Oil and Virgins

[Hope of Glory]

These want to say they are saved, yet not part of God's eternal kingdom.

Are you talking about eternity or the Kingdom? We have been talking about the Kingdom, and how only those who are saved even have the opportunity to enter the Kingdom.

Of course, all ten virgins had everlasting life; they had oil. But, does this parable tell us they lost their salvation? Does it tell us they "just weren't quite saved enough"? Or, does it tell us something else.

What does it mean that they ran out of oil because they had not prepared themselves?

 

[J. Jump]

Just for those of us that are visual people here is a link to a photo of a lamp from the time period in question:

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/full-images/lamp.gif

And it sure looks like it could have held oil to me.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Again you are combining two different contexts and trying to prove your point. I can prove anything under the sun if I don't compare correct Scripture with correct Scripture as you are doing here.

Ever hear of rightly dividing the Word of truth and scripture must interpret scripture?

I don't have a problem with that, but you are saying that lamps were sent out that were unusable. I'll send you a lamp but you provide your own oil. That's the statement you are making the Father are Christ are saying. I'll give you the goods, but I'm not going to give you everything that you need in order to make them work. That's just crazy.

Nowhere did I say the lamps were unusable. God has offered His Holy Spirit to all who will accept Him. The foolish virgins rejected Him. They took no oil. They wanted to light the lamps by other means than that which was provided.

Again that doesn't matter. You are saying what God gives to us is insufficient and that we have to supply something on our own. There's zero Biblical support for that. If God gives you something and then requires you to use it He's going to give you EVERYTHING you need!

I have never ever said what God gives is insufficent. As a matter of fact, it is you who say it is insufficient. You and HoG both say the Bride is clothed in the righteous acts of the saints.

 

[Linda64]

What does it mean that they ran out of oil because they had not prepared themselves?

Show me where it says that they "ran out of oil"--My Bible says:
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: (Matthew 25:3)

You can light a lamp with no oil (fuel), but it won't stay lit, therefore the fire will go out. That's why the five foolish virgins needed oil--and by the time they returned from purchasing oil, the door to the wedding feast was shut. The oil represents the Holy Spirit--the five foolish virgins DID NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT (oil) in the first place.

The parable of the ten virgins is given in the context of Christ's coming and of the establishment of the kingdom of God in Israel. The foolish virgins are not true believers but are unbelievers who knew about Christ's return but did not act on it. (1) They didn't have any oil (v. 3,4), but the oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit (Ro 8:9). (2) They wait until it is too late to obtain salvation (v. 9; 2Co 6:2). In light of everything the New Testament promises to the child of God, the foolish virgins MUST be those who are unsaved. To interpret this otherwise is to throw multitudes of clear Scriptures into confusion. ...Way of Life Encyclopedia

 

[Hope of Glory]

OK, let's flog this dead horse some more. Linda, so do you understand what a prepositional phrase is?

 

[Diggin in da Word]

A prepositional phrase is a phrase that contains or begins with a preposition.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the five virgins who were stupid did not take any oil with them whatsoever.

It cannot be argued that they had oil, as the Bible clearly says they did not.

Hope of Glory, do you know what the words 'no' and 'know' mean?

 

[canadyjd]

Show me where it says that they "ran out of oil"--My Bible says:
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: (Matthew 25:3)

You can light a lamp with no oil (fuel), but it won't stay lit, therefore the fire will go out. That's why the five foolish virgins needed oil--and by the time they returned from purchasing oil, the door to the wedding feast was shut. The oil represents the Holy Spirit--the five foolish virgins DID NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT (oil) in the first place.

The parable of the ten virgins is given in the context of Christ's coming and of the establishment of the kingdom of God in Israel. The foolish virgins are not true believers but are unbelievers who knew about Christ's return but did not act on it. (1) They didn't have any oil (v. 3,4), but the oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit (Ro 8:9). (2) They wait until it is too late to obtain salvation (v. 9; 2Co 6:2). In light of everything the New Testament promises to the child of God, the foolish virgins MUST be those who are unsaved. To interpret this otherwise is to throw multitudes of clear Scriptures into confusion. ...Way of Life Encyclopedia

:thumbs::thumbs: Well said Linda64

And 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy must be also thrown into confusion to accomodate this distorted view of the Kingdom of God that serves no other purpose than to give unbelievers assurance of a non-existent salvation (based on "mental assent" = Sandemanism) and to create strife between believers.

peace to you:thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

er hear of rightly dividing the Word of truth and scripture must interpret scripture?

