Justification

1. Yet, in these Gospel narratives we are told that when Jesus returns he's going to separate the sheep from the goats.

2. The goats are going to spend in eternity in the devil's hell, which John calls the lake of fire. I didn't invent that teaching. It is all over the NT.

3. Are you an annihilationist?

 

No........(had to be 10 characters :laugh

EDIT: Well you added some stuff while I was responding

The duration of "hell" is the same duration as "life." They are both aionios. Unfortunately the annihilationists misapply this understanding of aionios because they are still trying to apply the goats to eternally unsaved folks. But with their understanding of aionios as age-lasting they get that the wicked are annhilated.

But the goat is saved person that will receive his proper reward for his undesired actions. The judgment of the sheep and the goats is a judgment of works. The sheep go to the kingdom because they "did" the right things and the goats do not because they did not "do" the right things.

Once again if you are going to apply the sheep/goats Scripture to a seperation of eternally saved and eternally unsaved then you are left but one option and that is works-based salvation according to what the text actually says.

 

Glad to know you are not.

 

There is natural revelation. And there is also a righteous requirement. God cannot be robbed of His glory by one of His creations. They will glorify His righteousness or suffer His wrath so that He is found just. These are principles. Fallen man cannot glorify God. And as HoG mentioned earlier, "I cannot lose a million dollars I do not have". Which is precisely God's point.

 

Not following you here my friend. Do you have evidence that Scripture says the NT folks (lost sheep of the house of Israel) were destined for the lake of fire forever and ever and ever?

 

AFK 1 hour. I'll respond this evening. Sorry JJ!

 

1. At this point, I respectly wish not to continue along these lines of discussion.

2. I would encourage you, however, to read some good commentaries on the Gospel narratives. DA Carson has an outstanding one in the Expository Bible Commentary Series on Matthew.

3. It makes no sense for me to be involved in this discussion any longer. Others might find it useful, and I respect that.

4. As for me, I see that both sides are committed to their respective views and nothing is going to change that.

5. You will find other participants, but count me out.

 

Didn't I say that from the beginning . But I would change it a bit from my perspective and say that nothing you "have said" to this point has changed my mind. I am not unwilling to change my mind, however I not going to change it because all we are left with is I think my scholars are better than your scholars and that's all I've seen to date when you boil it all down.

 

Then who are those that NEVER perish?

Your lack of understanding of scripture boggles the mind. You are being deceived JJ and falling for it hook, line and sinker. There is no way you could have come up with these off the wall interpretations by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I think the best thing any of us can do for you is to pray for your eyes to be opened and abandon this heresy.

 

The ones that end up with life and never lost it. They will never perish. They will have life in the coming age and they will have life in the endless ages.

You know I feel as sorry for you as you do for me and the reason being is that you have discovered some Truths about Scripture that if you would study them out are going to leave you with no where to go but accepting what we have said or returning to a position of saying that text doesn't speak to a saved person.

You say most all of the right words, but you keep applying 21st century vernacular to them and then you keep getting backed up by others that keep pushing you more and more toward them.

You see the warnings in Scripture. You understand that they are to believers. There's only three options. Either you are going to have to say those warnings are not to believers. That believers can lose their eternal salvation or we are correct in what we have been saying. You have already eliminated the first option. You have told me that you don't believe in conditional security so there's only one option that is left.

 

Amen, Amy. The part about Jesus coming to offer a kingdom to a saved people was such weird wiggy mojo I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I know we're not supposed to use the "h" word on here, but this kingdom salvation stuff is by all means Heresy with a capital H. If I get kicked off the board for calling a spade a spade, I'll go with pleasure.

 

I hope I don't get kicked off for the "H" word either. I didn't even consider that when I wrote it because I truly believe that's what it is. It denies the power of Christ to SAVE us from ALL our sins. And the only time I have ever used that "word" since I've been on the BB is in describing the ME, KS doctrine. I am still surprised that it is even allowed in the Baptist only sections.

 

How do they keep from "losing" it?

