Works, Faith, & Salvation (for Iano)

You then spent a rather lengthy post in Romans addressing a parenthetical remark I made.The verse you started with at the top, Gal 6:7-9; can you address that and the questions I asked that you quoted, rather than the parenthetical remark I made?

Maybe the work didn't really begin, and you just think it did. I assume that would be your explanation if someone fell completely away. Maybe the promises have conditions on them that are explained in the context of the letter or even of what we know of history at the time, which is how I would explain why those promises aren't fulfilled.In my opinion, pretending that the promise is fulfilled when it clearly is not (i.e., most people fall away or grow cold) is not an option. I prefer to work with reality, not with what I wish reality was.Personally, I don't think Philippians 1:6 has even a little bit to do with the modern church system, so to apply it to a person in a modern church system is wrong. Either way, it clearly is not happening no matter how much you want to "faith" it into existence. You did say we would be able to tell by their works. You also said the works were going to happen "automatically" if they were a true Christian.Are you backing off on that? Because if you are, we have to back up to that all over again. Well, then go ahead and do that. You're spending a lot of time on Romans 2. Have you not noticed that I haven't argued with you about Rom 2 being directed at unjustified people? I have avoided that on purpose, because by itself I agree that there is no way to tell whether Rom 2:6 is talking about just the unsaved.The reason I believe that Rom 2:6 is talking about everyone, including the true Christians in Rome, is because it lines up with other things Paul, Y'shua, and Peter said. That is why I made the parenthetical remark I made when I referenced Gal 6:7-9, which is clearly addressing believers.My answer to Romans 2 is that by itself I can't argue that it's addressed to believers. So that's fine, let's leave it alone, and let's look at those warning passages you mentioned. Or we can look at all the other judgment passages, which also say the same thing as Romans 2.(You covered the judgment passages in passing once, but I let it ride, because there were too many other subjects to address, and I think when you list the judgment passages all in a row they shout the truth at the reader even while you're trying to explain them away.)I would prefer to look at the warning verses, because you mentioned them in this post, and you asked me to provide them earlier. Gal 6:7-9 is a great place to start, and we can cover Gal 5:19-21 at the same time. Eph 5:3-5 and 1 Cor 6:9,10 are just repeats of Gal 5:19-21, anyway. This is the same as throwing them out. Why write Gal 5:19-21 to believers if it can't apply to them? Why use the wording he used in Eph 5 ("no [such person] has any inheritance...") if he didn't mean it? You make Eph 5:3-5 of no effect whatsoever by your belief, and you make it bizarre that he would even write such a thing.On the other hand, Gal 6:7-9 is much harder to dodge. It is clearly written to believers, it clearly mentions doing good, and it clearly addresses eternal life. First isn't a promise, but a statement of fact. The person who loves him will obey his commands. I don't have any problem with that. It was you that took some convincing to believe it.I addressed the part about began a good work. I believe you have to be in an actual church in order for that to be true.The third involves really being saved by his life. That doesn't mean "you shall obey commands forever no matter what you do and you'll go to heaven even if you don't." It means that if he was willing to cleanse you from past sin by his death, then how much more will he be willing to impart his life to you. Then, IF you walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh. you will fulfill the righteous requirement of the law, turn from willful sin, and inherit eternal life at the judgment.We can continue to address this if you want, because without anything else to press, I'm sure you'll need to press this. However, I'd appreciate it if you'd address Gal 6:7-9.

I am not wildly off the mark with the Romans verse. Your fantasy assertions about its context mean nothing at all. In context, using only Romans, it is impossible to tell whether Rom 2:6 is directed just at unbelievers.It is true that the only reason for thinking it even might be only directed at unbelievers in Martin Luther's bizarre and unscriptural beliefs that were invented 1400 years or more after the writings of the Bible were completed, so there's no good reason for thinking what you think. However, there is no proof for or against it in Rom 2.The only way to determine the audience of Rom 2 is to look at other verses like that. So, if you'll quit your little dance jig trying to dodge reality, could you go ahead and address Gal 6:7-9, and not simply hope that I'm "wildly off the mark"?

