Questions about when people get "saved"

[MT1926]

What pearly gates are you referring to?.. the ones mentioned in Revelation 21?

You’ve never heard anyone say the pearly gates of heaven, it’s just an analogy. You honestly didn’t know what I was alluding to?

I think once a saved man who was kicking and screaming sees heaven, his bias, his misunderstanding, his false beliefs, will all melt away at the presence of the Lord. He will humbly bow in total submission. He will realize how stupid and crazy he was to doubt the goodness of God.

How does he see it though? Unless he is dragged into heaven first?

Does everyone get to take a look before they decide if they want to go to heaven or not?

Whether he loves God or not so much, he gets to heaven in the same way as anyone else, through new birth. It is the Holy Spirit in Him who has sealed him unto the day of his physical redemption. Eph. 1:7, 14; Romans 3:24; Romans 8:23.

So to Love God isn’t necessary? Not so sure if Jesus would agree with this one?

Phesians 1:7. Yes great verse. I like how St. Paul goes on to explain…

13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit, 14 which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory.

He also tells this to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 1:22.

A first installment is considered a down payment. St. Paul is telling us the Holy Spirit doesn’t “seal the deal” for redemption it’s just a down payment for our belief. That’s why I keep saying belief is not enough, it only gets you a down payment according to St. Paul.

You even quoted the verse, what do you think a first installment is? If you pay the first installment on your mortagage does the bank sign you over the deed before you made the other 239 payments?

Romans 3 saved by grace Amen :+1:t2:

Romans 8:23 I’m going to have to think about this one a little. It says…

23 and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Those words are kind of throwing me a bit because why would born again believers be waiting for adoption. I’m not sure right now, let me ponder this one.

 

[guanophore]

My request to get a spiritual understanding is not unreasonable. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is not valid.

I agree, and it is important for all of us to have a spiritual understanding. What is unreasonable, and unscriptural, and anti-christ is to set “spiritual” as equal to “metaphorical”.

And I am not making a contrast between spiritual and literal. I am making a contrast between spiritual and natural.

This is part of the problem, tgG. “Natural” would seem to imply that which is temporal and physical. While I agree that there is a difference in understanding things from a spiritual vs a “natural” (carnal) mentality, the dichotomy you have created goes against the teaching of Christ.

the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God

Yes, but that which is “natural” (spiritually unregenerated) does not equate to metaphorical. There are many spiritual realities that are not perceived in the natural (realm of the senses), angels being one of the best examples. Angels are not ‘metaphorical", just because they dont’ have physical bodies.

 

[lanman87]

EPhesians 1:7. Yes great verse. I like how St. Paul goes on to explain…

13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit, 14 which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory.

I’ve looked at several different translations of Ephesians 1:14

14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. - NIV

14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. ESV

14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. NKJV

14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. RSVCE

14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. NASB

4 which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. RSV

Also 2 Corinthians 1:22

22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. NIV

22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. ESV

22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. NKJV

22 by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment. RSVCE

22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. NASB

22 he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. RSV

It is interesting to me that the only version that uses the term “first installment” is the RSV Catholic Edition. All the other version use words like guarantee or pledge. Even the NIV which calls it a deposit also says it guarantees what is to come.

Just something to think about.

 

[MT1926]

Just something to think about.

Thanks for the reply.

I thought about it.

I guess all of those translations just go to show how the translators are not inspired and were not given the gift of infallibility.

The Greek word here is arrabOn.

From Strong’s Greek…

arrabón: an earnest (a part payment in advance for security)

If a fallible translator wants to interpret this word to mean guarantee more power to them. However, from the Greek it is easy to see that the definition @tgGodsway is trying to apply to this verse is not what St. Paul intended.

Nowhere in this verse can we come to the conclusion that once we are born again we can stop loving God and He has no choice but to give us entrance into heaven. The statement by itself sounds absurd, to say that Jesus didn’t mean it when He said it is even more absurd.

An arrabón (an earnest) is a partial payment on God’s part that He will do what He promises. No where does this verse tell us that we don’t have to cooperate with this earnest, by loving God and neighbor, before God will fulfill His promise. And in no way is an earnest (partial payment) a guarantee of full payment.

Just something to think about,

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

I guess all of those translations just go to show how the translators are not inspired and were not given the gift of infallibility.

