Parable of the Talents

[Marcia]

Once again you are trying to argue from a point that they were unsaved using Scripture that says they were clearly saved.

The whole idea that they could even understand the message shows they were saved, regardless of whether they accepted it or not. The fact that they were able to even entertain the offer and be expected to believe shows they are saved.

You are operating on an assumption that someone who is not saved cannot understand the message. But I have talked to many lost people who do understand the message. They understand that God is telling them they are in sin and need a Savior. They just don't like it or don't want to believe it. I heard this message myself before I was saved. I read the Bible and heard preaching, yet I deliberately made a conscious decision to reject Christianity when I was in high school. I heard the message - I just didn't like it so I chose not to believe it and went on to other things.

Show me Scripture where it says they were unsaved. It's just not there.

Show me where it says they are saved. I did post scripture --the things Jesus said to people in the Matt. 25 parables are not things said anywhere else to saved people and are like the things said to unsaved people. What Jesus says will happen to them parallels what God's word tells us will happen to the lost.

Tell me what I gain by this view of Scripture? It certainly doesn't make me popular. It's not making me rich. It has cost me a church family and some friends and a Bible study. It has led me to be called every name in the book and then some.

Maybe this should be making you think that you are not reading scripture correctly.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I'm sure you have had a lot of others disagree with you, as your view is very unorthodox. I have never heard it before, and I thought I had heard everything.

What Group, or denomination, teaches this?
Are there a lot of Baptists that teach this?

I will answer here also, if you don't mind. At one point in time, it was fairly common. When I was growing up, if you visited another Baptist church, there was a 60/40 chance that you would get one that preached the Kingdom or one that preached spiritual salvation. (Of the former set, some taught it very articulately and some didn't; of the latter, it would be from evangelism to those who taught a works-based salvation like many do here, whether to earn it, keep it, or prove it.)

Over the years, it has become more and more rare, and depended greatly upon your geographical location. In one city where a friend of mine preaches, only 25 years ago, about 75% of the Baptist churches preached the Kingdom, now there are only a few.

I've had several churches contact me to either pastor, visit and preach, or come to teach Bible study conferences on the computer, and every single one of them is either Baptist, or had dropped "Baptist" from their name because so many Baptist sects had abandoned the teachings of the Kingdom for more seeker friendly stuff or in favor of trying to justify a works-based salvation of some sort. (Many of them changed from something like "Community Baptist Church" to "Community Bible Church".)

The reason that I'm at the church I am now, is that I was looking for a temporary church until I headed out in the bush to pastor (which did not happen because of a severe injury; looking back, I can see that it was a good thing for many reasons). While listening to the preacher, he didn't preach the Kingdom well, but he preached it. "This passage is talking about the Kingdom, I think, because it can't be talking about salvation because it's talking about enduring (works, etc.)" Although this is a valid argument, and he could effectively show why it was not talking about spiritual salvation, he was weak at showing why it was talking about the Kingdom or the salvation of the soul.

I can show both why it's not spiritual salvation and why it's salvation of the soul, and I fit right in with teaching and preaching, and then when events turned that we were suddenly without a pastor, I was immediately able to step in.

But, even around here, one preacher at a church in a nearby town, used to preach the Kingdom, but it didn't draw people in, so he abandoned the teaching. (Not the belief, and I find that appalling that he would intentionally water things down to fill the pews.) Another one, although he believes in salvational security, preaches against it, because "it's easier to keep people in line when they're scared of losing their salvation".

So, when one person starts teaching these false teachings, it spreads.

Out of all the individual churches that I personally know of that preach the Kingdom from a Biblical viewpoint (not the JW's), about two thirds of them are Baptist, and most of the others used to be Baptist.

Times are a changin', and I don't think it's for the better.

 

[Hope of Glory]

As an addendum:

About half the people that I know who have the eyes to see and ears to hear the Kingdom message grew up with some form of Kingdom teaching. But, a large number of people realized that there was something wrong with their "traditional" teachings. Some of them were shown, and some of them simply read the Scriptures and saw it. They saw that there is no need to justify works with spiritual salvation, because works have nothing to do with being saved. They saw that seemingly contradictory passages don't contradict each other because they're talking about completely different things.

As far as being "orthodox" (traditional), it is an orthodox teaching, in that its roots go back many, many years. It's not a new teaching, but it is a debated teaching, just as pre-mil, etc. is debated.

BTW, when you rightly divide between spiritual salvation issues and Kingdom issues, the entire Calvinist/Arminian debate goes away as well. When you rightly divide this way, almost all "contradictions" go away, with the exception of a few that have been debated as long as there have been saved people.

