Let's discuss purgatory

[Matt Black]

Did you ever play the prank, when you were a child, of putting dog feces in a bag and lighting in on fire and tossing it on someone's doorstep, while you and your friends ran away and hid in the bushes?

That's essentially what you're doing now.

Er...no it isn't - and I'd appreciate you laying off the personal slurs and slanders; there's been quite enough of that from you.

It's easy to call his explaination "eisegesis", but it's cowardly to do so and then run away without giving any explanation about why it's eisegesis or what the correct exegesis is.

Please explain how he is guilty of eisegesis and explain what the correct understanding of those three judgements is.

Because it's classic pre-millenial dispensationalism read into rather ambiguous passages of Scripture. I'd like to know where else he gets this view (three(!) judgements, 'Bema' judgment etc) from, because it certainly isn't held by any Bible-believing Christians I know...

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Yes, you did. Here are your very own words from your last post:
"Sanctification is part of salvation "

I said it's part of salvation, not justification.

So then, you agree that justification and sanctification are two completely seperate and distinct things, and that justification must occur first in its entirity before sanctification begins?

Yes. Also, both justification and sanctifaction are part of salvation.

No, neither is a part of justification. We are justified through the blood of Christ. We are sanctified and glorified as a result of our justification.

I never said it was a part of justification. :BangHead:

So if I were to ask you how you believe you were saved, what would your answer be?

By God's grace alone through faith alone.

JohnDeereFan, are you a Christian? Also, much less importantly, are you SBC?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Er...no it isn't - and I'd appreciate you laying off the personal slurs and slanders; there's been quite enough of that from you.

Really? Would you care to back that up? (No, I'm just kidding. Of course you won't back it up.)

Because it's classic pre-millenial dispensationalism read into rather ambiguous passages of Scripture. I'd like to know where else he gets this view (three(!) judgements, 'Bema' judgment etc) from, because it certainly isn't held by any Bible-believing Christians I know...

First of all, that doesn't explain why he's wrong. That just explains why you don't like what he said. There's a big difference.

Second, I've never met a Bible believing Christian who didn't believe this Biblical teaching.

Third, if you had bothered to read my statements about these three judgements, you would have seen that I did offer scripture to show where they're found in the Bible.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I said it's part of salvation, not justification.

They're the same thing.

Yes. Also, both justification and sanctifaction are part of salvation.

No, sanctification is not a part of salvation. It is a result of salvation, not a cause of salvation.

I never said it was a part of justification.

Yes, actually, you did and I already showed from your own post that you did.

By God's grace alone through faith alone.

What does that mean? You were just walking along, minding your own business and crash, bam, alakazam, out of an orange colored sky, God just dropped salvation on you?

JohnDeereFan, are you a Christian?

Yes.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

They're the same thing.

No, sanctification is not a part of salvation. It is a result of salvation, not a cause of salvation.

Yes, actually, you did and I already showed from your own post that you did.

:BangHead: Try re-reading my other posts. I've already explained it.

What does that mean? You were just walking along, minding your own business and crash, bam, alakazam, out of an orange colored sky, God just dropped salvation on you?

Well, I sure don't deserve it. I came to Christ in faith and repentance. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Revmitchell]

Second, I've never met a Bible believing Christian who didn't believe this Biblical teaching.

Ditto................

 

[FR7 Baptist]

JohnDeereFan, maybe Article IV of the Baptist Faith and Message will help you understand salvation better.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

JohnDeereFan, maybe Article IV of the Baptist Faith and Message will help you understand salvation better.

Actually, I understand the doctrine of justification just fine, thank you.

But your childish insult is duly noted.

((By the way, you obviously didn't read what you posted from the BF&M because it states that justification and sanctification are two different things, just as I said.))

 

[FR7 Baptist]

((By the way, you obviously didn't read what you posted from the BF&M because it states that justification and sanctification are two different things, just as I said.))

:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

I know justification and sanctification are different things, I never said anything else. What I said is that justification is not the totality of salvation.

 

[Matt Black]

Really? Would you care to back that up? (No, I'm just kidding. Of course you won't back it up.)

