Orthodox Christians

[Bob Hope]

That is a verse on discipleship not on salvation.

Nothing could be more muddy, not clearer.
One of the first rules of hermeneutics is not to teach doctrine from a parable. A parable, as some define it, is "an earthly story to teach a heavenly (spiritual) truth." IOW, it teaches A truth, one central truth and that is all. Most parables are designed to teach only one truth. Most people try to make the parable teach dozens of truths that Christ never meant the parable to teach.

Parables don't teach doctrine; they only illustrate doctrine that has already been taught. That is the second principle.
Since the doctrine you are trying to uphold is not taught elsewhere you cannot try and use a parable to support it. Parables don't do you any good here.

Finally, you have not refuted the claims of Christ.
Is Christ a liar?
Did he not mean what he said?
Do sheep change into wolves?
Does eternal change into temporary?

In John 10:27-30 Jesus makes some claims concerning the believer that cannot be taken back. He uses absolutes, like "never perish." You need to deal with that text before you jump to another.

I think Jesus knew very well the truths being conveyed in each parable. Who taught you that doctrine can not be taught from a parable? Funny how many of the parables teach the exact same truth I am trying to convey.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I am neither retired nor wealthy. Theology and church history have been my "hobbies" for nearly 40 years. Plus writing and music.

To me, a social life is Monday night football.

Nothing wrong with that. :thumbs: I prefer college football myself, but when I do watch pro football I pull for the NY Giants primarily, and also the Bengals..

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not what those verses are saying at all. That is pure pie in the sky. You need to take those rose colored glasses off and be honest with yourself.

Context my friend, not rose colored glasses of desire like you are wearing. Christ does not contradict Himself but your rose colored glass interpretations makes Christ the author of confusion.

The parable of sheep versus goats is a context between lost and saved.

The parable of the four soils is a context about the professing kingdom of God made up of tares (first thee soils) and true believers (fourth soil). Look at the fourth soil and you see the differences between real Christians in regard to fruit production.

The parables that teach watchfulness in regard to His second coming involves TEMPORAL consquences described in those things that lead up to His coming. Real saved people failing to watch will not be ready for those things that precede and usher in his coming and thus will fail to "endure" through these things until the end. False professors that do perserve to the end will not escape judgement when he comes.

You are simply misapplying scriptures and the absolute proof is that your interpertations make Christ flatly contradict himself.

 

[The Biblicist]

And as long as they follow Him they will be His sheep.

Where do you find any conditions or conditional clauses set forth in John 10:26-28???

John 5:24 covers all three tense (1) present tense believing; (2) past tense or perfect tense "passed from death to life" and (3) future tense "shall not come into condemnation.

Who do you think the author and finisher as well as sustainer of our faith is? Us or God? See Heb. 12:2; Philip. 1:6; Philip. 2:13; Jn. 6;29; 1 Pet. 1:5; etc.

 

[Alive in Christ]

this was posted...

The "silly putty" gospel can be clearly seen in the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) declaration:

“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ. Living faith active in love that is nothing less than the love of Christ...”

This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ but a "silly putty" gospel that can be shaped and interpreted any number of ways and that is precisely what both parties do.

I have no love for the Catholic church, everyone who knows me knows that and can attest to that.

However, this....

“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ. Living faith active in love that is nothing less than the love of Christ

...is NOT a silly putty gosple. It is the gosple of Jesus Christ. Justification by faith alone. They may not really believe that statement, they might be giving lip service to it...but that statement is the true Gosple message.

C,mon folks, play fair.

 

[The Biblicist]

this was posted...





I have no love for the Catholic church, everyone who knows me knows that and can attest to that.

However, this....



...is NOT a silly putty gosple. It is the gosple of Jesus Christ. Justification by faith alone.


C,mon folks, play fair.

Where do you find the word "alone" in this statement? Where do you find the term "grace" explained or defined in this statement? Where do have grace contrasted to works in this statement?

 

[DHK]

I think Jesus knew very well the truths being conveyed in each parable. Who taught you that doctrine can not be taught from a parable? Funny how many of the parables teach the exact same truth I am trying to convey.

