Part 2: OK... I still have these nagging questions:

If you had a servant who was slothful, how long would you cast him into outer darkness?

Or, in Acts 17:28-29 both believers and unbelievers are said to be the offspring of God. So would you cast your offspring into a lake of fire for all eternity?

The Lord does these things. Just because it would seem repugnant if you did them does not mean it is wrong for God. Fatherhood is only one aspect of our relationship with God. He is also our Judge and our God.

Universalists and Russelites make these same kind of emotional arguments in regards to unbelievers being cast into hell. "How could a loving God cast anyone into a lake of fire with conscious torment for eternity?" they cry. Whatever reasonable answer you can give to this question, can be applied to the idea of a Christian being temporarily punished at the judgment seat as well.

As is the case with the Russellite, an appeal to emotion is all that's left when you have no biblical arguments.

 

What did I leave out of the WHOLE gospel of Grace?

My statement of how to lead someone to believe the Gopel of Grace is almost the same. I do not, as you do, teach the the sinners will be in Hell for eternity. I teach they will be cast into the Lake of fire.

And here we are again........ Why do you say that I should teach the JSOC before they are saved when you won't even teach them baptism and tithing first?

The reason? these are understandings for a believer, not a sinner.

Now will you answer the question?

 

The parable says "like a servant". That's a similie. The greek reads more accurately a slave, btw.

 

Of course you don't teach an unbeliever about baptism, the Lord's supper, ect. before he hears and accepts the gospel, because they are NOT the gospel.

But you claim to preach a "gospel" of kingdom accountability. You should be upfront when presenting the gospel and preach all of it. But, I imagine if you did, the person hearing it would reject it because they see hell whether they're saved or not. Your gospel is NOT good news. I wouldn't want to share that either.

 

I'm looking and I can't find it...where does it say "like a servant"?

 

This employee not only did a lousy job, but he stole from the company, then killed a co-worker to cover it up.

Do you think he's headed only for the unemployment line?

Or will he recieve a just recompense for his works?

 

According to the EIREITAD heresy...he'll be made CEO.

 

I thought it was only "good news", and anything negative meant that it was no longer "good news". That is something that you specifically have said, in addition to npetreley. (There may have been others.) You, Amy G., have stated that the gospel of the Kingdom can't be good news because there is accountability.

Yet, here you come telling people that they will go to the lake of fire forever and ever! (Not to mention that hell is only temporary, whether you think that only unsaved people go into it or not.)

 

Yes, it does.

It also specifies whose slave it is.

He is not someone else's slave who has sneaked into the household and is not really a slave.

 

It doesn't actually say "like a servant". That's my quote. The entire parable is to be taken "...it is just like" meaning it is a similie.

Mat 25:14 "For it is just like a man going on a journey. He called his own slaves and turned over his possessions to them.

 

Here is what I said:

The word gospel means GOOD NEWS. I'm sure with all your study of Greek that you already knew that. And the GOOD NEWS is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

You are the ones who claim to preach a kingdom accountability "gospel" but you have used the wrong word, for it is NOT good news (gospel).

Do you think by trying to make me look foolish it gives you more credibility?

 

The entire parable has to be taken in context.

You have three slaves. Each received a treasure (a measure of truth).

The first two were given differing measures of truth, received it, and put it to work in their lives.

The disobedient one received his own measure, and instead of acting on it (faith) hid it and did nothing with it.

When the judgement came, the first two were rewarded (eternal life), and the disobedient one was not.

 

What is "it" in your cited verse?

 

The disobedient servant wasn't really a servant and "His Lord" wasn't really His Lord or are you saying He was saved and then lost his salvation because of his slothfulness?

His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:- Matthew 25:26​

 

First of all that is not what happened to John R. Rice. So clear his name.
Second, your question has been asked and answered many times in other threads especially in debate by Brother Bob and myself. If you to see a full debate on this discussion I would urge you to go back a couple pages and read the threads on it.
Thirdly, the question is a simple one of OSAS.
Look at my signature verse and ask yourself if you believe it.

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
--Will the One (Jesus Christ) who has begun that work of salvation) keep it until Jesus comes? I believe he will. Don't you?

How about this?
Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--There is absolutely nothing, no power, not in the present or in the future that will be able to separate me from God or his love. MEers have a hard time explaining that verse and have yet to explain it to me. If there is nothing that can separate me from God and his love how could the possiblility of a "Baptist Purgatory" even exist? That totally contradicts the Bible. It puts the ME'er's doctrine way out in left field.