Uh, huh. And I think you will find that it was you who writhed and twisted and fought even having to look at the verses in 1 John, and finally felt compelled to agree to what they obviously said, because you were basically publically berated into it.But here you are, proving the old adage, "He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."After we nailed you to the wall in your eternal life thread (I think that's where it was), you were forced to admit that the Scriptures say that Christians need to produce something noticeable in this life. Gosh, something we agree on. The problem, however, is not that there's a disagreement on what's a true Christian. The problem is, you believe what you believe, and you don't care a bit if its Scriptural or not. That's ok. Schrafinator and Minnemooseus, Nosy Ned and Mammuthus are the same. They don't care whether their beliefs are Scriptural, either.However, they don't pretend that they do care.Thanks for your time, iano. I was already of the mind to quit wasting my time with you before you suggested this.I don't know what's wrong with me that keeps expecting Christians to be honest. There's no indication that intellectual honesty is a common fault among Christians, yet I keep thinking that one day they're really going to admit, "Hey, we have our own religion here, and we like it whether it works or not. So quit reminding us how bad it is, and definitely stop pointing out Scripture to us, because we're doing quite fine with the parts of it we like."Sigh...

This is actually pretty funny, because really, there was no such claim. I quoted Gal 6:7-9, and in parentheses I wrote something to the effect of "(Hey, that's exactly what Rom 2:6 says)."So I made no such claim. The claim I made is that Gal 6:7-9 says something very clearly:

quote:

---

Behold, God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that shall he reap. He who sows to the flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption. He who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap everlasting life. Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

---

My claim was that in v. 9 Paul is clearly saying that eternal life will be reaped by not growing tired of doing good. This is a very clear verse, and I've never seen any "no works" people have any answer for it.Apparently, you don't either, because you chose the shuffle, shuffle, dance, dance, change the subject answer of "This isn't the same as Rom 2."I guess you did add, "Where's the context? I'm ignoring this until TL explains the context to me. Does he expect me to look up the context on everything he says?" But that didn't seem like much of an answer, either.Dance, dance, shuffle, shuffle...that's what it sounds like.This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-19-2005 11:18 AM

This is called debating. With my friends it's just called discussing, because we all want to know what's true, so I quote the verse and tell them what I think it says. They tell me why they agree or disagree, and we expand from there, examining context or other verses or historical setting or even just plain ol' common sense to verify what I've asserted.Simply placing a verse and asserting what it means is most certainly making a case, especially if the verse is pretty clear. Then, it is indeed up to those who disagree to argue it doesn't mean that. That's how debate works.

So say you, but I just gave you a case where he does. You talk about eternal life having shades of meaning, and you talk about it growing to saturation, but it's all talk.Let's look at the use of eternal life by Paul. He uses it ten times, going by the KJV and looking up eternal life, life everlasting and everlasting life. None of those give any indications of shades of meaning. Several are clearly talking about future possession of something we don't have now: [list]

Rom 2:6,7 uses it as a reward at the judgment for doing good

Rom 5:21 could be interpreted either way

Rom 6:22 says it's the end of holiness

Rom 6:23 says it's the gift of God, but it definitely seems future

Gal 6:8 uses it as something reaped for doing good

1 Tim 6:12 tells Timothy to lay hold of eternal life by fighting the good fight of faith

1 Tim 6:19 says that those who are rich in good works lay up a store for themselves for "the time to come," so that they may lay hold on eternal life

Tit 1:2 says eternal life is a hope (future again)

Tit 3:7 says that being justified by his grace (past tense here), we should be made heirs according to the hope (future) of eternal life.

​

There is simply nothing in any of this to indicate that anything you said is true.

​

You have to pay attention to consistincies. John consistently speaks of eternal life as a present possession of the believer. (I have a really encouraging explanation of why this is so that I picked up from the early church...it's really neat.) Paul consistently speaks of it as a future reward.