So the hundreds, maybe thousands, of different translators (many whom have dedicated their life to translating the scriptures and many of whom have Phd’s in related fields) who worked on the various teams that translated the greek manuscripts into the various translations all got the translations wrong???

 

[tgGodsway]

You guys are hilarious. If only you would allow scripture to interpret scripture you can save yourself a lot of pain.

 

[MT1926]

So the hundreds, maybe thousands, of different translators (many whom have dedicated their life to translating the scriptures and many of whom have Phd’s in related fields) who worked on the various teams that translated the greek manuscripts into the various translations all got the translations wrong???

You are the one who made the list of verses with different translations, and claim the Catholic addition is the only one that differs. Which could easily be argued you were trying to say it must be wrong.

I don’t see why someone having a Phd in their related fields automatically means they are right and can not err. Why do you think this? I don’t understand your argument here? Are you trying to say that the Catholic Church doesn’t use Phd’s in their translations? I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church has tons of Phds.

Not sure why this is the only thing you are responding to?

How about giving me some insight on your thoughts about my main point…

The Greek word here is arrabOn.

From Strong’s Greek…

arrabón: an earnest (a part payment in advance for security)

An arrabón (an earnest) is a partial payment on God’s part that He will do what He promises. No where does this verse tell us that we don’t have to cooperate with this earnest, by loving God and neighbor, before God will fulfill His promise. And in no way is an earnest (partial payment) a guarantee of full payment.

Your thoughts on the Greek?

Thanks

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I’m in absolutely no pain. Opened up the Greek Interlinear Bible, looked up the verse saw it says arrabOn, translated earnest (a part payment in advance for security). Piece of cake. Didn’t even break a nail.

Your turn…

Please use scripture to interpret the meaning of the Greek word arrabOn.

You might want to stretch first.

God bless

 

[lanman87]

Not sure why this is the only thing you are responding to?

I’m just pointing out how the majority of “experts” have translated these versus.

 

[MT1926]

I’m just pointing out how the majority of “experts” have translated these versus.

And I’m just pointing out that most experts tend to give their “Expert Opinions”, which I’m sure we agree is not infallible.

What’s your thoughts on taking the Greek word arrabOn, using it’s actual defined meaning (earnest) in the context of the passage and making an interpretation?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

And I’m just pointing out that most experts tend to give their “Expert Opinions”, which I’m sure we agree is not infallible.

What’s your thoughts on taking the Greek word arrabOn, using it’s actual defined meaning (earnest) in the context of the passage and making an interpretation?

Yes, they are not infallible. Which is why I use multiple translations to try and build a consensus on the thought and meaning of particular passages.

From What little research I’ve done on the word arrabOn is that means a pledge or promise that is backed up by a deposit or payment.

728 /arrhabṓn (“down-payment pledge”) is the regular term in NT times for “earnest-money,” i.e. advance-payment that guarantees the rest will be given. 728 (arrhabṓn) then represents full security backed by the purchaser who supplies sufficient proof they will fulfill the entire pledge (promise).

also

728 arrhabṓn – properly, an installment; a deposit (“down-payment”) which guarantees the balance (the full purchase-price).

I’m not a greek scholar or someone who has the knowledge to translate languages. I do know that folks that do that kind of thing for a living use more than the definition of a word, they also use context and examine other documents of the time to help determine how the word would be understood to the reader.

Having said that, it looks like the word means more than a down payment or first payment. It is also a pledge, promise or guarantee to pay all future payments. So in that context it seems as if the Holy Spirit is both a down payment and a promise/pledge/guarantee of our inheritance.

 

[guanophore]

It is interesting to me that the only version that uses the term “first installment” is the RSV Catholic Edition. All the other version use words like guarantee or pledge. Even the NIV which calls it a deposit also says it guarantees what is to come.

Just something to think about.

Original Word: ἀρραβών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: arrabón
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-hrab-ohn’)
Short Definition: an earnest, earnest-money
Definition: an earnest, earnest-money, a large part of the payment, given in advance as a security that the whole will be paid afterwards.
http://biblehub.com/greek/728.htm

How do you think the Catholic version departs from Strong’s definition of the word?

 

[guanophore]

You guys are hilarious. If only you would allow scripture to interpret scripture you can save yourself a lot of pain.

