Matt 7's "I never knew you" continued

[steaver]

Sure. They said they cast out demons. Unsaved people can not cast out demons according to Scripture, so I'm still wondering how these folks can be eternally damned yet cast out demons. Christ said Satan can not cast himself out.

Did they cast out demons? I don't know. They said they did but the scripture does not say they did or did not. According to the context I would conclude that they thought they did but never really did, like the Priest going through all of that exorcism stuff. Not sure.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

Just to add a little more context let's see what the verses prior to the ones in question say:


1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
11 Wherefore comfort [SIZE=-1]F12[/SIZE] yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. 12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; 13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. 14 Now we exhort [SIZE=-1]F13[/SIZE] you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. 15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. 16 Rejoice evermore. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 19 Quench not the Spirit. 20 Despise not prophesyings. 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

God will do it for these brothers because Paul tells them they are doing everything according to Scripture at this point. And He will do it for anyone else that obeys according to the Scripture.

But let's just look at one example here in this passage as that will be enough. Do you honestly think that God is going to perform this action on anyone that quenches the Holy Spirit?

Now you are left only two options. You can say no and this act of God is based upon some conditions. Or you can say that no eternally saved person can quench the Holy Spirit, which is kind of a foolish thing to say when Paul commands saved people not to do it.

Again when you let Scripture speak for itself there is only one option available. Truth!

 

[steaver]

So Paul's words in verse 23 are null and void because he overrides himself in verse 24 :laugh:.

Obviously Paul does a bit more clarifying don't you think?!

Or do you think Paul had a mental lapse or something? Give me your explainantion of Pauls final comment.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

They said they did but the scripture does not say they did or did not.

Well don't you think if they were lying that Christ would have called that to their attention. Wonder why He didn't add you workers of iniquity you say you have done these things, but you are lying.

See He doesn't say that.

They said they cast out demons and He doesn't say anything about them lying, so again it is speculation at best to say they didn't.

So what you are doing is basing theology on speculation. I'm not willing to do that.

 

[J. Jump]

Obviously Paul does a bit more clarifying don't you think?!

:laugh: That's a good one.

So Paul uses a subjunctive when he could have just as easily used an indicitive, but then clarifies his confusion. :laugh:

WOW.

 

[Hope of Glory]

That was Hope of Glory's words. i just repeated them because I thought you two believed the same way.

Excuse me? I go away to a forest fire, and come back and you're attributing things to me that I don't believe I ever said. Or at least taken out of the context of what I said. Where did I say anything about their sincerity having anything to do with it?

I said it was lawlessness. It was doing what was right in their own eyes. We can do good works all day long, but without the proper foundation, it's simply a pretty room on a crumbling foundation.

I know many Pentecostals who are this way. It's exciting to be doing all these good works! But, they're doing them to please the flesh. Saved? I have no doubts in the cases that I'm personally thinking of. But, they're working lawlessness.

There is the implication of sincerity here, and I may have mentioned that. They called he "Lord", and only a saved person can do that, and they did these good works, and they did them in his name. But, they did them under their own volition, not the direction of God. You can go out and knock on doors all day long and witness for the Lord (good works), but if that's what you want to be doing and not what the Lord wants, it's still lawlessness.

I do have to add one thing here that is a minor error on J. Jump's part. The verbs in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 are optative, not subjunctive. There's the probability of failure in the optative, with only the possibility of failure in the subjunctive. Few will included in this group. Many are called, but few are called out. Many, many people are saved, but few will rule and reign.

Now, off to Anchorage. If there's a hot spot in the airport, I'll come back later if I'm stuck there for a while.

 

[steaver]

(Jump)...God will do it for these brothers because Paul tells them they are doing everything according to Scripture at this point. And He will do it for anyone else that obeys according to the Scripture.

I don't see this in the passage. God will do it because they belong to God through Jesus Christ. That is the bottom line.

Well don't you think if they were lying that Christ would have called that to their attention. Wonder why He didn't add you workers of iniquity you say you have done these things, but you are lying.

See He doesn't say that.

They said they cast out demons and He doesn't say anything about them lying, so again it is speculation at best to say they didn't.

So what you are doing is basing theology on speculation. I'm not willing to do that.

Brother you are full of speculation yourself. You should just drop the speculation angle. You have speculation in most every post. My view is based solely on the facts of the passage. Speculation is only having a bit of conversation on the side.