​

So when you say that Paul is talking about eternal life growing in us, you're speaking from your own beliefs, not Paul's. It'd be different if you were speaking of John, although John doesn't speak of it the way you do, either. But with Paul, the things you said are simply not valid.

is that they disagree with you very clearly. No, there's not, but this isn't a new doctrine. It's very old. It's only new to you. Yours is the new doctrine, and it wasn't introduced until about AD 1520, which is why it's so difficult to fit into Paul's writings. Paul spent half an epistle telling the Galatians how to be justified. For you, that means he told them what they could do to get God to pretend they are righteous, even though they're not. For Paul and the Galatians, however, he was telling them how they could actually become righteous. That's why he writes:

quote:

---

Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

---

You see, to Paul, being justified and becoming perfect, complete, or mature were the same thing. A justified person is made righteous, which is what the Greek literally means.So Paul spent the first half of the epistle telling them that they will never become righteous people by the keeping of the Law. They will become righteous by the Spirit.Then, in total consistency with the first half of the letter, he warns them in the last two chapters of the consequences if they don't return to the Spirit. If they continue in the works of the flesh, he says in 5:19-21, then they will not inherit the kingdom of God. If they sow to the flesh, he says in 6:7,8, then they will reap corruption. It is only by the Spirit that they will continue to do good without fainting and thus reap everlasting life.All very consistent. No one in the Scriptures agrees with you, iano.

quote:

---

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are OBVIOUS. Whoever does not do righteousness is not of God, nor he that does not love his brother (1 Jn 3:10)

---

The apostle John thinks the difference is obvious. You think they look the same. That's a problem, iano. We do not know that from Romans. Paul warns his listeners that they are to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh in Romans. Why would he do that if it can't happen to them? It's hard to believe you're suggesting that a justified person is never in the flesh."If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit" (Gal 5:25). That's a pretty silly command if those who live in the Spirit are always walking in the Spirit.Have you noticed, iano, how often your doctrine reduces verses to silliness? It's pretty often. Have you found any verses that are rendered silly by what I'm saying? I have a better source for what I'm saying. You should pay attention to my pointing out to you that you're trying to fit a 500-year-old doctrine into 2000-year-old writings. I didn't call this dancing and shuffling. Here you're addressing the issues. Earlier you dodged them, changing the subject. You tried a little of that at the start of the post, claiming I've not addressed issues that I most certainly did address. But here you're addressing the issue, and we can discuss.Notice how the whole context of Galatians has been discussed in this post. Not real deeply, but it has been discussed. That's because you finally answered so that there was something to apply the context to. If you want context, this would be the normal way to get it. You say why context matters, and I address the context. I'll do that every time. I don't do this. I bring up a subject and offer verses for discussion, and when new verses are brought up, I address them as they relate to the issue. I don't leave things behind. It's amazing you mention this, because you jump all over the place in a discussion, and it's very hard to keep you from leaving things behind. You asked me for warning passages. I gave you four. You never addressed them. If you asked me how I knew justified persons were addressed by those passages, I don't remember it. I do remember you referring to Romans verses as warning passages, when I didn't agree they were warning passages at all. You may also have asked about Rom 2, for which my answer was that there's no way to tell from Rom 2 alone whether he's referring to a judgment only of the lost.My answer on the passages you've ignored is that I know justified people are being addressed, because they're written to the church. Paul never stops talking about the hope of eternal life. Paul never stops talking about works. It's all over the place, but you've been ignoring it. I started, emphasis on started, with 1 Cor 6:9,10; Eph 5:3-5; Gal 5:19-21; and Gal 6:7-9, but you never addressed any of them, so we didn't get to go any further.You can find it anywhere, though. I randomly picked Philippians just now, since I've already given you Corinth, Ephesus, and the churches of Galatia as "to which church he expounded" and just started reading in chapter 2. In chapter 3, he writes:

quote:

---

"I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of King Y'shua my Master, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung that I may win Christ and be found in him not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of the King, the righteousness which comes from God by faith, so that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, being made conformable to his death, if, by any means, I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, or were already made perfect, but I chase after, that I may lay hold of that for which King Y'shua has laid hold of me. Brothers, I do not count myself to have laid hold, but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in King Y'shua.