Yeah it would be nice if more people on this board understood what it meant instead of reading into texts what they want to see and comparing apple Scriptures with orange Scriptures in order to make their traditional teachings stand in Light of what comparing apple Scriptures with apple Scripture and orange Scriptures with orange Scriptures.

That would be refreshing I would have to say.

Nowhere did I say the lamps were unusable.

No but that is what you are implying. You are saying that the father provided the lamps, but his provision was inadequate and the virgins need to provide their own oil. Which is totally unScriptural when you apply that to The Father.

God has offered His Holy Spirit to all who will accept Him.

Except the lamps don't represent the Holy Spirit. The oil does. Or are you saying the lamps do? Because if you are saying the lamps do then all 10 had lamps, which further proves my point.

But even just going on what you say it leaves the father offering inadequate supplies. And The Father does not do that.

The foolish virgins rejected Him.

No they didn't. They tried to get into the door. They just weren't prepared to meet him. Totally different subject. If the foolish virgins rejected the bridegroom they wouldn't have even taken off on the journey. They wouldn't have even tried to go buy oil.

They took no oil. They wanted to light the lamps by other means than that which was provided.

It doesn't say that oil was provided to them. You said the father sent lamps. You didn't say anything about the father sending the oil.

You just keep digging further and further into a hole you can't get out of.

 

[J. Jump]

The parable of the ten virgins is given in the context of Christ's coming and of the establishment of the kingdom of God in Israel.

Actually the context of the verse is the kingdom of the heavens and is speaking of Christ's kingdom in the heavens not on the physical earth.

And if you can see that eternal salvation is not the context, but rather the kingdom of Christ (which is 1,000 years in length) why do you keep insisting the context is one of eternal salvation? It's not both.

It's either a kingdom context, or it is an eternal salvation context. They aren't the same thing. Christ's kingdom last 1,000 years, which is not eternity.

 

[J. Jump]

based on "mental assent" = Sandemanism

Why do you keep bringing this nonsense up, when I have already dealt with this and showed you that we are not talking about a belief that God exists and Jesus was a real person and died.

Quit falsely accusing people of something they don't even believe in, and something that you know they don't believe in!

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Show me where it says that they "ran out of oil"--My Bible says:
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: (Matthew 25:3)

You can light a lamp with no oil (fuel), but it won't stay lit, therefore the fire will go out. That's why the five foolish virgins needed oil--and by the time they returned from purchasing oil, the door to the wedding feast was shut. The oil represents the Holy Spirit--the five foolish virgins DID NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT (oil) in the first place.

The parable of the ten virgins is given in the context of Christ's coming and of the establishment of the kingdom of God in Israel. The foolish virgins are not true believers but are unbelievers who knew about Christ's return but did not act on it. (1) They didn't have any oil (v. 3,4), but the oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit (Ro 8:9). (2) They wait until it is too late to obtain salvation (v. 9; 2Co 6:2). In light of everything the New Testament promises to the child of God, the foolish virgins MUST be those who are unsaved. To interpret this otherwise is to throw multitudes of clear Scriptures into confusion. ...Way of Life Encyclopedia

My Bible also says the foolish virgins 'took no oil with them.' I have yet to see where the wise virgins took extra oil. I also find it unscriptural to say 'extra oil,' since the oil is representative of the Holy Spirit'. The Holy Spirit is not given in portions. One either has the Holy Spirit, or one does not. These five foolish virgins, since they had no oil, had no Holy Spirit.

The Bible assures us that we are sealed by the Spirit, and that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. These five foolish virgins had no oil, they were not saved. None of His means they were not His.

 

[Marcia]

I really think it's reading too much into the text to say the oil represents the Holy Spirit. I think it's just plain old oil for the lamps. Parables are by nature rather simple and are not meant to carry such heavy spiritualizing.

Besides that, making the oil represent the HS makes no sense when we see the 5 virgins going to purchase some oil (verses 9 and 10). Can you buy the HS? It makes no sense at all.