Certainly it is essential that we understand each individual passage in the light of the whole. What is different, tgG, is that you interpret the passages wearing Reformed glasses, while Catholics interpret it through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

You still have to explain why God allowed His Church to be off track for 1500 years. Why did the powerful Jesus evident in the book of Revelation fail to do what He promised? Did he have the flu for a millenia and a half?

 

[MT1926]

Yes, they are not infallible. Which is why I use multiple translations to try and build a consensus on the thought and meaning of particular passages.

Fair enough, but how do you choose which translations are correct? Do you read them all or just pick out the ones that fit your theology?

You listed a few, but we also have a longer list that doesn’t use the word guarantee…

KJ21 the pledge of our inheritance
ASV earnest of our inheritance
BRG earnest of our inheritance
CSB The Holy Spirit is the down payment of our inheritance
CEB The Holy Spirit is the down payment on our inheritance
DARBY earnest of our inheritance
DLNT pledge of our inheritance
DRA pledge of our inheritance
EHV the down payment of our inheritance
EXB That Holy Spirit is the ·guarantee [down payment; deposit] ·that we will receive
GNV earnest of our inheritance
HCSB He is the down payment of our inheritance
JUB earnest of our inheritance
KJV earnest of our inheritance
AKJV earnest of our inheritance
LEB down payment of our inheritance
NABRE the first installment
NASB a pledge of our inheritance
NET down payment of our inheritance
NMB the earnest of our inheritance
NRSV pledge of our inheritance
NRSVA pledge of our inheritance
NRSVACE pledge of our inheritance
NRSVCE pledge of our inheritance
WEB pledge of our inheritance
WE The Holy Spirit is the first part of what we are to receive from God
WYC earnest of our heritage
YLT earnest of our inheritance

Most of these aren’t even Catholic Bibles.

The interesting part of all of this is that you have to pick and choose which translation you are willing to accept and which one you won’t.

From the Catholic perspective we read every single one of these translations and say AMEN!

We see no conflict in any of the ones I posted or the ones you posted. The reason being is because we all know the definition of a guarantee.

A guarantee is a formal assurance or promise that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a transaction.

All guarantees have fine print, you can’t take your car and use it for something that it wasn’t intended to be used for then expect it to be covered under the bumper to bumper guarantee. In the same way you can’t be born again and then use your body and sin in ways God did not intend to use your body for, then expect to be guaranteed salvation (without repenting first).

Jesus told us what His fine print was…

Matthew 24:13
13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 10:22
22 But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Romans 2:6-7
6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Galatians 6:7-9
7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

How does he see it though? Unless he is dragged into heaven first?

To be absent of the body is to be present with the Lord. There is no dragging into heaven. This expression is found nowhere in scripture that I can think of.

 

[tgGodsway]

Certainly it is essential that we understand each individual passage in the light of the whole. What is different, tgG, is that you interpret the passages wearing Reformed glasses, while Catholics interpret it through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

You still have to explain why God allowed His Church to be off track for 1500 years. Why did the powerful Jesus evident in the book of Revelation fail to do what He promised? Did he have the flu for a millenia and a half?

I thought I answered this. Okay… What is 1500 years to God? it is a blink of an eye. Please do not forget how the nation of Israel had no prophet in their land from Malachi to John the Baptist. Over 400 years.

John the Baptist was the Luther of his day announcing the coming reformation. And of course the Pharisees resisted that reformation even though God had not spoke in such a long time and the fact that their was no Ark of the covenant in the holy place. This had been the case for many years.

It is not about God unable to make the changes, or not being powerful enough. It is about God fulfilling His promise according to His pre-ordained time.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m coming into this post not too sure what the point is here. But I think I get it. If I’m off the mark MT, I’m sure you will let me know.

The earnest of our inheritance is not so much that we must complete the work as you think. He gave us a down-payment called the Holy Spirit, and will finish the work at His coming. But in doing so, God is always the giver and not the recipient. In the salvation process we are always the recipient. This concept can be found in Romans chapter 8 where Paul offered a kind of chain of salvation in a process.

v29 "for whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. v30 Moreover whom He predestined, these he also called, whom he called, these he also JUSTIFIED, and whom he justified, these He also glorified. Ro. 8:29-30

Those He foreknew, he predestined. And those He predestined, He called, and whom those He called is justified, and whom He justified, He glorified.