---

How about Colossians, since we're right there, anyway?

quote:

---

You, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, blameless, and beyond reproach in his sight, IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the Gospel which you have heard.

---

We could do this in every book, and this one in Colossians, besides being amazingly clear, addresses the past tense/future tense thing I told you about. Reconciled is in the past tense and refers to his death. No specifics are given about the future, but it's clear it has to do with what you do. Continue and don't be moved away, and then you'll be presented blameless.It's all over the place, iano, and it's taught to every church in the letters.

Better take that up with Paul. He's the one who said it.Your complaint here doesn't make any sense to me. It's the life that's eternal, not your possession of it. You don't have eternal life now, but there's an offer of how to get it. Pretty simple. It might also be known what your Christmas presents are, both by God and by whoever gave them to you, but that doesn't mean you have them already.

Hi, Jaywill. I'm going on an out of town trip in half an hour. I'll get back to you tomorrow.Thanks.

I never said any verses about growing with God's life are all talk. I said the things you were saying were just talk, because you gave no reason for them. You are giving reasons now, and though I don't think any of those reasons are applicable to Gal 6:7-9, I won't call it "just talk" if you're giving reasons. No, I don't think this has anything to do with the growth of eternal life. I went through verses on eternal life, every one that's used by Paul in the NT, and I showed you that he speaks of eternal life as a future reward very clearly in most of them.Now, you are giving verses on growth. That's fine, but surely you didn't think I don't believe in spiritual growth, do you? None of the verses you gave mention the growth of eternal life in a person, and thus they don't apply to Gal 6:7-9.

quote:

---

God is not mocked. Whatever a person sows, that shall he reap. He who sows to the flesh will from the flesh reap destruction. He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap everlasting life. Let us not grow weary in doing good, then, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

---

"In due season" means at some appropriate time in the future. So this verse says that at some appropriate time in the future we will reap eternal life if we don't grow tired of doing good, which will be accomplished, of course, by continually sowing to the Spirit (and growing in it, I agree).Let's put growing and later reaping eternal life in its proper order with a passage that describes this well in 2 Pet.

quote:

---

Giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge...and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are in you and are increasing they will cause you to be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Master Y'shua the King....Therefore, brothers, give diligence to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble, and in this way an entrance will be supplied to you into the everlasting kingdom of our Master and Savior Y'shua the King.