There is nothing in the parable to make us think the oil represents anything. The point of the story is being prepared for the bridegroom.

 

[J. Jump]

I really think it's reading too much into the text to say the oil represents the Holy Spirit. I think it's just plain old oil for the lamps. Parables are by nature rather simple and are not meant to carry such heavy spiritualizing.

The problem is that is a man-made way of looking at Scripture. The Bible never tells us that we can't. And actually parables are physical stories that tell spiritual Truths, so it kind of defeats the whole purpose of what a parable is for to say you can't "spiritualize it."

Besides that, making the oil represent the HS makes no sense when we see the 5 virgins going to purchase some oil (verses 9 and 10). Can you buy the HS? It makes no sense at all.

There is nothing in the parable to make us think the oil represents anything. The point of the story is being prepared for the bridegroom.

Interesting point and I've never really thought of that, although there is a case that could be built against it becuase in Revelation three the Laodicean church was told to buy goods from Christ.

But regardless of whether or not oil represents the Holy Spirit you have nailed the context of the parable on the head and that is one of preparation. The only ones that can be prepared are saved individuals. It wasn't that the five foolish were incapable, but chose not to prepare themselves, whereas the five wise did.

Preparation is the context, not eternal salvation.

 

[J. Jump]

sorry double post - computer glich

 

[Linda64]

Here's the definition of PARABLE:

PARABLE

"A parable is a comparison between material and spiritual truth, designed to teach doctrine and obedience. It may be given in the form of a narrative, a proverb, or a reference to an event or institution" (Bruce Lackey).

"Parable" means to lay something alongside another. It means to compare two things. The word parable in Greek is also translated "comparison" (Mr 4:30) and "figure" (Heb. 9:9). See also Mt. 13:24, 35, etc. "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto..."

Here is why Jesus spoke in parables:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? (Matthew 13:10)

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Matthew 13:11)

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13:12)

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (Matthew 13:13)

The "seed" in the parable of the sower is the "word of God" (Luke 8:11). The "oil" in Matthew 25 is symbolic of the Holy Spirit.

The context of the parables in Mt. 25 is the previous chapter (Mt 24:42-46), which deals with the return of Christ. The interpretation, then, is that God's people need to be ready and watching for Christ's return.

 

[J. Jump]

The context of the parables in Mt. 25 is the previous chapter (Mt 24:42-46), which deals with the return of Christ. The interpretation, then, is that God's people need to be ready and watching for Christ's return.

I don't know if you wrote this or copied it, but I don't understand how you can write something or copy it, either way it doesn't matter, which totally disagrees with your views and then continue on.

Notice it deals with preparation for the return of Christ. These were given to saved individuals, so the context is how saved individuals can be ready for the return of Christ.

But yet at every turn and with every post you make the context not to be the return of Christ, but eternal salvation.

He's not speaking to unsaved people, so He's not dealing with issues of salvation. He is dealing with saved individuals that need to know how to be ready when the Master comes back to deal with His slaves.

That context is SO obvious. Yet I guess not for some.

 

[Linda64]

I don't know if you wrote this or copied it, but I don't understand how you can write something or copy it, either way it doesn't matter, which totally disagrees with your views and then continue on.

Notice it deals with preparation for the return of Christ. These were given to saved individuals, so the context is how saved individuals can be ready for the return of Christ.

But yet at every turn and with every post you make the context not to be the return of Christ, but eternal salvation.

He's not speaking to unsaved people, so He's not dealing with issues of salvation. He is dealing with saved individuals that need to know how to be ready when the Master comes back to deal with His slaves.

That context is SO obvious. Yet I guess not for some.

I don't post from any source with which I don't agree---the five foolish virgins were UNSAVED--they took NO oil with them--the oil in this parable is symbolic of the Holy Spirit. Read Romans 8:9:

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9)

Jesus spoke to both the saved and unsaved about His return---if you are not ready (saved), you aren't gonna make it---period.

Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. (Matthew 24:44)

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season5? (Matthew 24:4)

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. (Matthew 24:46)

Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. (Matthew 24:47)

But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; (Matthew 24:48)

And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; (Matthew 24:49)

The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, (Matthew 24:50)

And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:51)

Matthew 25 is a continuation of the same as found in Matthew 24. Christ is coming again--you need to be ready (saved).