God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Hope of Glory]

:tonofbricks:

And one wonders why the doctrine you preach just doesn't take hold of the sheep! My head hurts from all the merry go round. For the life of me I don't see how even one sheep can be led astray by this strange doctrine. Oh well! raying: for you!

God Bless! :thumbs:

What's so difficult to understand about, "Believe [punctiliar action] on the Lord Jesus and you will [no doubt about it] be saved"?

It's simple, concise, and directly to the point.

Everything else has to do with after you're born from above into the family of God.

Now, it does sound good to pile all these works on as requirements for getting, staying, or proving you're saved, but that simply contradicts the passage I've quoted from above.

How many contradictions are you willing to accept in Scriptures? One? A dozen? Hundreds?

 

[steaver]

Excuse me? I go away to a forest fire, and come back and you're attributing things to me that I don't believe I ever said. Or at least taken out of the context of what I said. Where did I say anything about their sincerity having anything to do with it?

There is the implication of sincerity here, and I may have mentioned that.

My head continues to hurt from this "yes, wait no, well maybe" diologue. I need to take a break and mow some grass.

God Bless! :wavey:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Hope of Glory:

"I do have to add one thing here that is a minor error on J. Jump's part. The verbs in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 are optative, not subjunctive. There's the probability of failure in the optative, with only the possibility of failure in the subjunctive. Few will included in this group. Many are called, but few are called out. Many, many people are saved, but few will rule and reign."

GE:

J Jump's was no 'minor error' - his was no error. Once again, strictly to "secondary endings" (Dana and Mantey) it is, the Optative -- also called the 'weaker Subjunctive'.

In our verse it's not the 'Volantative O.' because Paul expresses no mere wish.

It cannot be the 'Potential O.' because Paul implies no condition; there's not the particle 'an'.

It cannot be the 'Deliberate O.' in our verse because there's no "interrogation (that) does not assume an answer". No "unusually doubtful attitude of mind is implied."

So which or what Optative is this? It is an Optative of Faith, if I may invent my own name for it. It functions just like the Subjunctive would in the context of the prayer of a believer. It does NOT suppose uncertainty, improbability or impossibility, but the opposite of it. It is New Testament Greek; it is 'Pauline Greek'.
Refer my previous post.

 

[Hope of Glory]

J Jump:

"The verb in 23 is subjunctive meaning its a possibility not a guarantee."

GE:

Strictly grammatically, maybe, yes.
But faith prays not for possibility; it prays for the guaranteed - for what God through promise had given. In faith-language, the Subjunctive is strongest possible confirmation of surety and certainty. Each time!

It's optative, not subjunctive. There's the probability of failure.

Is there the probability of failure with God's promises?

Now, what are God's promises?

He uses a picture in the OT in which the children of Israel were given a promised land. This land, according to Genesis 15:18, put them in the land of promise without them ever having to leave their homes in Goshen. (On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, ) No strings attached to this promise. "It's yours."

The same is true of spiritual salvation. You believe (once) on the Lord Jesus, and you will (not "may"; there are not doubts about it) be saved. Just like the children of Israel.

However, there's a secon promised land, the land flowing with milk and honey. The promise is good; God won't take it away. But, the promise is contingent upon the children of Israel doing something. They had to leave Egypt, be baptized (in the Red Sea), and be faithful for 40 years.

The land flowing with milk and honey is a type of the Kingdom; it's a type of the saving of the life or soul. Many were unfaithful and perished in the wilderness. They lost their lives, just as we can lose our lives in the age to come, if we fail to be faithful.

But, we don't have to be faithful to simply be saved. That is a promise that God, who is unfailingly faithful, has promised based on being in the family. (Born from above.)

Unless you're born from above, you won't see the Kingdom; you won't be saved. But, unless you do some stuff (born again of water and spirit), you won't enter the Kingdom; you won't enjoy your full allotment.

It's our inheritance that's at stake. Only those in the family have to worry about an inheritance. Even Ishmael, the child of the law, had an inheritance, but it was nothing compared to the inheritance of the child of faith!

Only a saved person can be faithful. But, someone in the family can still be unfaithful. Doesn't mean they become unborn (they can't lose their spiritual salvation), but they can perish. They can lose their life. They can lose the salvation of their soul.

