by "endure faithfully" you mean "continue to believe". And [Rev 2:11 KJV] 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. I agree, though I'm not sure that's what your reference is referring to...

No! Absolutely not! Salvation is assured by Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Salvation is not complete, perhaps, until one hears their name read from the book of life. But even that isn't needed for those who take part in the first resurrection. Over them the second death has no power.

And in that translation both are explicitly future tense (KJV is less obvious).

meaning they didn't need to be saved from hell? Or it is a "salvation" of lesser consequence? If from hell, then are they saved from hell as a nation? I think you're saying no, in which case we need to go back to discussing how they and we are saved from hell. maybe. He has a physical body now...

In other words, not salvation from hell? Ok. Salvation from hell? I'm unconvinced. If we're in heaven and Jews are living on earth, and Jews are ruling, with Christ here on earth, over the gentile nations, and we are Christ's body, how can we not be with Christ here on earth? But my question...

Good point. The association of the same term for different persons in the Godhead in different sections might be intended to show the unity of substance and diversity of persons.

You may be correct, but what you follow with makes me think not. We are saved from something in rhe future, as you state. We are confident in that salvation, and thus we have hope that we will be saved from that future thing. There is a present aspect of our salvation and a future aspect of our...

Absolutely...Who goes to the throne and takes the scroll from the one sitting on the throne. Revelation 5:7 KJV — And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. Thus, the Lamb is not the one sitting on the throne, even if He is one with the one sitting on...

I don't think the elders in any way represent the Godhead. But they are sitting around the great throne, on which sits the Father, who is called "Who is, and who was, and who is to come."

Yes, I agree. But the question was about whether the three persons of the trinity were in view. It seems to me that the writer of Revelation would maintain some separation between the three, and he does, I think.

I was wondering if it meant who is to come to earth. If a Hebrewism just emphasizing that the grace is from Jesus, then vs 8 associates Him clearly with the term "the Almighty". That's not an unusual position, as the translation of the KJV I got the following from had it in red letters...

Maybe I misunderstood when you gave me a definition of "hope", here: I can see that you are saying the same thing I am, but then I don't understand why you posted it in response to mine. Of course our hope is in what God has said, but not looking forward to something that has already come to pass.

Right. So we're talking about the wrath of God or God's judgment on judgment day. Both of these are future events/times. That's why it's a "hope".

Exactly! That was my point. "Are saved" from what? But the fulfillment isn't fulfilled yet. It's still a promise, and we still hope it will be fulfilled, according to Paul.

You don't "expect" something that has already come to pass. If I've already had my breakfast, I'm not in some kind of expectation that I will get to have breakfast today. I don't need to have "confidence" that breakfast will happen when it has already happened. "Promises" are about something...

Our salvation is not achieved yet either: 1 Thessalonians 5:8 KJV — But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 1 Corinthians 15:19 KJV — If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most...

I typed that wrong, or my phone corrected it wrong. My intent was to keep the conversation about the past, to deal with what you were saying. So when you said that grace added to law equals law, aren't you saying the Jews of James' time were saved by the law?

Why is that in conflict with what I said you were saying? James was writing to Jews, according to you. James was writing to those following the "kingdom gospel", according to you. James was not writing in the past with respect to the kingdom gospel Jews, since he was a kingdom gospel Jew...