 

[J. Jump]

You are operating on an assumption that someone who is not saved cannot understand the message.

Marcia that's what the Bible tells us. I Corinthians 2:14 says But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

A person has to be spiritually alive in order to comprehend any message other than Christ died on the cross for their sins.

They understand that God is telling them they are in sin and need a Savior.

The message of the kingdom is a different message than eternal salvation.

Show me where it says they are saved.

Well the best place to look is Exodus 12, but I 've already posted that several times in several different threads. Exodus 12 is where God accepts Israel based on the slaying of the pascal lambs. God never told Israel to believe in anything else until AFTER the death of Christ and there was a generation of Jews that began to not be accepted by God becuase no longer was He going to look through the blood of animals, but the blood of His own Son!

You are the one that says they are unsaved, but have yet to provide Scripture evidence to your opinion.

What Jesus says will happen to them parallels what God's word tells us will happen to the lost.

Where in Scripture does God tell an unsaved person they are going to outer darkness? Again you are trying to combine two different messages.

Maybe this should be making you think that you are not reading scripture correctly.

Why in the world would it want to make me do that? None of them were able to provide Scripture evidence to the contrary. The pastor of the church just said he didn't have time to deal with the matter. All of them just didn't want to study the matter out, because like a number of this BB have just said that doesn't sound right. I can't be true, without having an open mind and saying well maybe I'm wrong. Let me investigate this with an open mind.

The religious crowds were never right in the NT times, so what would make one think that the religious crowds of today are in the right?

Christendom can't even make up its mind on what it takes for a person to be eternally saved. What makes you think they got the Word of the Kingdom right.

Christendom has gone the way of the Pharisees and the Saducees unfortunatley and no one cares to recognize it and make changes. It's all about nickles and noses and if we make major changes then those nickles and noses will disappear just like they did in Scripture, so we can't make changes to our theology, becuase we just built this big building and we have to finish paying for it, and we just built this bowling alley and we just put in this bookstore and coffee shop.

I better stop before I really get rolling :laugh:

 

[Benjamin]

Not so fast!

J. Jump,

Seems you’re trying to have it both ways professing people being saved by grace through faith but then starting with a statement about Abraham you say:

Abraham was actually "saved" in Genesis 15 when he "believed" God concerning his descendants.

Abraham was not saved in any way by the content of what he believed in, he was saved because of his faith alone in God as God knows the heart and it was that that was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham’s belief content was in the Lord, not in the content of having descendants.

You then add to that that all Jews are saved as if there is some pedigree involved in this, well that’s what the Pharisees thought also but John the Baptist straightened them out on that; you said you want scripture, lets start here:

(Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Read Paul’s term for ALL the saved (Gal 3: 16-29)

All OT and NT were saved in the promise God gave to Abraham which was not by an inheritance of any law or belief by obedience, but faith, the OT people were brought to Christ under the schoolmaster, indwelled by the HS because of their faith. The difference today is in the ministry of belief in that it is written in our hearts. The OT had the ministry of death and the NT the ministry of life and there is NO fundamental difference, (2Cor 3:7-9, Gal 3:10-13)salvation always came by faith, and I might add this faith baptized them into Christ, now fully revealed.

Scripture for spiritual baptism:

(1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

What does the Lord require?

(Mic 6:8) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

What is an “unfaithful Christian”??? That’s an oxymoronic statement don’t you think? Again you’re trying to have it both ways, a person that is truly saved is a Christian because of faith, you take away the faith and the person is not in Christ.

The centurion said he wasn’t worthy, it takes being humble to admit that, but he had great faith. Christ said many will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; but the Israel they thought they had was not Israel, remember Jacob’s tortured cry, “I will not let you go until you bless me.” The religious significance in the name “Israel” can not be overlooked and would become a message to the world, evidence to a line of faith, those that had the father of faith, “fellow heirs of the same promise” that God gave to Abraham.

We do not fully understand what will come down at the JSOC but personally I will do justly, love mercy, remain humble and NEVER let go of my faith in Christ that is written in my heart. I may come away limping but know one will ever convince me my faith in Christ alone will not justify me to live in the kingdom.

Christendom has gone the way of the Pharisees and the Saducees unfortunatley and no one cares to recognize it and make changes. It's all about nickles and noses and if we make major changes then those nickles and noses will disappear just like they did in Scripture, so we can't make changes to our theology, becuase we just built this big building and we have to finish paying for it, and we just built this bowling alley and we just put in this bookstore and coffee shop.

As for Christendom, it seems you what it to go the way of the Pharisees; I do not care to recognize any change that would take away from the truth of faith as a little leaven would spoil the whole lump.