---

Here there is growth, but there is not growth in the possession of an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of Y'shua. You grow in other things, and if you have those things and they are increasing then you will be supplied, as a result, with an entrance into the kingdom.It's the same way in Gal 6:7-9. If you sow to the Spirit you will grow. If you continue in well-doing and don't lose heart, you will grow. But you will not grow in your possession of eternal life. Eternal life is what you will reap as a result of growth in other things, like virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, perseverance, brotherly kindness, and love. Right, you didn't supply any verses in your post. And since you said we're supposed to grow in eternal life, the verses on eternal life seemed like the appropriate ones. I had no idea that you would want to simply say that if we grow, it must be in eternal life. That's not something that follows logically, so there was no way for me to guess that you'd want to use verses on growth to prove your point. I told you, you can't mix John and Paul's usage of eternal life. John ALWAYS uses eternal life as a present possession. Paul NEVER uses it as a present possession. So when you say "if Timothy received eternal life upon having Jesus Christ," then we have to stop there. If you're referencing a letter Paul wrote, then the answer is, Timothy didn't. This is only true to John, not Paul. You can't use Paul's verses in this way.My explanation for this is as follows, but first, remember that whether my explanation is right or not, the fact is true. John always uses eternal life as a present possession, and Paul never uses it as a present possession. So whether my explanation is right, you still have to deal with what Paul wrote, not mix Paul and John because you wish they could mix. Mixing Paul and John's usage of eternal life is part of the reason people get so confused on this subject.So here's my explanation: John says, "This life is in his Son. He who has the Son has the life, and he who does not have the Son does not have the life." John practically equated eternal life with Y'shua. He talked about the Word of Life that was from the beginning being manifested, then seen by the apostles, and then he says, "we show you that eternal life, which was with the father, and was manifested to us."That eternal life, according to John, belongs to the Son and is in the Son. If we have the Son we have eternal life. If we don't, we don't have eternal life. Only John speaks of eternal life this way. Matthew and Peter use it as a future reward, the way Paul does, but John was very mystical, and he was also combatting gnostic teachings, which separated Christ, the Word, eternal life, and several others into separate beings.I like to speak in such a way as to agree with both, which I believe fits well with what was written by those in the apostles' churches over the next century. We have eternal life now, because we have the Son. At the judgment, however, the reward of eternal life (or immortality, as Paul calls it in Rom 2:7) is given to us. Then we have eternal life, because we have eternal life, not just because we have the Son. The eternal life will be in us, not just in the Son.This is actually a pretty major point in the early church writings, because having eternal life or immortality meant to them that they would then be eternal, like God is. Such a gift, such a reward, was too precious--and dangerous, because you could be creating eternal and evil beings if that gift was given to the wrong people--to be handed out willy nilly. It was given only to those who are worthy (which is the exact word Y'shua used in Rev 3:4).Eternal life or immortality is not a big deal to modern Christians. They believe that everyone is eternal. That's not what the apostles' churches believed, so immortality was an unspeakably wonderful gift, worth enduring to the end and worth suffering for. No, that's not clear; not from any of the verses you provided. I'm saying Paul used eternal life a certain way, and even when you look at every verse he used eternal life in, it is consistent. Yes, Paul, too, believed that one receives the life of Y'shua when he or she receives Y'shua. But he never calls it eternal life. Eternal life or immortality is always a future reward to him, which was a hope that was to be "obtained," and clearly, the means to obtaining this reward was to persevere in good works. Maybe to you, but Paul does not use the "Zoe" of Y'shua and "Zoe aionos" interchangeably, and we're talking about Paul's writings, not yours. (Too long since Greek class; I don't remember the gender of Zoe, nor the proper ending to put on aionos, even if I did know the gender.)Paul doesn't call it eternal life until we receive it, and it's in us as well as in the Son, and we don't receive it until the judgment as a reward for good deeds (which come by continuing in the faith and walking by the Spirit). So say you, but not Paul. You quoted Eph 2:8-10 here, which I have already addressed. Paul is speaking in the past tense in Eph 2:8,9, and he is talking about being justified by faith. This is the act of justification that cleanses your past sin, brings you into the King, and makes you righteous. He is not talking about entering the eternal kingdom after the judgment or receiving the reward of eternal life, which happens at the judgment and by works. No, there's nothing in Tit 3:5 either about being saved from the second death. Tit 3:5 is all past tense. You need to read my first couple of posts in this thread. When Paul speaks in the past tense, it is always about salvation from sin and it is always by faith in the King and through the deliverance wrought by the death of the King. When he speaks in the future tense, it is always about salvation from the judgment, about entering the kingdom, about receiving eternal life, and it is by works done by walking in the Life and Spirit of the King.It is very consistent, and you are doing a good job of helping me prove it bringing up all these past tense verses. This isn't true. Reward from works of righteousness has nothing to do with salvation from the power of sin that happened in the past. Reward from works of righteousness has everything to do with eternal redemption. The person can grow in faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, and love. This does entail growing in the life of Christ, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that eternal life is a reward at the judgment, except that this sort of growth is what is necessary if you are to reap that reward at the end of your life.Again:

quote:

---

God is not mocked. Whatever a person sows, that shall he reap. He who sows to the flesh will from the flesh reap destruction. He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap everlasting life. Let us not grow weary in doing good, then, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

---

I don't think any verses you gave address the fact that this verse says that in due season you will reap eternal life, and you will reap it by not growing weary in doing good.