 

[Hope of Glory]

My head continues to hurt from this "yes, wait no, well maybe" diologue.

Then quit adding it.

 

[Hope of Glory]

It is an Optative of Faith, if I may invent my own name for it.

Well, you would have to invent your own name for it, because it's something that you (or someone you've been listening to) has invented. There's no such animal.

It functions just like the Subjunctive would in the context of the prayer of a believer. It does NOT suppose uncertainty, improbability or impossibility, but the opposite of it. It is New Testament Greek; it is 'Pauline Greek'.
Refer my previous post.

Then, I guess we need to simply get rid of the indicative, since optative and subjunctive now both mean indicative, eh?

That's why it's a hope of glory and not a certainty of glory. He will be glorified. We may or may not be.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Hope of Glory:

"That's why it's a hope of glory and not a certainty of glory."

GE:

So that explains it - both your pseudonym and 'theology'. If your 'hope of glory' is fixed upon an uncertain glory, your's cannot be the Christian hope. If your salvation rests upon a 'may be' or / and a 'may be not' it cannot be the salvation Christ has wrought.

I heard my 'explanation' from no one; I was forced to deduce it from an instance like 1Thess5:23. You may find it silly; I don't care. I know you are not able to give a better explanation. Your concept of the Mood here makes Paul pray for vanity. You make the names scholars have given word-endings, your Gospel.

 

[Eric B]

The REASON given by Jesus IS "I NEVER knew you".

Jesus THEN declares them "workers of iniquities" BECAUSE the criers wanted their works to justify them before God.

Jesus makes this clear when He says THEREFORE and describes those who are accepted and those who are the "workers of iniquities". Those "workers of iniquities" are those who have NO ROCK, NO FOUNDATION to build worthy works upon.

You are glued on the criers plea of works and cannot see why they were rejected in the first place! It is you dear brother who has no escape, you do not want to escape it so you just choose to ignore it.

The CRIERS wanted a works-based salvation! And Jesus shot them down with "I never knew you".

Then when you see the little-realized point that "feeding the hungry", "clothing the naked", "Taking in strangers" that they had failed to do was not literal charity, but rather referred to receiving the disciples (who had left houses, etc. to follow Him, Matt. 19:27-29), which marked ones' receiving of Christ (John 13:20); it becomes even more clear that it is making salvation by faith and not works. (how many of us really bring the homeless into our houses and directly feed and clothe them, if that is what literally determins salvation? People have really not thought this one out!)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here's another Subjunctive of absolute certainty, Hb4:8b, "He (God) would not have spoken of another day after these things (in which Jesus had given them most sure, rest!)" Does it - the Subjunctive - leave it an open question whether God once more may speak of another day of salvation after Jesus? Most surely not - therefore the Mood indicates the Certainty of Faith --- or the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[J. Jump]

It's optative, not subjunctive.

Sorry I mis-spoke. Yummm . . . that crow tastes good. :laugh:

Just goes to show I should have taken the time to look it up instead of trying to go from memory . And in the optative it even more proves what I was trying to say though.

It was Paul wishing and desiring something would happen, and something that certainly wasn't a guarantee to happen.

 

[Hope of Glory]

OK, I'm trying to figure out your point in Hebrews 4:8. There's not an optative or subjunctive in verse 8 or 9:

For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a [Sabbath] rest for the people of God.

Every verb is indicative, in both verses.

What's your point?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Then when you see the little-realized point that "feeding the hungry", "clothing the naked", "Taking in strangers" that they had failed to do was not literal charity, but rather referred to receiving the disciples (who had left houses, etc. to follow Him, Matt. 19:27-29), which marked ones' receiving of Christ (John 13:20); it becomes even more clear that it is making salvation by faith and not works. (how many of us really bring the homeless into our houses and directly feed and clothe them, if that is what literally determins salvation? People have really not thought this one out!)

I don't see what difference that would create? Why would it be faith to let a disciple of Christ stay at your house but works to take in a homeless person?

Or maybe I misunderstood something?

Lacy

 

[Eric B]

Because salvation is said to be determined by it. A person will not be saved just because he took in any homelss person. A person is saved because he received Christ, and back then, it was the traveling disciples (who were technically "homeless" as Jesus said; and often hungry) who proclaimed and taught you of Him; so as Jesus said in the verse I cited above "he who receives you receives me".