Foreknew
predestined
called
justified
glorified. … in that order. but if you notice, Paul left out a work that requires a contribution from us. It is the work of sanctification. … When we read, " if we endure … we will be saved… " endurance is a work of sanctification and certainly cannot be understood as a justifying work.

Rom. 2 tells us that in "well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality… " these attributes are all works of sanctification. even though the context is arguing from the Law.

In Galatians Paul offered the sowing and reaping concept all leading to eternal life. Yet sowing and reaping are all part of a sanctifying work of God. There is no hint of salvation as a gift to be received freely.

The passages you quoted here are all out of their context.

 

[guanophore]

I thought I answered this. Okay… What is 1500 years to God? it is a blink of an eye.

I agree, but Jesus established His Church within time and space. He made a commitment to preserve that Church from error. He sent St. Athanasius to preserve the Church from the heresy of Arianism. Why did he not send another Saint, or any other voice, to prevent the faithful from passing through the gates of hell?

People only think this who reject the Deuterocanonical books.

John the Baptist was the Luther of his day announcing the coming reformation.

If Luther was the John the Baptist of his day, he would have demonstrated the fruit of the Spirit.

It is not about God unable to make the changes, or not being powerful enough. It is about God fulfilling His promise according to His pre-ordained time.

So where in the Scripture does it say that Jesus will fail to keep his promise to preserve the Church from error for 1500 years, allowing countless souls to pass through the Gates of Hell? When was the “time out” prophesied that there would be this huge lapse in the Gospel?

This concept can be found in Romans chapter 8 where Paul offered a kind of chain of salvation in a process.

Did you notice he was speaking in the PAST TENSE!?

The passages you quoted here are all out of their context.

Isnt’ that interesting!

Good Calvanistic theology there tgG!

 

[opulumpu]

I understand what you’re saying, I’ve just never really felt that the whole concept of purgatory was necessary for us to be “cleaned up.” Our salvation is worked out here on earth, in fear and trembling. The gap between our human imperfection and the perfection of God is made up by Christ. Through his vicarious sacrifice, we have become the righteousness of God.

Here is how I visualize one’s journey to heaven. I see the world as an island jungle with all kinds of creatures, including human beings. It is mayhem in this island and everybody is trying to escape. At death, a few manage to escape and make it to the beach, if they have lived as true Christians or given some kind of pass by God if they are not Christians. Regardless of how well one lived in the jungle, everybody that makes it to the beach is saved but still has dirt on him or her. The beach is what Catholics call Purgatory. To go from the beach (Purgatory), across the vast ocean, to Heaven is beyond the capacity of those at the beach. So Christ sends rescue boats, from time to time. However, nothing unclean will enter the boat. Therefore those who make it to the beach have to be hosed down. How much hosing depends on how much dirt you have on you. Say, if you only screamed at your sister you may get just a little hosing and you are good to go. On the other hand, if you have layers of dirt on you, a paint stripper may be necessary. So your length of stay at the beach will depend on how much dirt you have on you. When you are all cleaned spotless, you enter the boat and it whisks you to heaven. For those who thump their noses at God, they remain on the island when they die, roling in the mud with pigs, tormented by worms, bitten by mosquitoes, bullied by others, etc, etc, etc…and always aware there is a beach and a haven they can never get to.

Please tell me I am not crazy.

 

[MT1926]

To be absent of the body is to be present with the Lord. There is no dragging into heaven. This expression is found nowhere in scripture that I can think of.

Thanks for the response. But this doesn’t really answer my question.

I’m not sure why every time I ask a straight forward logical question you respond by telling me what I’m trying to say is not in scripture?

It seems like a simple question, not sure what I’m misunderstanding here?

You claim a saved person can turn from loving God, want nothing to do with God and actually preach against God and God will still make the man come see heaven? Where’s the Biblical evidence that we can make the choice to turn from God in this life and still get to see heaven? Sorry I am not seeing it.

You said the Bible tells us To be absent of the body is to be present with the Lord.

But that is not how I read it.

St. Paul says we would RATHER or WILLING or HOPING to be absent of the body and present with the Lord.

St. Paul tells us it is something we hope for, it is not something that automatically occurs.

Sorry it makes no sense to me that God would force us to be with Him.

God Bless