Please Explain John 12:37-40

[J. Jump]

...and if I don't know how...what is there to apologize for

You don't have to know how? The fact is that you offended a brother in Christ. You have offended the brother in Christ by misrepresenting his views. You don't need to know any more than that. The fact that you have offended someone should be enough.

I know all too well it's tough admitting you made a mistake, but when you do you own up to it ask forgiveness and move on. You keep trying to skirt the issue by saying I don't understand how I have offended you. Hogwash. If you don't want to apologize then don't, but don't give this nonesense that you can't apologize because you don't understand.

The "we" are believers.

Not entirely correct, but partially.

 

[webdog]

Apologize for what?!? For misrepresenting what you believe? I asked you what it was that I misrepresented and you refuse to answer truthfully... but come back to these same circular comments. I offended you how? Let's try again:
I said:

All you have to do is do a search for millenial exclusion or kingdom exclusion. He believes the Bible teaches two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (Millenial Kingdom). The one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works, and miss out on the MK, only to be restored to Heaven following the 1000 years. I would like to see how this jives with your reformed view

You say this is a misrepresentation and offensive requiring an apology, but refuse to say what is! Is it:
1. Two salvations?
2. One based on faith the other on works?
3. One who is saved by faith (eternally) can still spend 1000 years in hell missing out on the MK?
4. The ME believer is restored to everlasting fellowship after the 1000 years.

What is misrepresented, and how in the world does this offend you?

 

[J. Jump]

Apologize for what?!? For misrepresenting what you believe? I asked you what it was that I misrepresented and you refuse to answer truthfully... but come back to these same circular comments. I offended you how? Let's try again:
I said:
Quote:

All you have to do is do a search for millenial exclusion or kingdom exclusion. He believes the Bible teaches two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (Millenial Kingdom). The one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works, and miss out on the MK, only to be restored to Heaven following the 1000 years. I would like to see how this jives with your reformed view

You say this is a misrepresentation and offensive requiring an apology, but refuse to say what is! Is it:
1. Two salvations?
2. One based on faith the other on works?
3. One who is saved by faith (eternally) can still spend 1000 years in hell missing out on the MK?
4. The ME believer is restored to everlasting fellowship after the 1000 years.

What is misrepresented, and how in the world does this offend you?

Really all you had to say is I don't care that I have offended you. It would have saved you a lot of time. And that's okay because now at least we all know where you stand. You'll say what you want about folks regardless of whether it is true or not just to make your point and who cares if it offends them.

You offended me becuase you said something about me that is untrue. That is offensive. That is all you need to know. You have shown people what you are truly all about and hopefully they will see that.

I'm done playing your childish games.

 

[webdog]

You have offended me by calling out my character. It is plain as day to anybody reading this thread that you refuse to state what is misrepresented either because you are being less than truthful or do not want the false doctrine you hold to brought into light in the way that it IS, not the way you want it to be. I made those 4 numbered statements (which you call me out on stating are misrepresentations), either state what is misrepresented for the umpteenth time, or retract it, but don't be dishonest about it, and question my character. You are way out of line.

You offended me becuase you said something about me that is untrue.

State what it is, or retract it. Doing neither is childish and dishonest.

 

[Tom Butler]

I think blinding and hardening takes unbelief a step further. I think there can be different degrees of hardness. Just a thought though, because I probably will never be able to understand God's purposes and the intricate details of them until we're face to face.

Actually, Amy, I think you can make a case that the longer one persists in unbelief, the more hardened one is to the gospel. In other words, a natural outgrowth of unbelief is hardening.

This is still an act of God, who set the terms for hardening and blinding. No one is saved unless God moves first. The harshest punishment one can incur is for God to leave him alone to the natural results of unbelief.

Degrees of hardening and blinding? Not sure about that.

 

[J. Jump]

You have offended me by calling out my character.

Then you should do something about your character!

It is plain as day to anybody reading this thread that you refuse to state what is misrepresented either because you are being less than truthful or do not want the false doctrine you hold to brought into light in the way that it IS, not the way you want it to be.

