Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Herb Evans said:BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE FOR SAVED PEOPLE LOSING THE KINGDOM OR ETERNAL SALVATION. It is an invented doctrine. MY QUESTION IS WHY CAN SAVED PEOPLE LOSE THE KINGDOM? -- Herb Evans
Lacy Evans said:These are two very separate doctrines BTW. It should properly read, "They are invented doctrines" My previous post dealt with the plain scripture that says certain behavior can cause us to miss the kingdom. I agree with Brother (other) Evans that we cannot lose our salvation. lacy
Lacy Evans said:Galations 5 and Ephesians 5.
This verse proves the audience is saved Cristians not "false professors" or jews in the trib", etc. (also see v 13)
These verses need no commentary.
Be YE not partakers with THEM. This is crystal clear. Let the wriggling begin.
Lacy
Herb Evans said:Mike Berzins said:Herb Evans said:I agree there will be degrees of rewards.I don't know how many will be unashamed. I hope I appear before the Lord unashamed, and I think it would be presumptuous of me to assume I will be unashamed, before my life is at or nearing its end. I believe Paul was not ashamed.
II Timothy 4:6-8 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
And yes, I believe there are degrees of shame and bad (to revert back to the bible terminology) works.
So, there will be degrees of rewards as well. -- Herb Evans
Even with a distinction between the new man and the old here, and even with the new man only being present at the JSOC, I don't understand why the new man is ashamed of works that were built by the old man. Especially since the distinction between the two is so great that one man (the old) sins while another (the new) can not. Should you, Herb Evans, have to suffer loss and shame for bad works built by me? If not why should you have to suffer loss and shame for the works built by your old man?
Well, because the works were done during one's life. You could ask the same question about the old man. Why should your old man receive anything? Especially since he is not there and is gone. -- Hreb Evans
You say that the new man will lose rewards at JSOC based on the judgment of the old man's works. The old man will not receive anything because he is not there. So I would answer then that the old man shouldn't receive anything, and the new man should not lose anything based on what the old man did, if there is this great distinction between the two. Yet, somehow, the old man's works make it to the JSOC, but the old man himself does not. And the new man is held responsible for the old man's works.
In principle, if one can suffer loss and shame at the JSOC because of the judgment rendered on bad works, why can't one suffer the loss of the kingdom at he JSOC, not because of sin, but because of the bad works? Why can't one have a high view of Jesus' death and resurrection and life, and also simply believe that as a result of the judgment against bad works, one can suffer loss of rewards, shame, and also the loss of the kingdom?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE FOR SAVED PEOPLE LOSING THE KINGDOM OR ETERNAL SALVATION. It is an invented doctrine. MY QUESTION IS WHY CAN SAVED PEOPLE LOSE THE KINGDOM? -- Herb Evans
I agree that there is no scripture showing the loss of salvation in eternity, and that there are scriptures to the contrary. And can we dispense with the idea that believing that losing the kingdom somehow makes one have a lower view of Christ's death, just because you believe the doctrine is invented? If not, then in what way does holding to this particular "false" doctrine minimize Christ's death? I think it could be a valid argument to say that ME misuses the scriptures, but how does this view have a low view of the crucifixtion?
I hope you might concede the above and then we can move on to your question. Why can saved people lose the kingdom? Because the scripture says they can. And there is nothing unbiblical in principle about suffering loss at the judgment seat of Christ. We just disagree on what exactly can be lost.
Here is some context for the one of the JOSC passages we were discussing.
I Corinthians 3:6-17 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
Notice Paul using planting and watering as a similitude for works. Notice how he ties this into what is going to come next by saying "ye are God's bulding."
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
The above is the passage we have been discussing thus far. Now for some more of it:
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Notice how "ye are the temple of God" ties back to "ye are God's building". The context has not changed. The man at the JSOC who defiles the temple of God shall be destroyed at the JSOC. "The old man isn't there". The lost aren't there. So who else is destroyed? It seems pretty plain to me.
And this seems to explain why the JSOC can be a terror to a Christian.
II Corinthians 5:10-11 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
The terror was known by Paul. Surely it wasn't the terror of watching works erected by the old man burn. Surely Paul correctly understood the doctrine of the JSOC. And if he understood the doctrine to be simply burning works and loss of rewards, what reason would he have to refer to this judgment as a terror? Or as James said much earlier in this thread, what is the therefore, there for?
Herb Evans said:Unfortunately you have not read the complete Newman/Evans debate or you would know that I went over this. I also went ovver this with your Faustite Pope, Joey. I am not doing it again. From what you have posted, I don't think that you would bring any continuity to the debate in point/counterpoint fashion. Jim managed to do a pretty good job at that as well as Mike. I am not into this hit, run, and hide and jump around and pick and choose method of debating. Sorry! You are in over your head, Lacy! -- Herb Evans
That is it, I have enough info from you and the readers do also. -- Herb Evans
That is it, Ed. I am finished with this heresy as i promised in my last post. You take them from here. -- Herb Evans
Ed Squared, by the way as I depart from this thread... -- Herb Evans
Mike Berzins said:Herb Evans said:Mike Berzins said:Herb Evans said:I agree there will be degrees of rewards.