(Joh 6:35) And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger;and he that believeth on me shal lnever thirst.

 

[J. Jump]

Abraham was not saved in any way by the content of what he believed in, he was saved because of his faith alone in God as God knows the heart and it was that that was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham’s belief content was in the Lord, not in the content of having descendants.

Benjamin thanks for joining in our discussion. The problem is you have to have content, because a belief in God does not save. Studies show that anywhere from 75%-95% of Americans believe in God, but that doesn't save them.

Faith is believing what God has to say about a matter. Abraham believed God about his descendants and we find later that is was only God's grace that allowed Him to have these descendants.

Just today we can not just believe that a man named Jesus Christ lived and died. We have to believe what God said concerning His Son. And that is that He bled and died to pay the penalty for our sin. If we believe that then we are saved.

You then add to that that all Jews are saved as if there is some pedigree involved in this, well that’s what the Pharisees thought also but John the Baptist straightened them out on that; you said you want scripture, lets start here:

And what was John's message regarding? Repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near. He didn't preach a message of eternal salvation, but the message of the kingdom.

You aren't going to be able to prove with the NT that those folks weren't saved. You are going to have to show it somewhere in the OT where God no longer told them to believe in the sacrificial system, becuase that is what God established for them to begin with.

All OT and NT were saved in the promise God gave to Abraham which was not by an inheritance of any law or belief by obedience, but faith, the OT people were brought to Christ under the schoolmaster, indwelled by the HS because of their faith.

No OT believer was indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came and went. That's why David said please don't take Thy Spirit from me. He knew that the Spirit was not permanent, unlike it is today.

What is an “unfaithful Christian”??? That’s an oxymoronic statement don’t you think?

Well I could use the term wicked servant if you like? Whether or not the term is to your liking the Scriptural reality is there.

We do not fully understand what will come down at the JSOC

But we do know enough to say there are going to be some winners and there are going to be some losers, and it's not just a matter of losing a crown or two.

As for Christendom, it seems you what it to go the way of the Pharisees

I think you meant to say want instead of what, and that would be absolutely 100% incorrect. It literally breaks my heart that Christendom is in the shape that it is in, but it is a reality, because God said it is a reality. And as much as I would like for it to change it will not change as a whole, therefore that is why the ministry that God started through me is called One Heart Ministries. It is only one heart at a time that will be changed. We see this truth in Revelation 3.

I didn't deal with some of your other stuff, because you pretty much lost me as to what you were talking about.

 

[Benjamin]

You aren't going to be able to prove with the NT that those folks weren't saved.

Won’t most dispensationalist admit that only one third of the tribulation Jews will be saved, Zechariah 13:7-9?

You are going to have to show it somewhere in the OT where God no longer told them to believe in the sacrificial system, becuase that is what God established for them to begin with.

I may be misunderstanding you but if you’re saying they believed that the blood of bulls and goats saved them then I disagree and contend it was faith that saved them and would challenge you to show me in the OT that it was more than a sign of obedience. I would also ask about the OT saints before the law.

No OT believer was indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came and went. That's why David said please don't take Thy Spirit from me. He knew that the Spirit was not permanent, unlike it is today.

Hmm, weren’t they kept with the HS indwelled in them by faith? They may not have understood it, but yes, it was there faith that kept them.
(Gal 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

The HS certainly could have been taken from them as shown with David in Psalms 51 but it wasn’t for those who kept by the saving faith; that is what I was getting at in my prior post with the difference in ministry from the OT to the NT but that there was no fundamental change in that all were saved by faith. Again, “The OT had the ministry of death and the NT the ministry of life and there is NO fundamental difference, (2Cor 3:7-9, Gal 3:10-13)salvation always came by faith, and I might add this faith baptized them into Christ, now fully revealed.”


(2Co 3:7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

(2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

(2Co 3:9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

(Gal 3:10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

(Gal 3:11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, itis evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

(Gal 3:12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

(Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

I would suggest that your argument about the OT people not being indwelled with the HS is incorrect as the scripture implies the Israelites indwelled with the HS during the exodus.

(Isa 63:10) But they rebelled, and vexed his Holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

(Isa 63:11) Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him?

I would think rather the issue is when the HS came into power, (Acts 1:8) where the scripture speaks of the prophetic office.

(Act 1:8)But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Well I could use the term wicked servant if you like? Whether or not the term is to your liking the Scriptural reality is there.

Look at where the servant put his talent; in the earth, the world, he received a gift but put his faith elsewhere. Oh, he believed and so does the devil, but if he had placed his faith above he would have been saved but he placed his faith in the earth. I do not think he was ever saved.