That is nothing less than ABSURD. I have done nothing but answer people's questions when they ask them out of honesty. What I do is refuse to play games with people like you that have no desire to hold to the views that I profess, but yet constantly demand that we answer your questions.

What is plain for anybody to read is refusal to apologize for saying something untrue about another brother in Christ. That's what is the plain truth of the matter.

I made those 4 numbered statements (which you call me out on stating are misrepresentations), either state what is misrepresented for the umpteenth time, or retract it, but don't be dishonest about it, and question my character. You are way out of line.

You offend me and say something that is untrue about me and I'm the one that is out of line. Man now if that isn't calling evil good and good evil I don't know what is. Pretty typical. I wasn't the one that said something untrue about the other person it was you. You deal with it!

State what it is, or retract it. Doing neither is childish and dishonest.

You really need to catch a clue webdog. I ALREADY HAVE stated what it is that you have said that was untrue. I don't have to make your misrepresentations true I just have to point out to you that you have offended me which you have becuase you have spoken irresponsibly about my views. Either apologize for it or don't, but don't lay the blame on me for your mistake.

 

[Amy.G]

Actually, Amy, I think you can make a case that the longer one persists in unbelief, the more hardened one is to the gospel. In other words, a natural outgrowth of unbelief is hardening.

This is still an act of God, who set the terms for hardening and blinding. No one is saved unless God moves first. The harshest punishment one can incur is for God to leave him alone to the natural results of unbelief.

Degrees of hardening and blinding? Not sure about that.

That's ok. I wasn't sure about it either.

 

[webdog]

Then you should do something about your character!


That is nothing less than ABSURD. I have done nothing but answer people's questions when they ask them out of honesty. What I do is refuse to play games with people like you that have no desire to hold to the views that I profess, but yet constantly demand that we answer your questions.

What is plain for anybody to read is refusal to apologize for saying something untrue about another brother in Christ. That's what is the plain truth of the matter.


You offend me and say something that is untrue about me and I'm the one that is out of line. Man now if that isn't calling evil good and good evil I don't know what is. Pretty typical. I wasn't the one that said something untrue about the other person it was you. You deal with it!


You really need to catch a clue webdog. I ALREADY HAVE stated what it is that you have said that was untrue. I don't have to make your misrepresentations true I just have to point out to you that you have offended me which you have becuase you have spoken irresponsibly about my views. Either apologize for it or don't, but don't lay the blame on me for your mistake.

You demand an apology from me, but act like this? It should be evident now that you are not an honest individual, and dialogue with you is like :BangHead:

Grow up...please. I owe you no apology. I miserepresented nothing about ME nor your view as they are one in the same, and you are too arrogant and proud to swallow your pride to admit as such, as it would show you to be a dishonest individual.

 

[J. Jump]

You demand an apology from me, but act like this? It should be evident now that you are not an honest individual, and dialogue with you is like :BangHead:

Grow up...please. I owe you no apology. I miserepresented nothing about ME nor your view as they are one in the same, and you are too arrogant and proud to swallow your pride to admit as such, as it would show you to be a dishonest individual.

What nonesense. The only one that is acting out of arrogant pride is you. You are the one that made the mistake, yet you continue to try to blame me for you offense.

You do owe me an apology because you have lied about what I believe it is as simple as that. I don't believe what you stated that I believe. That is an offense made on your part, whether accidental or not. The only arrogance is that you can't admit you made a mistake.

I think it is becoming really obvious as to why you do misrepresent me and others, and I just hope people can see through your games and will be careful about listening to what you have to say in the future. If you can't even make a simple apology for misprepresenting someone my goodness.

You really do need to get a new act, because your false accusations of me being a dishonest indiviudal are more than laughable. You can't prove that and my posts have backed that up.

Webdog again the simple fact of the matter at hand is really simple. You lied. You continue to lie and you are unrepentant in regard to it. What you said about me is false. The offended has no responsibility to the offender to correct their false statements. Deal with your offense, or not, but quit trying to put your faults onto others!

 

[lbaker]

J.JUMP,

Why don't you show that you're the bigger man by just answering Webdog's question about his four points?