Now having established that basis, we need to establish the basis of salvation.
Did Jesus pay the full penalty of our salvation; or do you have to pay a part of it too? Do you need to help out in the atonement of Christ somehow? When you eventually reach heaven (or even the kingdom) will you boast and say: "Look what I did; See I helped Jesus accomplish his work of salvation; I had a part in paying the penalty of our sin too." That is the MEer's heresy. They take away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ.

As I tell the Catholics I tell you.
You don't beleive that Christ paid the penalty for your sin.
Why?
Because you still pay the penalty for your own sins in purgatory.
And the MEer's do the same thing in their "Baptist Purgatory."

When Jesus said: "It is finished," He meant the work of salvation is finished. There is nothing more to do. The payment for sin (all sin--past present and future) was paid for. There is nothing more to do. The payment for the penalty of sin was paid for with the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. You or I can do nothing more but accept that payment. That means that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works.

Once you say you have to do works to enter into the kingdom you have a salvation based on works just as the RCC does. That is heresy. Salvation is not based on works. It is by faith.

Thus if a man dies while committing sin: whether it be lying, cheating, driving over the speed limit, or adultery, he will go straight to heaven to be with the Lord, as the Bible promises.
There is no difference in sin.
Sin is a transgression of the law. In God's sight all sin is the same, though the consequences on this earth may be different. All sin is a transgression of the law. A lie is just as bad as adultery.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

If you have broken one command you are just as guilty as breaking them all.
If you have lied you are just as guilty as murder and adultery.
In short if a person died committing adultery he would go to heaven.

If David had died of a heart attack before Nathan the prophet had reached him he would have gone to heaven, because he had been made righteous in the sight of the Lord long before that time. His sin has no effect on his salvation.

 

I know exactly what the word means, and that's exactly the way that I have used it.

You preach the entire gospel of the Kingdom that says that we are all sinners, and not worthy of ruling and reigning the in the coming Kingdom. That's the bad news. Then, you move on to the good news that Christ shed his blood for those who have accepted his offer of salvation and has made it possible for you to live by faith, and be glorified and receive crowns based on the works in the flesh through his grace.

Sounds pretty much like both are bad news/good news sides of the same coin.

Not trying to make you look foolish, but trying to point out the fallacy that you have presented, since both have a bad/good aspect, but you only want to say that one is bad.

You are saved by "believe". Unless you are born from above, you cannot see the Kingdom. (John 3:3) But, if you want to enter the Kingdom, you have to follow through with doing stuff. (John 3:5)

I've heard some try to say that "seeing" is "almost getting saved, but not quite" and "entering" is "someone who is really and truly saved". But, anyone who is born from above is in the family. Period.

But, not all will endure. However, they're still in the family.

To enter in is to become a partaker of; to go in and possess as the Children of Israel did Canaan. They were already in the Promised Land (based on nothing but being in the family), but they entered the Land Flowing with Milk and Honey because they were faithful, and this was a promise that was based on doing something (being faithful).

 

Well, it's works, and it is based on their levels of faithfulness in those works, but I deny your claims of being spiritually saved based on those works.

 

The kingdom truths are NOT part of the gospel of grace.
I have not found one who believes the kingdom truths who would say that they are. Your adding where you want and taking away where you want.
I'm having trouble "rightly dividing" what you are saying from one minute to another.
The comparisons towards your system of logic still stands.

 

Let's now use your rational once again Amy.

Gospel: Good News

The gospel of Grace: The Good news of Grace

You must BELIEVE the Gospel of Grace to obtain it.
If not: BAD NEWS you go to the Lake of Fire for eternity

The gospel of the Kingdom: The Good News of the Kingdom

You MUST be faithful to recieve it.
If not: BAD NEWS, bad rewards.

Both carry consequences if not accepted upon the given terms.

You evidently believe there are consequences for not following the directions for the gospel (of grace.)
You have even eluded that you believe that there is BAD NEWS for those with works that are bad at the JSOC (Loose your rewards, jobs, or something)

Why do you stop midway with the latter and start accusing one of only being BAD NEWS

Is it not good news that you can run for the prize?
Is it not good news that you can recieve a Crown of Life for loving His appearing?
Is it not Good news that you can build with Gold, Silver, and Precious Stones?
Is it not Good News that you can rule and reign with Christ?

I take it that you are not a member of the optimist club. (Not that I would want to be a member anyway! I can't stand phsycology!)

 

You have a great problem. You have now mixed the JSOC with the GWT. God will judge His church at least 100o years before he judges the sinners.

How do you over come this?