I think you meant to say want instead of what, and that would be absolutely 100% incorrect. It literally breaks my heart that Christendom is in the shape that it is in, but it is a reality, because God said it is a reality. And as much as I would like for it to change it will not change as a whole, therefore that is why the ministry that God started through me is called One Heart Ministries. It is only one heart at a time that will be changed. We see this truth in Revelation 3.

I hear ya, hot nor cold, white raiment, nakedness, buying of Him; I really don’t have a problem with you preaching to believers that they should better get busy I just question about the sound of it tying it into salvation.

I didn't deal with some of your other stuff, because you pretty much lost me as to what you were talking about.

Sorry, darn it anyway, cause it was making good since to me. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[ituttut]

Won’t most dispensationalist admit that only one third of the tribulation Jews will be saved, Zechariah 13:7-9?

Pardon me for butting in here Benjamin, but I don't believe J. Jump to be a "dispensationalist" of the gospel of Paul.

 

[J. Jump]

Won’t most dispensationalist admit that only one third of the tribulation Jews will be saved, Zechariah 13:7-9

Haven't studied that out, but with just a quick read that sounds as though that could be accurate. But I'm not sure what that had to do with my response as we were talking about whether the Jews of the NT were saved or not.

I may be misunderstanding you but if you’re saying they believed that the blood of bulls and goats saved them then I disagree and contend it was faith that saved them and would challenge you to show me in the OT that it was more than a sign of obedience. I would also ask about the OT saints before the law.

It was their faith that saved them, but what were they told by God. That He would look at them through the blood of the animals, because it pointed to the Ulitmate Sacrifice that would be given.

That was what they were to believe in regard to salvation until the generation of Jews and beyond were required to believe just as the Gentiles in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ.

But the whole point of the matter is that the Jews that Jesus addressed in the NT were saved individuals. They had to be because He was offering a spiritual message that if they were spiritually dead then they would not have been able to understand the message to begin with.

Look at where the servant put his talent; in the earth, the world, he received a gift but put his faith elsewhere. Oh, he believed and so does the devil, but if he had placed his faith above he would have been saved but he placed his faith in the earth. I do not think he was ever saved.

He was saved, becuase God doesn't give His goods to unsaved people. Unsaved people are dead in trespasses and sins and are incapable of producing a profit for the Lord. He was expected to work for the Lord, and the only people that can deliver on that are saved people.

People try to deny that the third one was saved, because they don't like what he was told, but to deny he was saved is to deny the plain reading of Scripture.

I hear ya, hot nor cold, white raiment, nakedness, buying of Him; I really don’t have a problem with you preaching to believers that they should better get busy I just question about the sound of it tying it into salvation.

It's not tied to their eternal salvation, but rather the salvation of one's soul.

don't believe J. Jump to be a "dispensationalist" of the gospel of Paul.

That's exactly what I have been talking about, so how could I not be one if that's exactly what I've been trying to explain?

 

[Benjamin]

I’m not following your reasoning on several of the issues here; earlier I pointed out that it seemed you were trying to have it both ways and it still appears so.

It's not tied to their eternal salvation, but rather the salvation of one's soul.

I completely fail to see the logic in the salvation of one’s soul not being eternal.

He was saved, becuase God doesn't give His goods to unsaved people.

That is absolutely no proof that he was saved, EVERYTHING is God’s, every man is given his measure of faith.

God doesn’t give His goods to the unsaved??? Man, He gave His only begotten to us while we were yet sinners.

Unsaved people are dead in trespasses and sins and are incapable of producing a profit for the Lord.

Which is exactly what he did not do (produce a profit) and now you flip and are describing his situation as unsaved after saying he was saved.

He was expected to work for the Lord, and the only people that can deliver on that are saved people.

Again, by your own words he was not saved; you state the only people that can deliver are saved, so where is the evidence to prove he was ever saved here!? (You are confirming why he couldn’t be???)

People try to deny that the third one was saved, because they don't like what he was told, but to deny he was saved is to deny the plain reading of Scripture.

I have no problem with what he was told and you have not supported you’re view with one iota of proof thereby your claim to the plain reading of scripture is unfounded.

It was their faith that saved them, but what were they told by God. That He would look at them through the blood of the animals, because it pointed to the Ulitmate Sacrifice that would be given.

Absolutely not! That is not what they were told by God.

AGAIN, you are trying to have it both ways, first saying their faith saved them then claiming the Lord saw them cleansed by the blood of ANIMALS.

It only was to purge their consciences and stood only in carnal ordinances signifying the HS until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9) He did not look at them through the blood of animals as the blood of animals DID NOT CLEANSE THEM; He looked at the heart.