I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Les

 

[J. Jump]

Les,

A heartfelt welcome from a neigbor to the west The truth of the matter is that webdog's question have been answered in the past. He doesn't understand the doctrine. He doesn't want to understand the doctrine. And because of that he continues to misrepresent folks, including myself, that believe in the gospel of the kingdom.

I don't know why he does it, although I have my thoughts on the matter.

If I knew answering webdog's questions "again" would cause him to represent what I and others believe in a correct light then I would do so. But he's not going to. It's obvious by his posts he doesn't want answers so that he can correct his mistakes.

If you would like to know for your own personal reference I would be more than happy to dicuss the matters with you. Feel free to PM me or email me.

But just for the record let me state again his false statements.

He believes the Bible teaches two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (Millenial Kingdom). The one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works, and miss out on the MK, only to be restored to Heaven following the 1000 years.

I don't believe in two salvations with one by faith (eternal) and one by works(MK). I don't entirely believe the one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works. I don't believe they are restored to heaven following the 1000 years.

Here is more proof that webdog doesn't even understand what he is talking about. His "points" in the above quote are not even the same in a later quote, specifically No. 4.

1. Two salvations?
2. One based on faith the other on works?
3. One who is saved by faith (eternally) can still spend 1000 years in hell missing out on the MK?
4. The ME believer is restored to everlasting fellowship after the 1000 years.

So again if you want to know my differences please feel free to PM me or email me. And that offer goes for anyone else that would like to know.

 

[webdog]

LBaker, he will not answer "again" as he says. The simple fact you did not see his answers would point to JJump being a chronic truth diverter. Everything he states he "doesn't believe" can be found on other Millenial exlusion threads he participated in. I will try to pull up some of his direct quotes just to show the extent of his dishonesty.

<self edited to remove a word against BB rules. I found out by seeing one of JJump's posts edited for using the same word>

 

[J. Jump]

LBaker, he will not answer "again" as he says. The simple fact you did not see his answers would point to JJump being a chronic liar. Everything he states he "doesn't believe" can be found on other Millenial exlusion threads he participated in. I will try to pull up some of his direct quotes just to show the extent of his dishonesty.

So now you just can't stop at insulting what I believe, you have to start name calling. So now I'm a chronic liar. If you are going to make such outlandish accusations then you need to be able to back that up the moment that you post your comment, not some lame I'll get back to you junk.

Again more of your dishonest hooey. How exactly am I being dishonest webdog? I said you misrepresnted what I believe. I shared with you twice now which statements I didn't agree with which you said that I did. Someone has asked me how I disagree with those and I told them to PM me or email me.

How exactly is that dishonest?

Why can't you just own up to your mistake webdog? Why do you have to try and trash someone else, who did nothing wrong, to make yourself look better?

 

[webdog]

OK here we go...from the thread "Kingdom Exclusion" http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33303&page=2&highlight=salvations

post 40, jjump:

You are trying to combine two messages and then telling me I'm missing the point. The gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom are not the same gospel. If they are in fact as you claim the same message then how to get around the contradiction that James places on faith alone without works, because James said faith alone will not save you.
I am interested to hear how salvation by grace through faith is a gift of God, but at the same time is something that can be inherited. And the rich young ruler was said to be able to inherit the kingdom by selling all his goods

post 45

Unfortunately the Bible does not back up the claims that all Christians will continue to love Christ until the die. It does not back up the claim that all Christians will work out their salvation with fear and trembling. It doesn't say that all Christians will repent.
It does say that our works are what gets us into the kingdom over and over and over again.
Again you speak of the kingdom and eternal salvation in the same sentence. Is your salvation a hope in that you may or may not be saved? I don't hope I'm saved. I know I am saved.
Yes I said works have to mix with faith to bring about salvation, but what you are failing to understand is the different between eternal salvation and kingdom salvation. They are not the same thing

post 64

Care to explain then why the Bible speaks of different salvations and different judgments?

Dialogue between His Blood Spoke My Name and JJump, post 194
Quote HBSMN:
To live with the thought that even though one has placed their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, one may have to go to hell for 1000 years is to live in fear.