The Bible did. Try "rightly dividing the word of truth" some time.

You need to deal with John 10:27-30. Why are you avoiding that passage?

I will give it to you:

Joh 10:27-30
(27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
(28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
(29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
(30) I and my Father are one.

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by Bob Hope

I think Jesus knew very well the truths being conveyed in each parable. Who taught you that doctrine can not be taught from a parable? Funny how many of the parables teach the exact same truth I am trying to convey.

 

[Bob Hope]

The Bible did. Try "rightly dividing the word of truth" some time.

You need to deal with John 10:27-30. Why are you avoiding that passage?

I will give it to you:

Joh 10:27-30
(27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
(28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
(29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
(30) I and my Father are one.

The elect are those whom He has fore knew. The true sheep/elect are those who FOLLOW His instruction.

 

[The Biblicist]

The elect are those whom He has fore knew. The true sheep/elect are those who FOLLOW His instruction.

Where in scripture do you find two different elect or elections? Election is "in Christ" and it was before the world began - Eph. 1:4 and it was an elect unto salvation - 2 Thes. 2:13.

Where do you find election of any others?

 

[The Biblicist]

I think Jesus knew very well the truths being conveyed in each parable. Who taught you that doctrine can not be taught from a parable? Funny how many of the parables teach the exact same truth I am trying to convey.

When parables are pitted against precepts then only a false interpertation can be the result. That is precisely what you are doing. Doctrine is built upon clear unambigious precepts while parables, symbols, types, allegories are used to support precepts. However, to PIT parables against precepts or PIT scripture against scripture is an obvious admission of error.

DHK gave you precept and you PITTED parables against precepts.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Where do you find the word "alone" in this statement?

Where do you find the word "alone" in this passage from the KJV...

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

..............

 

[The Biblicist]

Where do you find the word "alone" in this passage from the KJV...








..............

The Scriptures do teach it - Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5-6. However, ETC does not teach it with or without the word "alone."

Think about it. Rome accursed all who believe in justification by faith alone and do you really think they would agree to any wording that would teach justification by faith alone???

Have you researched ECT and its history? I have and they agreed to this wording because Rome could interpret that wording to fit its justification by works soteriology.

Have you ever read R.C. Sprouls book on justification by faith alone and his research of the ETC and this particular statement? Don't think so!

 

[Alive in Christ]

Biblicist...

The Scriptures do teach it - Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5-6. However, ETC does not teach it with or without the word "alone."

Think about it. Rome accursed all who believe in justification by faith alone and do you really think they would agree to any wording

I know all of that. Actually. I am right there with you and DHK on this. The reason I posted as It did is because I just like to be charitable ANY time the Catholic Church makes kind of statement, or move, that they are willing to consider what we (evangelicals) have been saying and propagating.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist...



I know all of that. Actually. I am right there with you and DHK on this. The reason I posted as It did is because I just like to be charitable ANY time the Catholic Church makes kind of statement, or move, that they are willing to consider what we (evangelicals) have been saying and propagating.

R.C. Sproul condemned the protestants involved in the ECT for agreeing to this statement which compromised and no longer made essential justification by faith "alone" and which allowed Rome to make the false appearance of unity in this matter.

The Roman Catholic Church has always insisted that justification is by grace through faith but equally repudiated justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE.

Sproul concludes: "If sola fide is essenital to the gospel and to Christianity and if Rome ahs not adopted sola fide as its doctrinal position, then ECT seriously betrays the gospel." - R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone, Baker books, p. 43

 

[DHK]

The elect are those whom He has fore knew. The true sheep/elect are those who FOLLOW His instruction.

You can't get out of it that easily. In your profile, under "salvation," you put "trusting in Christ." When did you trust in Christ? Or were you just elected and simply had to follow Christ. It is one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

You fail to deal with John 10:27-30. You certainly have a problem with that passage. Do you believe it?

 

[The Biblicist]

I think Jesus knew very well the truths being conveyed in each parable. Who taught you that doctrine can not be taught from a parable? Funny how many of the parables teach the exact same truth I am trying to convey.