Further, they had no clue of this pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of their Messiah who would pay for their sins by His death on the cross.

That was what they were to believe in regard to salvation until the generation of Jews and beyond were required to believe just as the Gentiles in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ.

That was not in regard to salvation, only what they were to be obedient to, it did NOT save them, they were never saved by works. And no, you can not compare the ministries between the OT and NT in that way. We know Christ shed His blood for all, OT and NT, and today we see the wisdom of God’s plan, knowing in began before the foundation of the world, the fully revealed gospel, and today we are saved by faith in believing God’s completed gospel message of His loving grace.

Ituttut, this is for you: ONE GOSPEL!!! :tongue3: Just razzing, let’s not go there.

But the whole point of the matter is that the Jews that Jesus addressed in the NT were saved individuals. They had to be because He was offering a spiritual message that if they were spiritually dead then they would not have been able to understand the message to begin with.

Well if they had to be saved because of this you just proved yourself wrong because they didn’t understand the spiritual message and Christ pointed that out several times, it is clear when Jesus addressed the Pharisees that they didn’t understand or believe; so they must not have been saved by your own reasoning.

The whole point of the matter is neither the OT or NT people were/are saved by their works, but by their faith, and the kingdom of heaven is for the saved by faith.

 

[Hope of Glory]

We know Christ shed His blood for all

He died for all.

His blood was shed for many.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[Benjamin]

He died for all.

His blood was shed for many.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I stand corrected.:thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

I completely fail to see the logic in the salvation of one’s soul not being eternal.

But just because you fail to see something doesn't make it untrue. Israel failed to see the Messiah, but Jesus was every bit the Messiah He claimed to be. Spiritual blindness, does not equal spiritual untruth.

That is absolutely no proof that he was saved, EVERYTHING is God’s, every man is given his measure of faith.

God doesn’t give His goods to the unsaved??? Man, He gave His only begotten to us while we were yet sinners.

Christ is not a good. We are talking about goods, something that is given to the servant in order to bring about a profit for the master. The Master doesn't give His goods to unsaved people with the expectation for them to bring about a profit for Him, because that is an impossibility. God doesn't expect people to do something they are incapable of.

Which is exactly what he did not do (produce a profit) and now you flip and are describing his situation as unsaved after saying he was saved.

You continue to miss the whole point. He was expected to bring a profit and that is why he was given the talent. He could have brought a profit, but decided it would be in his best interest to hide what was given to him. He wasn't incapable, but unwilling. That's two different things that you are missing.

Again, by your own words he was not saved; you state the only people that can deliver are saved, so where is the evidence to prove he was ever saved here!? (You are confirming why he couldn’t be???)

Exactly the opposite. Unsaved people wouldn't even have the goods in the first place, because there is no way they could perform. He had the talent and CHOSE NOT to perform with it. It doesn't say he was incapable as an unsaved person would be.

You are reading into my words what you believe and want to hear.

I have no problem with what he was told and you have not supported you’re view with one iota of proof thereby your claim to the plain reading of scripture is unfounded.

The first part of your statement may or may not be true. However the second part of the statement is absolutely false. If you can't see that the third man was just as saved as the other two then I can't help you any more.

All three were his servants. God doesn't have unsaved servants. He doesn't own unsaved slaves. That is just impossible to miss, unfortunately not impossible to deny, because there are so many that do.

Absolutely not! That is not what they were told by God.

Go back and read Exodus 12.

It only was to purge their consciences and stood only in carnal ordinances signifying the HS until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9) He did not look at them through the blood of animals as the blood of animals DID NOT CLEANSE THEM; He looked at the heart.

Go look at Exodus 12 and show me where God said He was going to look at the heart of every individual in the house. That's just plainly not what He said. He said the death angel will look for the blood. Because where there is blood there has been death.

God only looks for death and shed blood in relation to eternal salvation, because that is all that is required. Now for them it was literal, and for us it is literal, because Jesus did actually die and shed His blood, but it is also spiritual because we apply His blood through faith and believing. They applied the blood physically. We apply it spiritually.

Further, they had no clue of this pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of their Messiah who would pay for their sins by His death on the cross.

That is probably a true statement, but it doesn't matter because God did and that's the One that does matter.

That was not in regard to salvation, only what they were to be obedient to, it did NOT save them, they were never saved by works.

I don't think you are reading my posts for understanding. I didn't say their work saved them. I said that was what they were told to believe in. Faith is what saved them.

And no, you can not compare the ministries between the OT and NT in that way.

Sure you can. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Salvation always has been and always will be by God's grace through faith apart from our works.