That's why "Ye must be born again"---don't be like the five foolish virgins with no oil!!

 

[J. Jump]

I don't post from any source with which I don't agree

That's obviously not true, because what you copied doesn't agree with what you have stated:

The context of the parables in Mt. 25 is the previous chapter (Mt 24:42-46), which deals with the return of Christ. The interpretation, then, is that God's people need to be ready and watching for Christ's return.[/quote]

This person doesn't make mention of any distinction between saved and unsaved. He said that the context is that God's people need to be ready and watching for Christ's return.

That's exactly the context. The context is not eternal salvation. The context is preparation (works). Christ was only addressing saved individuals and He was telling them how to be ready for the Master's return, becuase at the Master's return is judgment for His servants. That's what the next parable tells us.

Again this is so plain and you even copy from someone that agrees with what we have been saying and then say you agree with what you copied, but in reality you don't.

 

[Linda64]

That's obviously not true, because what you copied doesn't agree with what you have stated:

The context of the parables in Mt. 25 is the previous chapter (Mt 24:42-46), which deals with the return of Christ. The interpretation, then, is that God's people need to be ready and watching for Christ's return.

Yes--it is true--it does agree. You just don't agree with what I've stated--What I quoted came from a definition of a parable and why Jesus spoke and taught in parables.

This person doesn't make mention of any distinction between saved and unsaved. He said that the context is that God's people need to be ready and watching for Christ's return.

This person DOES make a distinction between saved and unsaved--I've already posted it and you disagreed with it also. So I will post it again:

Mt 25:1-13. The parable of the ten virgins is given in the context of Christ's coming and of the establishment of the kingdom of God in Israel (see Mt 25:31-34). The foolish virgins are not true believers but are unbelievers who knew about Christ's return but did not act on it. (1) They didn't have any oil (v. 3,4), but the oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit (Ro 8:9). (2) They wait until it is too late to obtain salvation (v. 9; 2Co 6:2). In light of everything the New Testament promises to the child of God, the foolish virgins MUST be those who are unsaved. To interpret this otherwise is to throw multitudes of clear Scriptures into confusion.

Way of Life Encyclopedia

That's exactly the context. The context is not eternal salvation. The context is preparation (works). Christ was only addressing saved individuals and He was telling them how to be ready for the Master's return, becuase at the Master's return is judgment for His servants. That's what the next parable tells us.

Jesus was addressing His disciples in this parable--if you aren't ready (have your lamps lit with the oil of the Holy Spirit, you aren't going to make it into the wedding feast. The oil in this parable is symbolic of the Holy Spirit--those five foolish virgins did NOT have any oil--their lamps were empty--they took NO oil--therefore, their lamps did not stay lit. Jesus will never say to His Bride " Verily I say unto you, I know you not." (Matthew 25:12) Jesus knows those who belong to Him and they hear His voice (John 10:27-28).

Again this is so plain and you even copy from someone that agrees with what we have been saying and then say you agree with what you copied, but in reality you don't.

Way of Life Encyclopedia does NOT agree with what you say--David Cloud does NOT teach what you are teaching. You probably need to go to his website and see how much he disagrees with you.

http://www.wayoflife.org/ Check out the Apostasy Database for starters.

 

[Hope of Glory]

J. Jump,

You can give this one up. Way of Life is an uberKJVO group that thinks the KJV is superior to the original manuscripts. If the Greek and the KJV don't line up, it's the Greek that's wrong. It's David W. Cloud's organization. Although he's not as bad as Riplinger, he's still pretty far out there. I've had to deal with a lot of damage from Way of Life in my ministry.

No one who is quoting from there cares what the Scriptures say.

I tried to open a discussion about the oil in the lamps and requested that it remain as such, and not continue the debate that had been shut down that was about whether there was oil in the lamps or not.

The Scriptures state that that the wise virgins took oil in ther vessels along with their lamps. The Scriptures state explicitly that the lamps were going out. This discussion was for those who saw this and wanted to discuss the implications of such. I made a request that this discussion was for that, and that request was promptly ignored by many.

At least SFiC had the courtesy to honor that request. I respect that.

If anyone wants to discuss the oil in the lamps, I'm still up for it. If you want to beat the dead horse of whether there was oil in the lamps or whether they were going out, please feel free to start another thread.