Quote JJ:
Maybe that's why we are told to work out our salvation in trembling and fear. And maybe that's why it is said It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Maybe that's why it says that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.
And we could go on and on.

Quote HBSMN:
This is also in strict contradiction to the fact that God loves His children.

Quute JJ:
The last time I checked discipline was not a bad thing, but was something done in love. So if the person doesn't receive the discipline here and now and have to receive it during the kingdom age then it is for the good of the believer not their detriment.

Quote HBSMN:
Why would He put His children in Hell? The answer... He wouldn't.

Quote JJ:
The answer is for disciplinary purposes for unfaithfulness in this age!

Broad is the way that leads to destruction. That's mainstream Christendom right there. But narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it. That is the ones that answer the knocking in the affirmative.
And this isn't talking about saved and unsaved, because this is addressed to saved people not unsaved people

post 272

The gospel of the kingdom is not the same thing as the gospel of the grace of God. Salvation for the kingdom is not the same as salvation for eternity. They are different subjects, different contexts. If you try to combine the two messages (as most of Christendom does) then you are going to have some serious problems.

This was from ONE THREAD. I had to sort through your other apology demands and vitriol towards others who do not agree with you to retreive this. Let's see...
Two salvations? Check
One on faith, other on works? Check
Believer can spend 1000 years in hell? Check
Beleiver restored after the 1000 years? Check.

The proof is in the pudding. Show me how I misrepresented what you believe NOW. Still want to say this?

I don't believe in two salvations with one by faith (eternal) and one by works(MK). I don't entirely believe the one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works. I don't believe they are restored to heaven following the 1000 years.

 

[J. Jump]

Two salvations? Check
One on faith, other on works? Check
Believer can spend 1000 years in hell? Check
Beleiver restored after the 1000 years? Check.

The proof is in the pudding. Show me how I misrepresented what you believe NOW.

Webdog you have proved NOTHING. I'm going to show you how you misrepresent my views and then I expect an apology, but I doubt seriously that I will get one.

First of all your statements haven't even been consistent on what you say I believe. There is your first mistake.

Let's just take your first accusation again:

He believes the Bible teaches two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (Millenial Kingdom). The one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works, and miss out on the MK, only to be restored to Heaven following the 1000 years.

You said I believe in two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (MK). I don't believe those are two salvations. God wants us to be saved wholly body, soul and spirit. That's one salvation that has separate phases. So if anything is going to be correct you would have to say three salvations, because man is a tri-part being. However it's one salvation with different requirements along the way.

Eternal salvation is by faith in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, done on one's behalf a sinner. At the very moment that person believes their spirit is passed from death to life and secure from that very point forward.

Then the spirit and the soul are separated, because light does not have fellowship with darkness (Hebrews 4:12 - Genesis 1). The salvation of the soul is not a salvation by works as you say, but as James tells us is a salvation by faith mixed with works.

You err because you misrepresent what I believe in that you think that the "works" are something done in and of ourselves and in our own strength. That's not what I believe, but that's what you characterize it as. So again you are wrong. Going to admit it?

Your next accusation states that a believer can spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works. That is not entirely correct. The Bible sees it as both paying for their works and receiving payment for their works. So again you have misrepresented what I believe. Going to admit it now?

And then your final accusation is that the believer will be restored to heaven after the 1000 years. You have not provided a single source that shows that is what I believe.

But notice that even you changed your mind in your second posting, because it changed from being restored to heaven, to being restored to fellowship.

I actually do believe that they will be restored to fellowship after the 1000-year period, but I have never said, nor to I believe they are restored to heaven.

You are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time. You are still wrong. You have misrpresented my views. I have "shown" you how you have misreprented my views and now step up to the dish and eat your crow. And try to get it right from this point forward although I seriously doubt you care to.

 

[webdog]

So now you just can't stop at insulting what I believe, you have to start name calling. So now I'm a chronic liar. If you are going to make such outlandish accusations then you need to be able to back that up the moment that you post your comment, not some lame I'll get back to you junk.