Well if they had to be saved because of this you just proved yourself wrong because they didn’t understand the spiritual message and Christ pointed that out several times, it is clear when Jesus addressed the Pharisees that they didn’t understand or believe; so they must not have been saved by your own reasoning.

Their being saved didn't guarantee understanding. Their salvation only put them in a position so that they could even begin to understand, so that understanding was a possibility.

They could have understood the message, but they chose not to, just as Christians today could understand the message of the kingdom, but they choose not to for whatever reason.

The whole point of the matter is neither the OT or NT people were/are saved by their works, but by their faith,

Absolutely true and that's what I have said from the beginning!

and the kingdom of heaven is for the saved by faith.

Partially true. You can only be in a position to accept or reject the message of the kingdom if you are saved by faith. But your salvation by grace through faith does not automatically gain you entrance into the kingdom.

 

[ituttut]

Originally Posted by Ituttut
ituttut: I don't believe J. Jump to be a "dispensationalist" of the gospel of Paul.



J. Jump: That's exactly what I have been talking about, so how could I not be one if that's exactly what I've been trying to explain?

We know His "ageless gospel" never changes, but there are gospel's in His ages. Do you believe in at least 2 gospels? If not then Paul did not have a gospel, of which we are told that he does.

 

[J. Jump]

We know His "ageless gospel" never changes, but there are gospel's in His ages. Do you believe in at least 2 gospels? If not then Paul did not have a gospel, of which we are told that he does.

There is a single gospel to the dead man in trespasses and sins, and that is by God's grace through faith we can be saved. Now the faith aspect has changed from dispensation to dispensation, but the premise has always been the same. It is God's grace through faith apart from man's works.

There is a single gospel to the spiritually alive man and that is there is going to be a coming kindgom and you can have a part to play in it.

Paul's gospel was how the gentiles were going to be able to entertain the offer that Israel just rejected. And that was that Paul learned that through the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God Gentiles would no longer be Gentiles, but part of the one new man in Christ, which made this sons of Abraham. And by being sons of Abraham and spiritually alive they were now in a position to accept or reject the offer of the kingdom that Israel rejected.

 

[ituttut]

[/color] We know His "ageless gospel" never changes, but there are gospel's in His ages. Do you believe in at least 2 gospels? If not then Paul did not have a gospel, of which we are told that he does.

There is a single gospel to the dead man in trespasses and sins, and that is by God's grace through faith we can be saved. Now the faith aspect has changed from dispensation to dispensation, but the premise has always been the same. It is God's grace through faith apart from man's works.

God knew from before the beginning His purpose was grace through faith, but man did not know this until God was ready to reveal it, and He did to Paul. You now know this for Christ Jesus revealed it to you, so Amen. But Adam didn't know this, nor Noah and forward. They were not asked or told to believe this gospel. If so it would be in the OT

There is a single gospel to the spiritually alive man and that is there is going to be a coming kindgom and you can have a part to play in it.

But you did not know this until you read it in the Epistles of Paul. I've never said I wouldn't be in the "kingdom". But I look to be with Christ in heaven before that "kingdom comes' as taught in the OT.

Paul's gospel was how the gentiles were going to be able to entertain the offer that Israel just rejected. And that was that Paul learned that through the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God Gentiles would no longer be Gentiles, but part of the one new man in Christ, which made this sons of Abraham. And by being sons of Abraham and spiritually alive they were now in a position to accept or reject the offer of the kingdom that Israel rejected.

I fail to understand why you refuse to believe that Christ Jesus taught Paul everything he knew of this "dispensation" we live in. You say Paul Learned, but will not say it was Christ Jesus that taught Him. If I misstate in this matter, I apologize, but I do not see acknowledgement of this in your posts.

Not only no longer Gentiles, but also no longer Jews, for Christ is all, and in all. It is all about Him

 

[J. Jump]

I fail to understand why you refuse to believe that Christ Jesus taught Paul everything he knew of this "dispensation" we live in. You say Paul Learned, but will not say it was Christ Jesus that taught Him. If I misstate in this matter, I apologize, but I do not see acknowledgement of this in your posts.

Of course Paul was taught personally by our Lord.

Not only no longer Gentiles, but also no longer Jews

Exactly. One new man in Christ, neither Jew nor Gentile, becuase of the promises of the kingdom being taken away from Israel and also for Abraham's seed.

now know this for Christ Jesus revealed it to you, so Amen. But Adam didn't know this, nor Noah and forward. They were not asked or told to believe this gospel.

Exactly. That's what I have been saying all along.

But I look to be with Christ in heaven before that "kingdom comes' as taught in the OT.