This is concerning why John uses eternal life as a present possession of the believer and Paul doesn't. I ended up having to address this in my post to jaywill, but here's it clipped out:**********************So here's my explanation: John says, "This life is in his Son. He who has the Son has the life, and he who does not have the Son does not have the life." John practically equated eternal life with Y'shua. He talked about the Word of Life that was from the beginning being manifested, then seen by the apostles, and then he says, "we show you that eternal life, which was with the father, and was manifested to us."That eternal life, according to John, belongs to the Son and is in the Son. If we have the Son we have eternal life. If we don't, we don't have eternal life. Only John speaks of eternal life this way. Matthew and Peter use it as a future reward, the way Paul does, but John was very mystical, and he was also combatting gnostic teachings, which separated Christ, the Word, eternal life, and several others into separate beings.I like to speak in such a way as to agree with both, which I believe fits well with what was written by those in the apostles' churches over the next century. We have eternal life now, because we have the Son. At the judgment, however, the reward of eternal life (or immortality, as Paul calls it in Rom 2:7) is given to us. Then we have eternal life, because we have eternal life, not just because we have the Son. The eternal life will be in us, not just in the Son.This is actually a pretty major point in the early church writings, because having eternal life or immortality meant to them that they would then be eternal, like God is. Such a gift, such a reward, was too precious--and dangerous, because you could be creating eternal and evil beings if that gift was given to the wrong people--to be handed out willy nilly. It was given only to those who are worthy (which is the exact word Y'shua used in Rev 3:4).Eternal life or immortality is not a big deal to modern Christians. They believe that everyone is eternal. That's not what the apostles' churches believed, so immortality was an unspeakably wonderful gift, worth enduring to the end and worth suffering for.

In the first half of Romans, he is addressing a Jewish misconception. He didn't have to address the same misconception about the judgment, which is a very simple concept.The concept of justification by the blood of the King is simple, but it is not simple to explain. The disciple has two extremes to avoid. One is to turn the grace of God into licentiousness, and the other is to begin to live in "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which is of no value against the work of the flesh.It was a huge issue for Paul, a pharisee among pharisees, to preach righteousness apart from the Law of Moses. Was he promoting sin? No, he had to say he wasn't. If he was promoting righteousness, what righteousness was he promoting, and how could one be righteous apart from good works. All very confusing, and all requiring a great deal of explanation.The one thing everyone agreed on, and that wasn't difficult to explain, was that everyone would stand before the judgment seat of the King, and they would be judged according to their works, whether good or bad.Paul does address this, pretty extensively, but not in the long explanations that he devotes to obtaining righteousness through faith, because it wasn't as difficult or controversial. Until you are willing to say that the unrighteous are also unjustified, and that they have no inheritance in the kingdom of God, then this is just empty bleating on your part. You say this when it suits you, and you back off whenever the rubber meets the road. You believe in a justification, where God calls a person righteous even if they have no noticeable good works or change in their life at all, and that is pure pretense, not justification at all.If you don't believe it, then say it where it matters. Tell us that all drunks, adulterers, and divisive people are unrighteous and unjustified and will never attain to the kingdom of God unless they repent. Otherwise, yes, you are saying that God is willing to pretend that unrighteous people are righteous, and that is the justification you are preaching.When we started all these discussions, you were saying that justified persons might never change at all in any noticeable way to them or others until maybe even after they die, yet they would be justified, and thus "righteous." You're not very good at applying your own context issues to yourself. Gal 5:5 goes on to say, in v. 6, "...for neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith WORKING through love."We don't just wait and do nothing. We spend our waiting time working. As Paul said, "I buffet my body and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." On the basis I gave you, which was Gal 3:3.However, I do have to grant you that justification is indeed a past event for a person. There is an ongoing growth, an adding to faith and a being made perfect (2 Pet 1:5 & Gal 3:3), and while I do believe that's part of the justification process, we've got enough to argue about without that. We'll just leave it as using justification only for the past tense event. This is all true, but it really doesn't address how this is worked out. The Scriptures teach this is worked out by living in the Spirit and thus patiently continuing to do good. Those who do this will inherit the kingdom, and those who don't will inherit corruption, indignation, and wrath. You highlighted "we will certainly" in your quote of this. However, this is not talking about the future resurrection and judgment. It is talking about if we are experiencing his death, which puts to death our old man, then we will certainly experience his resurrection as well, the putting on of the new man and receiving his life. I think the context of Rom 6 (and this passage is Rom 6:5-7) is not questionable here. We're not talking about future judgment, punishment, and rewards, but living above the power of sin by the life of the King within us.Finally, on Rom 5:9,10, I don't believe that's a certain if, then statement. If that was the only passage in Romans or in the Bible, then it could well be interpreted that way, but since other passages address the whole issue directly, I think it's apparent that Paul is not saying if you've been reconciled, then you'll most certainly be saved from wrath in the end. No, you have to endure to the end, and if you've been reconciled, he most certainly has the power to save you from wrath in the end as well. But you have to continue in it.It's said in just those words by Paul in Colossians:

quote:

---

And you....has he reconciled...to present you holy and unblameable and unreprovable in his sight; IF you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the Gospel.

---

I've found that the key is to remember that when John speaks of eternal life, he is using eternal to describe a type of life, not to describe our possession of it. That life, that "thing" if you will, is an eternal sort of life. That life is in the Son, and the Son is immortal. Eternal life and immortality do go hand in hand, but not necessarily in us.For example, if the Son is in me, and the Son possesses eternal life, then I have eternal life, because I have the Son in me. If, however, the Son departs, then I no longer have that eternal life, because it was in and belonged to the Son, not to me. So eternal describes the life, not my possession of it. Neither. He is talking about a "thing." It's an intangible, mystical, ethereal kind of thing, because it is Life, but it is nonetheless a "thing." That "thing," Life, is eternal, so it is eternal life.The concept is really pretty simple, once you get it in your mind, but it's hard to explain.I want to add something, but I'll do it in the next post.

There's actually a lot in jaywill's post 67 I agree with, so I left it alone. This will touch on some of the same subject, more by accident than on purpose.The subject of immortality was a big deal to the early church, as I said in an earlier post. I'd like to expand on it a bit here, because it helps with the subject of John's use of eternal life.To the early church, there was not only two kinds of life, as jaywill suggests, but also two kinds of matter. (note: I wouldn't translate psuche as life in the sense that bios and zoe mean life.) There was created matter and uncreated matter. Uncreated matter was the "stuff" God is made of.Uncreated matter has always existed, and therefore always will exist, according to the early church. This is what the battle between Athenagoras (that started with Alexander) and Arius was really all about. "Was Jesus God?" was NOT the question the Council of Nicea met about in any sense that people argue about it now. The question was, did God take some of his own uncreated matter to form his Son, or did he create his Son from the created matter that all the rest of the universe was made of. Because if the Son was made from the substance (the "stuff" or matter) that God consists of, then the Son is eternal, with his matter having no beginning and thus incapable of having an end, and he is truly divine. If he was made from the same matter everything else, including the angels, were made from, then the Son is not truly eternal, and thus not truly divine.Now that's all sort of mystical and complicated, but I'm telling that story for a reason.If you can picture this "matter" than God is made of, which is uncreated and eternal in both past and future, and another matter which is created and thus can pass away. Then think of life the same way. There is an uncreated life that is like that matter. It is eternal in both past and future. This is the eternal life that John speaks of. It can come to earth, be manifested, and be seen and handled (1 Jn 1:1-4). It's almost like a substance itself.That life is the life of the Son, who is of the uncreated matter of the Father. If he is in you, then you have access to that life. It is powerful, and it will affect and change your earthly life.At the judgment, however, that uncreated, eternal life of the Son can be given to you as your possession, no longer just the Son's. You then will become eternal, like the Son is eternal. This is that greatest of rewards that the Father bestows, and he will only give it to those that are worthy. This is a gift worth working for.I hope that wasn't all so ethereal and far out as to be not understandable. The concept helps to understand the underlying thought behind the verses on immortality and eternal life, but it's very hard to nail down into points one, two, and three as I like to have things nailed down.