Yes, I will: on another thread, you called me a troll*, and on this page you likened my behaviour to posting dog logs through someone's mailbox. I've about had enough of this.

*If I'm a troll, how come I've managed to rack up >7000 posts? I can tell you the Mods are pretty hot on trolling here, so it's not as if I've slipped under their radar.

First of all, that doesn't explain why he's wrong. That just explains why you don't like what he said. There's a big difference.

OK, then: the three judgements are mutually contradictory, particularly the last two - you've got the immediate problem of unbelievers being in the 'righteous' 'nations' and believers being in the 'goat' 'nations'.

Second, I've never met a Bible believing Christian who didn't believe this Biblical teaching.

Like I said, news to me: all the Bible-believing Christians I know believe, like me, in a final judgement, but are largely agnostic (as they tend to be re eschatology generally) on the details and 'how' of that judgement. Must be a Pond difference, but I can tell you that the idea of there being three judgements (including a 'Bema' judgement) came out at me from leftfield - hence my (perhaps over-, sorry!) reaction to DHK's quote.

Third, if you had bothered to read my statements about these three judgements, you would have seen that I did offer scripture to show where they're found in the Bible.

Yes, I accept that, but it still leaves the contradiction problem I referenced above, which would suggest that the Scriptures are indeed ambiguous on this issue.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Yes, I will: on another thread, you called me a troll*

You're right, I did.

And that's not a personal attack because under the common definition of a troll, a troll is someone who's only intent is to disrupt, attack and harrass. You meet that definition.

and on this page you likened my behaviour to posting dog logs through someone's mailbox. I've about had enough of this.

Again, that's not a personal attack. That's comparing your behavior to something else.

OK, then: the three judgements are mutually contradictory, particularly the last two - you've got the immediate problem of unbelievers being in the 'righteous' 'nations' and believers being in the 'goat' 'nations'.

Oh, so then you believe that Jesus is incompetent to seperate the sheep from the goats? Jesus really doesn't know who belongs to Him and who doesn't?

I can tell you that the idea of there being three judgements (including a 'Bema' judgement) came out at me from leftfield - hence my (perhaps over-, sorry!) reaction to DHK's quote.

That's because you don't know or believe the word of God.

Yes, I accept that, but it still leaves the contradiction problem I referenced above, which would suggest that the Scriptures are indeed ambiguous on this issue.

And you still have not shown that there is any contradiction or that Jesus Christ is not able to accurately determine who is saved and who is unsaved.

 

[annsni]

My church just isn’t into doctrine very much. We’re very big on missions, feeding the hungry, etc. We’re also very much into individual and community prayer. We’re also really good at socializing. This Christmas season I will be going to four social events connected with the church.

Wow - you just about described my yacht club - certainly not my church. For a church to not be into doctrine makes it a church that is not Biblical.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Wow - you just about described my yacht club - certainly not my church. For a church to not be into doctrine makes it a church that is not Biblical.

Yeah, that's pretty disturbing.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yeah, that's pretty disturbing.

No kidding eh? But hey, at least they are up front about it!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

No kidding eh? But hey, at least they are up front about it!

I'm not sure which is worse: the fact that his church has this attitude or the fact that he's bragging about it.

 

[Matt Black]

You're right, I did.

And that's not a personal attack because under the common definition of a troll, a troll is someone who's only intent is to disrupt, attack and harrass. You meet that definition.

Calling someone a troll is a personal attack. Deal with it.

Again, that's not a personal attack. That's comparing your behavior to something else.

Ok, whatever; it's sad to see someone who professes to be a Christian taking that attitude.

Oh, so then you believe that Jesus is incompetent to seperate the sheep from the goats? Jesus really doesn't know who belongs to Him and who doesn't?

No, I'm saying there's something seriously amiss with this particular interpretation of the Word of God.

That's because you don't know or believe the word of God.

Don't presume to tell me what I do or do not believe. I read the Bible daily and believe it is God's Word. I just differ from you in the interpretation of some of it. Please don't make the mistake of conflating these two concepts again.

And you still have not shown that there is any contradiction or that Jesus Christ is not able to accurately determine who is saved and who is unsaved.