Yes we will be taken back to His home where we will stand before our Judge and have our works tried by the fire. Then after the seven-year tribulation then Christ will return to rule and reign with His bride from the heavens. And He will also rule from the physical earth from David's throne in Jerusalem. Oh that that day would come soon!

 

[Benjamin]

But just because you fail to see something doesn't make it untrue. Israel failed to see the Messiah, but Jesus was every bit the Messiah He claimed to be. Spiritual blindness, does not equal spiritual untruth.

Christ is not a good. We are talking about goods, something that is given to the servant in order to bring about a profit for the master. The Master doesn't give His goods to unsaved people with the expectation for them to bring about a profit for Him, because that is an impossibility. God doesn't expect people to do something they are incapable of.

In looking at your interpretation of the parable, first, I don’t know why it would be impossible for our Lord to give His goods to the unsaved servant. I don’t know of any Biblical reference stating so and looked to the character of God: propitiation, grace, loving mercy, Jesus’ gifts of healing, His instructions to us:

(Luk 6:35)But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankfu land to the evil.

(Luk 6:36)Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Second, if our Lord gave His goods to an already saved servant with the expectation to receive a profit where is His judgment in the spiritual condition of such? It is stated that this servant was wicked, slothful-grievous, opinioned that his Lord was a fiercely hard man, fearful, unprofitable, losing all he had, cast into utter darkness and receiving God’s wrath. I would think a saved man would be righteous, Spirit lead, knowing the love of God, an adopted son with an inheritance, a man of light, faith, and certainly not receiving God’s wrath.

I am seeing your doctrine and lean towards somewhat similar beliefs pertaining to responsibilities as I share your disgust in the shack dwelling, and “I’ll just mow the lawn around the kingdom while naked” believer, yes, I’ve been told that one! But, personally I think you’re reading too much into the kingdom of heaven parables and attempting to separate salvation while disregarding the basic truths of Whose works get one there

You continue to miss the whole point. He was expected to bring a profit and that is why he was given the talent. He could have brought a profit, but decided it would be in his best interest to hide what was given to him. He wasn't incapable, but unwilling. That's two different things that you are missing.

I’ve been through the tread a couple times now and I think I just differ to your points, that doesn’t mean I missed it.

If God actually “expected” the servant to bring a profit he would have. Okay, I would agree that the servant wasn’t incapable, but unwilling but add because he didn’t have saving faith, he put his trust in the earth, so how could he currently be truly saved and not be in Christ? That’s like suggesting Jesus, or those in Him are not able to do good with the goods, like saying he’s part of the vine but not providing fruit. That does not appear as a saved person abiding in Christ to me.

The reason he decided to hide his talent in the earth is from fear of the Lord, he did believe and like I said before so does the devil but I would still contend that if he was saved, in Christ, by faith, he would have produced or otherwise it sounds you are contending that Christ did not produce. Also a saved person is told we have not received the spirit of bondage (to be a slave) again to fear, so if he had the Spirit why was he so fearful…it was a lack of faith not a lack of producing that wound him up in utter darkness, one that is a light is not going to be in darkness. God would not take away the inheritance from a son as you suggested earlier in this tread. As soon as you say it was a lack of producing you can only be referring to the works by the hands of the unsaved or are suggesting the works of man save you. Do you get that point?

Exactly the opposite. Unsaved people wouldn't even have the goods in the first place, because there is no way they could perform. He had the talent and CHOSE NOT to perform with it. It doesn't say he was incapable as an unsaved person would be.

You are reading into my words what you believe and want to hear.

We’re being instructed in the parable how to live in the kingdom, isn’t everyone unsaved before they are saved and incapable until believing the truth and choosing to ask the Lord in their life by faith and it is in Him that they become righteous.

I believe you’re trying to have it both ways and maybe thinking you’re clearing up a controversy in the scripture by separating a kingdom salvation from eternal salvation. For lack of better words, I see it as one big picture and no need to divide it.

 

[Benjamin]

Quote:
I have no problem with what he was told and you have not supported you’re view with one iota of proof thereby your claim to the plain reading of scripture is unfounded.

The first part of your statement may or may not be true. However the second part of the statement is absolutely false. If you can't see that the third man was just as saved as the other two then I can't help you any more.

All three were his servants. God doesn't have unsaved servants. He doesn't own unsaved slaves. That is just impossible to miss, unfortunately not impossible to deny, because there are so many that do.

I see the parable as instruction (to who would be those that will believe) so as to be prepared and use the goods that our Lord will give us, to remain in the faith, to be a good workman.