 

You're comparing apples to apricots.

Verses 35-37 tell you in no uncertain terms that it's talking about the salvation of the soul, which is something that only a saved person can do.

The losing of the soul, which has to do with the age to come, is what perishing is.

Only saved people can apply these passages.

Guess what? If an unsaved person were to apply these instructions, he would no longer be unsaved.

 

Time to fix the Bible again! According to KS, it must be...

For God so liked the world, that he sent his only begotten Son to tell us that whosoever is already saved and works real hard should not perish, but have 1,000 years of life.

 

I assume you are referencing John 10:28 here. Verse 27 tells you that it's his sheep. The shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, but they're all of the same flock. Matthew tells us that this is based on works, whether good or selfish. The Bible tells us that both are clean animals.

Amy, do you think that unsaved people are clean and pure?

 

Look at the prodigal son.

He was a son; he's a mature member of the family.

He had an inheritance.

He squandered it.

He was perishing.

If he had not come back home, he would have perished.

He came back home and was welcomed with open arms, and although he squandered his inheritance, he was still given a robe, a ring, and some shoes.

If you apply this to saved vs unsaved, then you have to assume that you can lose your salvation.

Or, you have to assume that God is too inarticulate to say what he really meant.

Or, you have to assume that he wasn't really a son, even though the Bible says he was.

But, he's in the family, he squandered his inheritance, he almost perished, but he came home.

A saved person is in the family, he has an inheritance, and it's up to the individual what he does with it. If he esteems it, he can get a double portion; if he doesn't, he can lose it all. But, it's based on what he does within the family, not how he gets into the family.

 

You KS people follow a very predictable pattern. You grab something from the Bible, apply something unrelated to it in order to fortify your position, and then rather than justify your abuse of scripture, you "challenge" the other person to disprove it.

Example from above...

Sheep from the goats. You grab "clean animals" from the OT, wrongly apply it to the goats in the NT, and then challenge Amy with, "Amy, do you think that unsaved people are clean and pure?"

The fact is that the meaning of the passage on sheep and goats has nothing whatsoever to do with clean and unclean animals. It's simply a metaphor. You have to superimpose an OT law on top of the metaphor in order to "fix" the passage to mean what you want it to mean.

I saw this same thing happen earlier with the argument about "born from above" and "adopted". Again, these are two DIFFERENT metaphors to illustrate two different truths. You KS folk cross the metaphors as if they have to be consistent with one another, and then rather than explain WHY they must be consistent, you phrase your response as a challenge... "If you're already born of God, why do you have to be adopted into His family?"

Correction (edit): You do worse than cross the metaphors and then issue a challenge. You falsely claim the Bible says we are born from above into a family. It does NOT say any such thing. You added the "into a family" part. Your argument is built on an addition you made to the Bible, not the Bible itself.

Another thing you do is make these absurd generalizations like "subjunctive ALWAYS indicates something is possible, not definite", and then when someone shows you a passage where it's definite and not only possible, you just ignore the fact that your claim was soundly disproved and continue spouting your nonsense as if it still carries any weight.

This kind of disingenous and deceptive debating technique is deplorable.

.

 

Please show just one . . . just ONE quote from ANYONE that has said Christ does not have the power to save us from all our sin. JUST ONE.

NNE has said that. That is preposterous. Of course Christ has the power to save us from all our sin. But just because someone has the power doesn't mean they are going to do it.

I John 1:9 - IF WE CONFESS our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Do you really think He forgives if we don't confess? Do you have any Scripture that says He does? And if so how are you going to square it with this one?

 

Neither response from HoG or JJump tells us what a person must do or not do to insure they don't go to outer darkness for 1000 years.

What must you do? And how do you know you've done it?


And yes, your doctrine does deny the power of Christ, because you say that He punishes the saved right alongside the wicked for 1000 years in a place that was created for the devil and his demons. The wicked are punished for their sins and unbelief. The saved are not punished for their sins because Christ has already taken their punishment. Your view is not Biblical in any shape or form.