What kind of virgin will you be?

I don't see how this means physically saying the word "Lord." It means acknowledging Jesus as Lord. I said "Lord" years before I was saved! Matt. 7 is clearly speaking of unbelievers.

 

Is that like vestigal organ...like my appendix?

 

Jesus never denied that they did those things in his name; just not in his will.

 

It drives me crazy when someone takes something from one context, and tries to refute it by using a verse from a TOTALLY UNRELATED context.

 

Is that like vestigal organ...like my appendix? </font>[/QUOTE]Finally. Another Baptist with a warped sense of humor.

Good one.

 

Why not use goats? If it makes the point (and it does), then where's the problem?

Yeast almost always represents evil. So is Jesus saying that the kingdom of heaven is like evil that works its way into everything?

Again, new wine has bacteria (which almost always represents evil) in it, which is what causes the wineskin to expand (as the bacteria produces gas through fermentation). So why would Jesus use new wine in this example? Why not just stop after giving the example of sewing a new cloth patch onto an old garment?

Do you see the point? You can't just yank something out of an entirely different context in order to force a new interpretation on a simple, obvious analogy.

 

The CONTEXT of any passage in the Bible is Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

Unless, of course, you think the Holy Spirit made an error, or Jesus simply had a slip of the tongue.

 

My objection is that I don't believe all of the virgins are believers, as the second parable in the same chapter shows, and compared to what Christ says in chapter 7.

 

Everything in that passage is dealing with the coming Kingdom; everything in that passage is dealing with saved people. There is nothing that even remotely suggests the fallacy of a "false conversion"; only someone who is saved, but is not wise. (By "conversion", I'm assuming you are referring to salvation, even though only a saved person can be "converted".)

Virgins are clean; goats are clean; they are "his" servants!

 

HOG, this verse in 25:41 is speaking of the same people compared earlier to the 5 foolish virgins...
"Then He will also say to those on the left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels!"
These don't sound like saved, converted, born again, regenerated, etc., etc.

 

It's ironic how false doctrine sometimes meets full circle with other false doctrines. Here is a case in point - this hyper-dispensationalism is very similar, yea almost identical to the Catholic teaching of purgatory. Yuck, and again I say, yuck.

 

Boy, our pro-life stance is almost identical to the Catholic pro-life stance. We must abandon it at once!

BTW, from my understanding, Purgatory is a place where others can pray for your salvation. Your salvation is decided here, based on whether you accept the free gift that has been offered.

On the other hand, Scripture teaches that at the Judgment Seat of Christ, there will be rewards, loss, and even chastisement handed out.

Virgins are pure! Goats are holy! They are "his" servants! They are his...

 

I wouldn't say that. I'd say goats can represent whatever God wants them to represent. If in one place God uses goats as part of a metaphor or analogy that include them in God's flock, then so be it. If in another place God uses goats as part of a metaphor or analogy where the goats represent the unsaved, then so be it. If God uses yeast to represent evil in one story, but uses yeast to represent the start of a new covenant in another, so be it.

Who are we to tell God He has to use the same exact symbols in the same exact way for every lesson?