What kind of virgin will you be?

There is no difference.

Paul was accused of the same teaching and wrote Romans 6 in response to it. I consider myself in good company. My belief (and the belief of the Reformers) is completely opposite of antinomianism. What you have done is listen to the critics of dispensationalists (who would be Covenant Theologians) and become a hyper-dispensationalist.

Now you demand that believers must be judged when they don't have works, but they can't lose their salvation. Why not just take the biblical teaching that God works in the lives of believers to produce fruit and fruit is an evidence that you are connected to the vine?

Part of speech (noun vs verb) does not change the meaning of the word pistis.

How does someone who is "unbelieving" end up in heaven?

 

I know a great many Greek teachers who say otherwise. But, if you deny this difference, then it lets it fit into preconceived theology instead of looking at what it actually says.

What must I do to be saved? "Believe [aorist; punctiliar action] on the Lord Jesus and you will [not may] be saved." Please notice that there is no requirements for producing fruit, nor is there the requirement to continue believing (which would be unbelieving).

Look at the passages and see how they are written and to whom they are written, and it will clear up a great many things. It is my belief that more churches don't teach in the original languages because it would force them to abandon preconceived doctrines.

Then you are denying a most precious truth that is presented in the Scriptures and you are rejecting something that the Lord esteems, if you say there is no difference.

The Scriptures are quite clear on the difference, but failure to discern between the two has led to much confusion, especially between the Arminian and Calvinist positions.

 

Whew! Is this thread over yet? I keep hearing "nonsense upon nonsense, and a layer more, nonsense upon nonsense, who'll bring in more?"

 

We were just waiting for you to show up so we could have utter ridiculosity!

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]That is certainly a traditional baptist interpretation of it. Clearly, based on what? Just because a man is chastened at the judgment seat of Christ does not mean he is an unbeliever. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you call "Depart from me ye evildoers" or "you workers of lawlessness" in Matt. 7.23 a chastening of saved people? I don't see how any believer could think that is being said to believers!

 

Well, since this pictures events at the Judgment Seat of Christ, and only saved people (and all saved people) appear there, I don't see how you could think anything else.

 

Wow. How does one respond to something like this?

 

Ed,
Are you referencing the teaching of the "Baptist Bride?" </font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm referring to the sometimes reference that the church is the bride of Christ, as the bride of the Lamb in Rev. 19:7. I do not find any definite reference as to the church being the Bride of Christ, and wonder what scripture is used to 'support' this?
Ed

 

Hope, with all respect, why do you think this (Matt. 7:15-23) previews or pictures the Bema? I agree that only saved people but only some (specifically the church, the body of Christ), will be there at the judgment seat or judgment bar . (Dan. 12:1-3: Matt.25:31-46)

The language of Matt. 7 sounds much more like that of the judgment of the 'sheep and goats' found in Matthew 25:31-46. Since I guess I am one who thinks something else, I ask one thing. Explain your view, please.
In His grace,
Ed

 

I will admit that I have had problems with this a little. The bride mentioned in Revelation 21:2, 9-10 is the New Jerusalem.

Interestingly, though, the church is whom Christ died for according to Ephesians 5 that He might present her as a chaste virgin (his bride). Notice He presents us as a virgin, not a married woman. This only fits with the idea of a bride in her purity on her marriage day, not a wife who has already had intercourse.

Revelation 19 details the marriage supper of the lamb (after the events of the tribulation for you dispies). The wife is made ready with fine linens (the righteous deeds of the saints). This could be the saints that inhabit the New Jerusalem or it could be the saints themselves.

Romans 7:4 says that we have died to the law through the body of Christ that we might be "married to another." The "we" (or you) is the church, making the church the bride who is married to Christ.

 

BTW, Ed. Who do you think these ten virgins represented? Israel?

 

James, assuming Paul wrote Hebrews (which you apparently do), he does not say that these people (whom you call believers) "will be more worthy of judgement." He says that there remains a certain fearful looking for judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." So, are believers now adversaries in addition to workers of lawlessness and evildoers?

 

[Speaking of Matt. 7.23]

Christ also judges unbelievers.

 

Is it farfetched to think a believer could be lawless, or an evildoer? Maybe you have never been a backslidden Christian, but I have. </font>[/QUOTE]James, there is no way I can find biblical justification for Jesus addessing those whom have been adopted as children of God as "workers of lawlessness" nor any way that Jesus would say to believers, "I never knew you." The last statement alone shows these are NOT believers. Nor can I imagine Jesus telling those who are redeemed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit to depart from Him.

 

Exactly. Not only does this go against "those He foreknew", Jesus said that anyone who comes to Him He will in no way cast out.

 

What about them? Even if you believe a person can lose his salvation (I do not), you still can't have Jesus saying "I never knew you" to them. Jesus would have to say "I once knew you but you became a stranger to me."

 

James, I am not sure what Heb. 10.29 means, but 10.26 talks about those who received knowledge -- it doesn't say they were saved. Verse 29 also describes these people as having contempt for Christ - they can't be saved.

We have to look at everything in context, and since other passages clearly teach that when we are saved, we are saved (see for example Jn. 5.24 and Col. 1.13-14), then we know that Heb. is not talking about someone who is saved and then cast out, imo - nor is Matt. 7.23 speaking of saved people.