You say that the new man will lose rewards at JSOC based on the judgment of the old man's works. The old man will not receive anything because he is not there. So I would answer then that the old man shouldn't receive anything, and the new man should not lose anything based on what the old man did, if there is this great distinction between the two. Yet, somehow, the old man's works make it to the JSOC, but the old man himself does not. And the new man is held responsible for the old man's works.
I think you could phrase it better as old life time works by the oldman/new man who are joined in their lifetime, being contrary the one to the other. I think that would be an easier way to understand it, insteasd of separating them in both places. -- Herb Evans
I agree that there is no scripture showing the loss of salvation in eternity, and that there are scriptures to the contrary. And can we dispense with the idea that believing that losing the kingdom somehow makes one have a lower view of Christ's death, just because you believe the doctrine is invented? If not, then in what way does holding to this particular "false" doctrine minimize Christ's death? I think it could be a valid argument to say that ME misuses the scriptures, but how does this view have a low view of the crucifixtion?
You agree that no scripture shows the loss of eternal salvation, but you do not agree that there is no scripture that shows the loss of the kingdom.
I contend that the highest view of the cross extols Christ as the procuror of both salvation and the kingdom by grace and not our own works or self righteousness. Neither the possession of salvation or the kingdom is an excuse to live sinfully. What applies to the one applies to the other. A low view of the cross will minimize the coss as not being sufficient to procure eternal salvation or the kingdom or both. No works for salvation, no works or self righteousness for the kingdom. Of course, works for rewards are legitimate as we discussed. -- Herb Evans
I hope you might concede the above and then we can move on to your question. Why can saved people lose the kingdom? Because the scripture says they can.
We certainly cannot agree on that. Saved people cannot lose the kingdom or burn in hell fire. I reject this core belief of Faustites.
And there is nothing unbiblical in principle about suffering loss at the judgment seat of Christ. We just disagree on what exactly can be lost.
That is correct. --Herb Evans
Here is some context for the one of the JOSC passages we were discussing.
I Corinthians 3:6-17
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
Notice Paul using planting and watering as a similitude for works. Notice how he ties this into what is going to come next by saying "ye are God's bulding."
i'm sure that you are going to get to your point, but keep in mind that this passage is high on metaphors. Farm metaphors are used to show the necessity of working together in different capacities. God's farm is a metaphor, and God's building is a metaphor. But go on! -- Herb Evans
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Whatever the buiding, Jesus is the foundation, and GRACE is inolved in the building thereof. So far, so good. -- Herb Evans
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Worthless works and good works will be tried by fire. FIRE shall reveal EVERY MAN's WORK and manifest it and to test its value. -- Herb Evans
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
So, what we have here is any man's work that abides versus any man's work that shall be burned. The man's work that is burned shall suffer loss. At this point may we note that it does not say how much of every man's work that shall abide or how much of every man's work that shall be burned. Faustites are prone to make only two categories here without any room for hybrids with some good and some bad works. -- Herb Evans
The above is the passage we have been discussing thus far. Now for some more of it:
May I note that these passages are prefaced by unspiritual and carnal Christians 3:1-4, so whatever you say beyond that applies to carnal Christians.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
The Holy Spirit dwells in individual Christians and Christians collectively as a local church body (a male metaphor). I believe that this is the collective usage of a neutral metaphor. -- Herb Evans
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Notice how "ye are the temple of God" ties back to "ye are God's building". The context has not changed.
Again, the neuter metaphor is given, and yes the collective temple of God here is the collective building of lively stones. -- Herb Evans
The man at the JSOC who defiles the temple of God shall be destroyed at the JSOC. "The old man isn't there". The lost aren't there. So who else is destroyed? It seems pretty plain to me.
Your problem here is to force the JSOC time frame into the passage by adding the words "at the JSOC." The old man is not at the JSOC when he defiles the temple of God nor is the new man destroyed at the JSOC. This is your interpolation. Clearly, it is the saved man that is destroyed, but you have forced the place and the time into the passage.
The other consideration here is what the word "destoyed" means here. Faustites immediately see one killed at the JSOC and hell fire, but a simple perusal of scripture will show that to be a jumping the gun. The JW's do the same thing with the word "destroy," trying to make it mean anihilation. You have a different twist. Again, it does not say killed or dumped into hell, that is unscriptural Faustite doctrine.
Rom. 14;15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Does this mean to kill your brother or out him in hell fire. There are a number of ways that the word is used in scripture.
1Co 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.
Here is a passage that talks about the God's destruction of the body or at least part of it. Are we talking about destruction of the body or destruction of the soul/Spirit. And if you say the soul/spirit is destroyed at the judgment seat of Christ, how can that soul reclaim eternal salvation at the end of the millennium? -- herb Evans
continued
And this seems to explain why the JSOC can be a terror to a Christian.
II Corinthians 5:10-11 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
The terror was known by Paul.
