I believe I wrote it with in mind. So yes, I agree.
Taken away or left it by the born again candidate who 'backslided' from co-operating 'in' Him? In the Holy Spirit, there can be no compromise.
I agree.
I understand that we do agree that the earnest of the spirit means the Holy Spirit, which is given in the here and now.
I am not sure whether we agree as to whether the Holy Spirit can be taken from us, in the context of Hebrews 10:26-29.
We seem to agree that Jesus cannot be precisely said to have eternal life until after he was raised from death.
When we are reconciled with God? How can it be otherwise? Is not death swallowed up in [His] victory?
I understand that we can be reconciled to God in the here and now, as Romans 5:10, 2 Corinthians 5:18, and Colossians 1:21 are all in the past tense. I understand the reconciliation to have already begun and still to be completed in the yet future (Colossians 1:20).
"Death shall be swallowed up in victory" (Isaiah 25:8) is accomplished at the return of Christ and the resurrection of the saints, when we are changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). Paul says that is precisely the time when that passage is fulfilled, and it is a specific future event that affects all at the same time.
So if Jesus could not be said have eternal life while he was still subject to death, why would we be said to have eternal life while still subject to death? There is an answer (it is not rhetorical) ... because we can be said to have eternal life in the sense of having the promise of eternal life that has yet to be redeemed. This redemption of the promise remains conditional ... as indicated by the aforementioned Hebrews 10:26-29.
"The ressurection" being "His" Life by "His" resurrection by the Holy Spirit..
". . .if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Romans 8:11 (KJV)
Paul is specific that it is not Christ's resurrection in the past that fulfills "Death, where is thy victory" but the future resurrection of the saints. He dedicates a whole chapter to the topic.
Why do you want to believe that and not the words of Jesus/Paul?
I most certainly am believing their words. Single passages are not meant to be interpreted outside of context. Paul says that we do not have immortality (a synonym for eternal life) until that moment when we are changed... in the twinkling of an eye after the resurrection of the dead saints.
And all in Christ continue living in a Soul-Spirit state in the presence of God.
I am not confident that there is a solid basis to say that we all "continue living in a soul-spirit state in the presence of God" while we are yet upon this earth, corruptible and not yet changed.
You are speaking of the physical body of man not his soul or spirit which if in Christ are eternally joined to Him.
Until we are changed, we (any all of mankind) remain creatures that require physical components to live, breathe, and have being. After we are changed and given a body and existence that is of incorruptible spirit, then we may inherit the kingdom of heaven, and then shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:50 KJV
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 KJV
(17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:
and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Do a review of the account of the rich man and Lazarus. Luke 16:20ff to understand what happened to the saints who died in the OT awaiting Jesus to set them free. It could only be in this manner when sins were forgiven by the spilling of the blood of animals..
There are no saints in otherworldly existence, which is plainly shown that Jesus did prove the resurrection in that God could not be called the "God of the living" if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not rise. If they existed and could speak and talk they would have no need of a resurrection for them to be considered "living" as they would be "living as a spirit" or the like.
Luke 16 contains the parable often simply referred to as "Lazarus and the rich man" ... it is surrounded above and below by parable, and it continues in the same fashion as a parable when it invokes a fantastic (imaginary) environment that would even find recognition with his audience for the purpose of illustrating the meaning of the parable. It is not a doctrinal statement that the dead are alive... far from it.
Each of its characters exists because of symbolic meaning. Lazarus represents those outside the house of Israel... (he is not an Old Testament saint) and this can be demonstrated from the elements both within the parable and his connotation with
dogs. I think it would be good to review this parable... so may I ask you a question? If Lazarus is gentile, what is the name of the rich man?
Matthew 15:22-27 KJV
(22) And, behold,
a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying,
Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
(23) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
(24) But he answered and said,
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
(25) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
(26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread,
and to cast it to dogs.
(27) And she said,
Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Luke 16:20-21 KJV
(20) And there was a certain
beggar named Lazarus,
which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
(21) A
nd desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Given what we are told about the rich man, and using similar logic to follow the clues (it is already embedded in scripture) what is the name of this rich man of whom the Pharisees were so familiar that he did not need a name?