To me it is about being created in Christ and entering the kingdom by faith and being kept by the Spirit, a true slave in Christ is maintained in faith by hope in the love of God as a son. Unfortunately some would have you to deny this fact.

(Rom 8:15) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

You want to know what I think happened to the third one: (Psa 69:27) Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.

Go look at Exodus 12 and show me where God said He was going to look at the heart of every individual in the house. That's just plainly not what He said. He said the death angel will look for the blood. Because where there is blood there has been death.

God only looks for death and shed blood in relation to eternal salvation, because that is all that is required. Now for them it was literal, and for us it is literal, because Jesus did actually die and shed His blood, but it is also spiritual because we apply His blood through faith and believing. They applied the blood physically. We apply it spiritually.

God only looks at the heart through the blood of Christ, never animal blood; He certainly searches “every individual”. The physical blood of animals was but a carnal ordinance, it was not literal to them because it was a mystery and the ministry of death was a glorious ministration to bring about repentance by faith. It was only their faith that sanctified them and they were not kept in the Spirit by works of hands. The work of the blood was often in error and imperfect and the only thing that was required for their eternal salvation is faith.

(Psa 7:10) My defense is of God, which saveth the upright in heart.

(Psa 40:6) Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

(Psa 40:7) Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book itis written of me,

(Psa 40:8) I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

(Psa 44:20) If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god; (note and compare the heart and the stumblingblock in Eze 14)

(Psa 44:21) Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.

(Psa 139:23) Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

(1Ch 28:9) And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever.

 

[Benjamin]

Quote:
Further, they had no clue of this pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of their Messiah who would pay for their sins by His death on the cross.

That is probably a true statement, but it doesn't matter because God did and that's the One that does matter.

It does matter when you make statements that sound as if the OT people were actually cleansed in the blood of animals to support your view.

I don't think you are reading my posts for understanding. I didn't say their work saved them. I said that was what they were told to believe in. Faith is what saved them.

No, I think I just disagree with the attempt to separate eternal salvation with the dispensational kingdom twist (sounds like a dance doesn’t it?) :smilewinkgrin: and you are having a problem accepting that and think that those who disagree are blind to a believers responsibilities. Faith in God and love of the truth produces good works through the Spirit.

You’ll say faith is what saved them, but read ahead.

Sure you can. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Salvation always has been and always will be by God's grace through faith apart from our works.

No, you can’t if you’re suggesting the works of the blood of animals actually accomplished salvation for them and then compare that to the blood of Christ in the NT, and that’s exactly what I mean about trying to have it both ways, You said: … “but what were they told by God. That He would look at them through the blood of the animals,” that is comparing their own works of sacrifice in obedience to God’s propitiation with the false assumption that God looked at them through that carnal animal blood. You say faith apart from works but you plainly don’t stick to it.
Quote:

Well if they had to be saved because of this you just proved yourself wrong because they didn’t understand the spiritual message and Christ pointed that out several times, it is clear when Jesus addressed the Pharisees that they didn’t understand or believe; so they must not have been saved by your own reasoning.

Their being saved didn't guarantee understanding. Their salvation only put them in a position so that they could even begin to understand, so that understanding was a possibility.

They could have understood the message, but they chose not to, just as Christians today could understand the message of the kingdom, but they choose not to for whatever reason.

I was just dealing with your proofing that they had to be saved because of understanding Jesus’ message; not even the 12 fully understood it as I think you know.

To me if they’re saved, they’re saved in the Spirit by faith, if they truly believe and ask God He will give them the “understanding”, they will receive the gift of wisdom they need and God will not give them more than they can handle; if they disregard the counsel they did not choose to fear/love the Lord and will receive His wrath on unbelievers, if they refuse then they will not repent, they then have their own fruit and that doesn’t constitute salvation to begin with.

(Pro 1:24) Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

(Pro 1:25) But ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

(Pro 1:26) I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

(Pro 1:27) When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

(Pro 1:28) Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

(Pro 1:29) For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

(Pro 1:30) They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.

(Pro 1:31) Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

(Pro 1:32) For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.

(Pro 1:33) But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

Partially true. You can only be in a position to accept or reject the message of the kingdom if you are saved by faith. But your salvation by grace through faith does not automatically gain you entrance into the kingdom.

Well then what can one can add to faith as that is what righteousness comes through and guess we will see the message of the kingdom differently. I would say if you’re saved you’re saved by the Spirit in faith. I differ with the this dispensationalist program of “rightly dividing” the Word to mean separating these type of things to prove doctrines and see “rightly dividing” to mean as a clean single clean cut to look into the Word to examine it as a whole, a complete picture, not to chopping it into pieces however it suits ones theology.