John 3:16 and Salvation

Then, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what it is. Since "water" and "spirit" are joined by the same preposition, both have to be literal or both have to be spiritual.

And, "batpizmo" is the word for "baptism" ("baptism" is simply a transliteration), but the word here is "water".

 

Most people forget that Peter denied Jesus. Although some claim it was simply lip service or "he didn't really mean it", Matthew 26:72 tells us that he denied him with an oath and feigned not even knowing his name, then a couple of verses later, he starts cursing to emphasize his denial.

Being denied does not equal being unsaved, but being rejected for an entrance into the coming Kingdom.

Satan is currently ruling from this position, but Jesus will one day step in and take the reigns, and we have the opportunity to join him, if we deny ourselves today.

"Perishing" has to do with losing one's life, not becoming unsaved. This can only apply to saved people, as you cannot lose something you don't have.

And, DPT, it's ironic that you bring up the Catholics, because from my personal experience with them, they seem to mention the resurrection only in passing, and they also concentrate only on a works-based salvation, just from a different angle than that which is being presented here by you, Rev Mitchell, and others.

 

Then you would be incorrect too

I never said He offered a temporary physical kingdom. The physical/earthly kingdom was already offered and promised to Israel. Don't put words in my mouth.

You are right in the fact that He didn't say 1,000 years. But that doesn't mean He didn't teach about His coming kingdom which will last 1,000 years according to comparing Scripture with Scripture which is what you are failing to do.

You say if it doesn't directly say 1,000 years then that's not what He is talking about, but again you are incorrect because you don't compare Scripture with Scripture.

That's because it's not.

Well unfortunately you have fallen into the same trap as the majority of Christendom. Go back and look at the original Greek word which has incorrectly been translated everlasting or eternal. The word is aionios, which is an adjective of the Greek word aion. Aion means age. A definite beginning and a definite end. The adjective form is age-lasting. So the life that John 3:16 is age-lasting life. Life for the coming age. What is the coming age? The coming kingdom of Christ, which will last an age (1,000 years).

God's Scriptures as truely AMAZING. They build on each other and compliment each other and it just flows if we will let it.

No it doesn't.

That's because they don't know any difference. They have been taught all their life that it was dealing with eternal salvation. But it's not.

And Jesus was dealing with eternally saved people already.

Well you can try to convince yourself as much as you want. Following Christ is a work. Continual believing is based on you and not on Christ. Just because you keep telling yourself over and over that what you believe is true, doesn't make it so.

Please show me a single OT and a single NT Scripture that says resurrection is required for the payment of sin. If you can't then it doesn't have anything to do with eternal salvation.

 

That's the whole key to the passage. This is talking about someone doing something. Therefore we KNOW without a doubt it is NOT talking about eternal salvation as you say.

If it was speaking of eternal salvation then this Scripture passage would be in direct violation and contradict Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:30-31 and Romans 4 & 5.

So it is in fact you that are twisting Scripture.

Context is king and you are ripping this passage from its context to make it fit your theology.

 

If you choose to believe that you earn your spiritual salvation, then that is your right, but it doesn't make you correct. Works, are works, are works, no matter how you try to decorate them up.

If you must do all these things to be saved, then you are working your own way, through your own power; you are saved by yourself, and not the finished work of the Lord Jesus on the cross.

 

Re Jn 3.5 - The NET Bible has an interesting note on this:

A "teacher of Israel" like Nicodemus would be expected to know what Jesus was talking about because he would know these passages. One thing the Pharisees knew were the OT scriptures. It doesn't mean Nicodemus was saved (as someone here asserted - can't recall who now).

 

What in the world are you talking about. Why do you take a quote of mine that take it out of its context and then say something silly like the above quote.

Nowhere have I said that someone that is walking in the Spirit producing works that will stand the test of fire (gold, silver, precious stones) is doomed to hell, while someone that simply talks a good game is in great shape.

Please quit putting words in my mouth. If you want to deal with Scripture that is one thing, but accusing someone of saying something they didn't say is something totally different. Just stick to Scripture and we'll be okay.

 

In Ephesians 2:10, "should walk in them" is subjunctive; it may or may not happen. IOW, exactly what JJump is saying: We should be walking in them, but we may not be.

The question is, what are the results of not walking in them? Is it loss of spiritual salvation? If so, then that's a works-based salvation, based upon works that a man performs. What Jesus did on the cross is not good enough.

That does not mean that there are no consequences to not walking in them.