Paul says "alll have....come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Sins of omission is coming short of God's standard of righteousness.

How does your soteriology overcome this problem? At what point in your life have you ever overcome this problem and can say that your life does not "come short" of God's righteousness? Remember to fail in one point only is to fail in all points of His moral law (James 2:10 with verse 11). Hence, the only solution is to keep every point in order to satisfy the Law's demands for righteousness and avoid its condemnation and that is precisely what the righteousness of God is or else God Himself comes short of his own standard and would be equally condemned as us. God's righteousness is sinless perfection or a life that never comes short of His own "glory" - the righteousness of God. Any life that is less than sinless perfection has "come short" of the glory of God. This is the kind of righteousness that Christ demanded to enter heaven (Mt. 5:20) and that equals the rightousness of God (Mt. 5:48) and this is the righteousness demanded by a proper interpretation of the Law of God which the elders misinterpreted (Mt. 5:21-47).


So, if sins of omission are the basis of our condemnation then what makes you any different than those in the parables you suggest refer to real saved people but who end up lost? How does your soteriology save you from the condemnation that your life has "come short" of the glory of God? Name any point in your life that does not still "come short" of the glory of God?

If salvation is by works as you suggest, please explain how your works can overcome this problem of a condemned life for having "COME SHORT" of God's righteousness? In other words, according to your own standard of saved versus lost at what point are you "saved" or "lost" in regard to this problem of condemnation of having "come short" of God's righteousness??

In other words if coming short brought you under condemnation in the first place, then, how in the world do you suppose a life that still continues to come short can escape condemnation for coming short of God's glory any better on judgment day????

Indeed, all of you who deny substitutionary atonement how does your soteriology overcome this problem of condemnation for having "come short" of God's righteousness? What life can you offer that overcomes this problem of condemnation and thus satisfies God's demand for a life that does not "come short" of God's own righteousness?

 

[Bob Hope]

Paul says "alll have....come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Sins of omission is coming short of God's standard of righteousness.

How does your soteriology overcome this problem? At what point in your life have you ever overcome this problem and can say that your life does not "come short" of God's righteousness? Remember to fail in one point only is to fail in all points of His moral law (James 2:10 with verse 11). Hence, the only solution is to keep every point in order to satisfy the Law's demands for righteousness and avoid its condemnation and that is precisely what the righteousness of God is or else God Himself comes short of his own standard and would be equally condemned as us. God's righteousness is sinless perfection or a life that never comes short of His own "glory" - the righteousness of God. Any life that is less than sinless perfection has "come short" of the glory of God. This is the kind of righteousness that Christ demanded to enter heaven (Mt. 5:20) and that equals the rightousness of God (Mt. 5:48) and this is the righteousness demanded by a proper interpretation of the Law of God which the elders misinterpreted (Mt. 5:21-47).


So, if sins of omission are the basis of our condemnation then what makes you any different than those in the parables you suggest refer to real saved people but who end up lost? How does your soteriology save you from the condemnation that your life has "come short" of the glory of God? Name any point in your life that does not still "come short" of the glory of God?

If salvation is by works as you suggest, please explain how your works can overcome this problem of a condemned life for having "COME SHORT" of God's righteousness? In other words, according to your own standard of saved versus lost at what point are you "saved" or "lost" in regard to this problem of condemnation of having "come short" of God's righteousness??

In other words if coming short brought you under condemnation in the first place, then, how in the world do you suppose a life that still continues to come short can escape condemnation for coming short of God's glory any better on judgment day????

Indeed, all of you who deny substitutionary atonement how does your soteriology overcome this problem of condemnation for having "come short" of God's righteousness? What life can you offer that overcomes this problem of condemnation and thus satisfies God's demand for a life that does not "come short" of God's own righteousness?

It's so simple. We must be diligent to keep pure.


1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[Bob Hope]

It's so simple. We must be diligent to keep pure.


1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I'm sure you believe that Christ can not lie. What could He have possibly meant when He said....


Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Looks like according to the Christ there are both just and unjust both living on earth together.

Matthew 5:45-48


45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

 

[DHK]

Are you claiming to be perfect?