Oh I'm sure Jesus can determine who is saved and who isn't. But your interpretation and conclusion just don't hold water, because of the contradiction in your conclusion, which is (if I need to spell it out again): Judgement #2 and Judgement #3 (in yours and DHK's scheme of things) contradict each other. Judgements #1 and #2 do not, but it's your interpretation and conclusion re Judgement #3 that's the problem. In #3, you have - according to you - the nations of the world judged according to whether they've been nice to the Jews or not (the passage from Matthew's gospel doesn't actually mention the Jews but never mind) and if they have, off they go to heaven and if they haven't, down to hell they go. Only one problem: if the 'nice nations' contain unbelievers, then those unbelievers need to go to hell under Judgement #2 - but they can't because under Judgement #3 they have to go to heaven. Conversely, if there are believers in the 'nasty nations', then that's their bad luck - they have to go to hell under Judgement #3. So your (not Jesus' but how you would have Him act according to your interpretation of these Scriptures) whole eschatological soteriology is up the spout.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Ok, whatever; it's sad to see someone who professes to be a Christian taking that attitude.

Why? Jesus did this quite often in the Gospels.

No, I'm saying there's something seriously amiss with this particular interpretation of the Word of God.

And yet, you fail to show what is amiss or what the correct interpretation is.

Don't presume to tell me what I do or do not believe. I read the Bible daily and believe it is God's Word. I just differ from you in the interpretation of some of it. Please don't make the mistake of conflating these two concepts again.

I stand by what I said. Your posts here are solid evidence that you neither know nor believe the word of God.

But your interpretation and conclusion just don't hold water, because of the contradiction in your conclusion, which is (if I need to spell it out again): Judgement #2 and Judgement #3 (in yours and DHK's scheme of things) contradict each other. Judgements #1 and #2 do not, but it's your interpretation and conclusion re Judgement #3 that's the problem. In #3, you have - according to you - the nations of the world judged according to whether they've been nice to the Jews or not (the passage from Matthew's gospel doesn't actually mention the Jews but never mind) and if they have, off they go to heaven and if they haven't, down to hell they go.

Actually, I never said anything at all like that. Neither did DHK. Please don't say "according to you", when you know very well that I've said nothing of the kind.

Only one problem: if the 'nice nations' contain unbelievers, then those unbelievers need to go to hell under Judgement #2 - but they can't because under Judgement #3 they have to go to heaven. Conversely, if there are believers in the 'nasty nations', then that's their bad luck - they have to go to hell under Judgement #3. So your (not Jesus' but how you would have Him act according to your interpretation of these Scriptures) whole eschatological soteriology is up the spout.

You're rambling. You're also lying. I never said anything even remotely like this. Neither did DHK.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Oh I'm sure Jesus can determine who is saved and who isn't. But your interpretation and conclusion just don't hold water, because of the contradiction in your conclusion, which is (if I need to spell it out again): Judgement #2 and Judgement #3 (in yours and DHK's scheme of things) contradict each other. Judgements #1 and #2 do not, but it's your interpretation and conclusion re Judgement #3 that's the problem. In #3, you have - according to you - the nations of the world judged according to whether they've been nice to the Jews or not (the passage from Matthew's gospel doesn't actually mention the Jews but never mind) and if they have, off they go to heaven and if they haven't, down to hell they go. Only one problem: if the 'nice nations' contain unbelievers, then those unbelievers need to go to hell under Judgement #2 - but they can't because under Judgement #3 they have to go to heaven. Conversely, if there are believers in the 'nasty nations', then that's their bad luck - they have to go to hell under Judgement #3. So your (not Jesus' but how you would have Him act according to your interpretation of these Scriptures) whole eschatological soteriology is up the spout.

That's because they only know what to think, and not how to think...If they knew how to think, they would see the folly in their supposed thinking...

in XC
-

 

[JohnDeereFan]

That's because they only know what to think, and not how to think...If they knew how to think, they would see the folly in their supposed thinking...

in XC
-

Could you please show us how the verses I provided are "folly"?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Could you please show us how the verses I provided are "folly"?

ummmm, do I really have to repeat Matt Black's rebuttal...again?

In XC
-