Again more of your dishonest hooey. How exactly am I being dishonest webdog? I said you misrepresnted what I believe. I shared with you twice now which statements I didn't agree with which you said that I did. Someone has asked me how I disagree with those and I told them to PM me or email me.

How exactly is that dishonest?

Why can't you just own up to your mistake webdog? Why do you have to try and trash someone else, who did nothing wrong, to make yourself look better?

I edited the word "liar" out of my post after I see your use of the same word towards another poster was edited out on the KE thread.

 

[J. Jump]

vitriol towards others who do not agree with you to retreive this.

Wow you can't just be wrong. You have to misrepresent me. You have to call me names and then you have to question my character. Wow . . . you know its one thing to disagree with someone on something, but you can't even disagree with someone in an honorable way. That's really sad webdog . . . really sad!

 

[J. Jump]

I edited the word "liar" out of my post after I see your use of the same word towards another poster was edited out on the KE thread.

Oh wow you changed the phrase chronic liar to chronic truth diverter shouldn't we give you the golden key to the BB now.

 

[webdog]

You said I believe in two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (MK). I don't believe those are two salvations.

Really? Remember this?

Yes I said works have to mix with faith to bring about salvation, but what you are failing to understand is the different between eternal salvation and kingdom salvation. They are not the same thing

Your words...not mine.

So if anything is going to be correct you would have to say three salvations, because man is a tri-part being.

...says you. The Bible uses Spirit and Soul interchangeably. We are made up of material and immaterial...bi-part beings.

You err because you misrepresent what I believe in that you think that the "works" are something done in and of ourselves and in our own strength. That's not what I believe, but that's what you characterize it as. So again you are wrong. Going to admit it?

I never once stated or characterized where the works came from. Another "mis-truth" to be expected from you. Going to admit it?
Remember this?

It does say that our works are what gets us into the kingdom over and over and over again.

Your next accusation states that a believer can spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works. That is not entirely correct. The Bible sees it as both paying for their works and receiving payment for their works. So again you have misrepresented what I believe. Going to admit it now?

Admit what? Something, as you say, "not entirely correct" is hardly a misrepresentation. You have stated it is "discipline" and "punishment". Regardless if it's payment for what was done, or what was not done, it's payment nonetheless.

And then your final accusation is that the believer will be restored to heaven after the 1000 years. You have not provided a single source that shows that is what I believe.

OOPS...forgot one. I guess I'll have to go back through the threads.

I actually do believe that they will be restored to fellowship after the 1000-year period, but I have never said, nor to I believe they are restored to heaven.

If you do believe this, and you don't follow the common ME thinking on this ("He will wipe away every tear..."), then I did misrepresent you on this point, and apologize...on this point. This is even more messed up than what I thought you agreed to, from Lacy's posts. I'm not sure I even want to know what you believe on that.

You are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time. You are still wrong. You have misrpresented my views.

"A" view. If anyone misrepresented your views, it was you on prior discussions of this, as I have clearly shown.

I have "shown" you how you have misreprented my views and now step up to the dish and eat your crow.

BTW...thanks for explaining FOR THE FIRST TIME how I (or should I say you) misrepresented your views. This is the first time you have done so after pages of insisting you already had. That is being less than truthful, don't ya' think? Tell me how the crow tastes...like chicken?

 

[ituttut]

Quote:
Originally Posted by webdog
He believes the Bible teaches two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (Millenial Kingdom). The one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works, and miss out on the MK, only to be restored to Heaven following the 1000 years.

I don't know if Webdog believes all you attribute to him, but he has been shown through scripture that which is not easily discernable without stepping back and taking a look at Jesus the man of earth, and Jesus the Christ seated in heaven. The man came in prophecy, fulfilling prophecy. What happened after that? Israel looked for Messiah, but did not know Him. After He shed His blood and arose He did not change the gospel (salvation for whom He said He came for).

Are you saying the Bible does not teach two gospels during the time all the Apostle's lived? If there is only one gospel, can you sight it here that one gospel of our justification that was preached by Jesus while on earth, before and after the Cross?