Surely it wasn't the terror of watching works erected by the old man burn. Surely Paul correctly understood the doctrine of the JSOC. And if he understood the doctrine to be simply burning works and loss of rewards, what reason would he have to refer to this judgment as a terror? Or as James said much earlier in this thread, what is the therefore, there for.
Rufus_1611 said:Dr. Evans,
In viewing this thread, I have done my best to objectively listen to your arguments and to reserve judgment. However, I am consistently distracted by your ability to work your way out of clear scripture and your ability to disparage brothers when you lack substantive argument. Further, your desire to criticize a brother and his doctrines while lacking the courage to face that brother in the way of a man, suggests a very cowardly, effeminate spirit and don't go trying to sell me your silly $5 cd. Your heretic argument doesn't wash as based on that argument you shouldn't be talking to James, Lacy, Jump, or anyone else that believes in kingdom accountability, and while it may be news to you, Joey Faust is not the only one preaching this doctrine, past or present, so there's a whole lot of heretics out there for you to disfellowship from. I expect you won't be responding to this post as you already know that according to your belief system, I am a heretic. As to your pope comment, I know of the pope and I know of Joey Faust and there is nothing similar about these individuals nor of the offices each of these men hold. There's a bad spirit that has a hold of you regarding this topic and I pray you shake free and repent before you do, in fact, face Jesus Christ on judgment day.
By the way, did the following words have meaning or are they similar to your other words?
That is it, I have enough info from you
and the readers do also. -- Herb Evans
That is it, Ed. I am finished with this heresy
as i promised in my last post. You take them from here. -- Herb Evans
Thank you for looking up these quotes Brother Rufus_1611.Ed Squared, by the way as
I depart from this thread... -- Herb Evans
Herb Evans said:I Can never quite understand folks that believe that kingdom entrance is more important that eternal salvation entrance.
If you had any idea how big my head is, (8 1/2):love2: you might rethink that.Herb Evans said:Sorry! You are in over your head, Lacy! -- Herb Evans
Herb Evans said:You are entitled to your opinion. If it satisfies you to make Herb Evans the issue as opposed to the issue itself, that is your problem. Believe whatever heresy that you want; it is a free country. I can't sacrifice substance in order to answerr silly posts about myself. -- Herb Evans
You're welcome Brother Ed.Ed Edwards said:Rufus_1611: //By the way, did the following words have meaning or are they similar to your other words?//
Thank you for looking up these quotes Brother Rufus_1611.
D R A M A Q U E E N. Now what's your point? Dude said three times he was bailing from this thread. Now I don't care that he does, he can stick around but why say something and not do it? Can you spell liar brother Ed?Can you spell DRAMA QUEEN there Bro. Rufus?
You're welcome again Brother Ed.Thank you for looking up these quotes Brother Rufus_1611.
I suspect that a certain party is strained to learn how to spell thought, millenial or messianic.I find it interesting that you found three.
I suspect that a certain party is strained to learn
that God has three kingdoms.
(A Triune God with three kingdoms -- who would of thoght
it?)
1. The Kingdom of God among us saved now: the Holy Spirit within us
2. The physical Millinnial Messanic Kingdom of God
3. The eternal Kingdom of God - oneness with the Godhead
The context has always been the judgment seat of Christ. You are the one trying to force some new man/old man dichotomy into the text. There is one man being judged, and one man being rewarded.Herb Evans said:Your problem here is to force the JSOC time frame into the passage by adding the words "at the JSOC." The old man is not at the JSOC when he defiles the temple of God nor is the new man destroyed at the JSOC. This is your interpolation. Clearly, it is the saved man that is destroyed, but you have forced the place and the time into the passage.
The other consideration here is what the word "destoyed" means here. Faustites immediately see one killed at the JSOC and hell fire, but a simple perusal of scripture will show that to be a jumping the gun. The JW's do the same thing with the word "destroy," trying to make it mean anihilation. You have a different twist. Again, it does not say killed or dumped into hell, that is unscriptural Faustite doctrine.
Rom. 14;15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Does this mean to kill your brother or out him in hell fire. There are a number of ways that the word is used in scripture.
Rufus_1611 said:You're welcome Brother Ed.
D R A M A Q U E E N. Now what's your point? Dude said three times he was bailing from this thread. Now I don't care that he does, he can stick around but why say something and not do it? Can you spell liar brother Ed?
You're welcome again Brother Ed.
I suspect that a certain party is strained to learn how to spell thought, millenial or messianic.
Rufus_1611 said:I suspect that a certain party is strained to learn how to spell thought, millenial or messianic.
Lacy Evans said:Thou shalt be nice to Brother Ed. I think he was actually agreeing with you and not opposing you.
lacy
Blammo said:And yet you were perfectly aware of the words he misspelled. Sew wye not respawnd to wut he sed insted of how he spelt it?
Rufus_1611 said:I was only pointing out spelling errors in a rebutal to believing I was being asked to spell drama queen and thought I was in a spelling contest all of a sudden. I stand by my comments to Dr. evans and retract my comments to Ed and I will now go back to being an observer of this thread.