-
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!
What must it be like -- to be wrong on a doctrinal POV?
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
J. Jump said:
I gave you a way out of your dilemma - but "pretending not to see it" was not it.
Try again.
Your entire argument from Matt 7 is that you refuse to let yourself see that the MAtt 7 text about the reward of Christians at the 2nd coming vs those who are rejected by Christ as the 2nd coming "has anything to do with salvation" -- and THAT sir would clearly be "another Gospel".
The glaringly obvious truth is that you do not hold this view BECAUSE of Matt 7 -- you hold it IN SPITE of what you find in Matt 7.
Simple exercise left for the objective reader. Ask yourself this question "IF I started reading the Bible with Matt 7 would I have said FROM THE TEXT alone - that this is NOT a rerence to Salvation as promised in the Gospel???"
Could ANY objective reader have supposed in READING the Gospels that Christ's message of the Kingdom WAS NOT the Gospel of salvation??
Answer: left as a simple, obvious, incredibly easy exercise for the reader.
#1. At LEAST your are allowing yourself to wander closer to the door left open for your argument. The only strength in your view is in its attempt to save OSAS when confronted by the perseverance texts. The problem is that Matt 7 IS NOT a perseverance text so your argument is left without its value there - rather you seek to merely "survive" Matt 7.
#2. As for my link with the OP motivators on this point. I am not paid by my denomination to do anything at all. Rather My tithe goes to the church to fund their evangelistic work, spreading the Gospel and promoting of the accuracy of the Word of God.
#3. Your argument in Matt 7 is to try to spin it so that it is not talking about salvation - rather ALL in the scenario (good trees AND bad trees saved no matter what the Bible says to the contrary) are saved in your model. In your model the only thing being decided is "the amount of candy given to the saved" and it depends on whether they are good trees or bad trees. Is that not "soothing to the ear" to hear that the great warning of Christ in Matt 7 "I never KNEW YOU" and "DEPART FROM ME" really means "DEPART to HEAVEN and enjoy bliss you workers of inquity - WELCOME to eternal life but not with as much candy as you could have had if you had been an actual believing faithful Christian".
When John argues that such a bad tree "is a liar" when they claim to KNOW Christ - do you add to that "A liar that is bound straight for heaven even though they do not know Christ at all".
When John says in Rev 3 that those saved by God ARE in fellowshp with Christ do you argue "o no they are not! Many never have Christ come in the door and fellowship with them - they are saved APART from Christ - DEPART from ME means "saved")???
As I said - your argument from 2Tim 2 and Matt 18 has merit and survivability - but the FLAW in your argument is fully magnified by texts like Matt 7. If you let the focus stay here - your argument is only going to get shredded by the facts of Matt 7. Why aren't you taking the way out that was handed to you on this one? Highlight your argument's strengths NOT it's weakness UNLESS you are really willing to be objective and deal with the weakness and HOLD to the strength?
Your BEST option sir is to dump OSAS - because in that case MATT 7 becomes a STRENGTH for your argument AND Matt 18 becomes a strength -- Your attempt to sovle the Matt 18 problem for OSAS though laudible only exposes the gap in your solution if you are forced to focus on Matt 7 instead. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
DQuixote said:
Christ tells his evangelists to go out and preach the same message as John and Christ - that the kingdom of God is at hand. In Matt 7 you see that same Gospel teaching as it unfolds in the 2nd coming for Christians vs the wicked that are rejected by Christ.
Are you saying that we are free to toss that out the window as having anything at all to do with the Gospel regarding salvation and that to hold on to it as in fact -- the Gospel of Salvation as taught by Christ is really not important??
in Christ,
Bob
steaver said:
Believe is not narrow and that is seen just a few verses later. Those sincere believers were LOST! Those believers were on the broad way. They were false teachers.
Read the conclusion, don't make up your own.
*Just confessing Jesus as Lord will not be enough to enter the kingdom
*One must DO what Jesus said to enter the kingdom of Heaven
*Wise = Hear and do
*Foolish = Hear and don't do
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
steaver said:
Certainly it is agreed that there are many many works based religions. That is one of the broad road paths to perdition - but it is not what Christ addresses in Matt 7 "By their fruits you shall know them"
Are you trying to make the case from Matt 7 that Christ is preaching "faith without works" or "faith alone" in Matt 7?????
May I suggest that this is not the chapter for you to try to make that argument since Christ is arguing explicitly that those who make statements of faith having "the words only" but do not have the obedience that is an absolute must will be condemned at the 2nd coming? According to Matt 7 with the claim "I am a good tree" there MUST be "The good fruit". This is NOT the place to quote for the "faith apart from works" argument of Romans 3.
(To a hammer every problem is a nail. But in the Bible there are hammers and saws and glue and... they do not all address nails)
When MMAN argues AGAINST a fruitless faith claim to salvation from Matt 7 he is doing the right thing. One could just as easily argue that from James 2 "Faith without works is dead... you see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".
These are the right places to make that "faith that works" argument in context.
MMAN is right - a law denying, obedience denying, fruit denying theology for faith as we find in James 2 an Matt 7 (do what I say not what I do) is condemned by Christ in Matt 7, by James in James 2 and by Paul in Romans 2. THAT truly is one of the broad roads to perdition.
But more specifically in Matt 7 this IS EXACTLY what Christ is condemning as being on the broad road HE IS THE ONE that says of this "BROAD ROAD" context "Not everyone who SAYS LORD LORD but he who DOES the will of my Father in Heaven".
If you are going to pick the very chapter where Christ is making this argument to INSTEAD make the "Faith apart from works" argument of Romans 3 you are going to have to fIRST admit to the context of these chapter that are NOT addressing the point you are trying to make sir.
A good example of a quote we do NOT find in Matt 7.
Credit where credit is due. If you are going to quote Matt 7 then use the actual argument OF Matt 7 in right context. In Matt 7 Christ is NOT making the argument that the error of the people is their works done in obedience to the Word of God.
EVERY chapter of the Bible is not a diatribe against the SAME error or against EVERY error addressed in scripture. Rather certain texts address specif problems. Trying to spin this one as a text targetting the problem highlighted in Romans 3 will not work.
But what is worse for your response here is that the problem Matt 7 IS addressing is one that you only address under the idea of "never did a single good work". But Matt 7 does not condemn them for "never doing a single good work" - Matt 7 argues that those occassional good works do not outweigh the overall FRUIT of their lives (their works) that SHOW them to be "bad trees". So Christ said "By their WORKS you shall know them". Christ's argument is not "you have added GOOD WORKS to the Gospel" Christ is arguing in Matt 7 "your WORKS are evil". In Romans 2 Paul argues the same thing "you who teach that men should not steal do you rob God"?
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob the problem for you though is Matthew 7 is not the only text that we have. We have the entire Bible. And when we compare Scripture with Scripture we can and SHOULD understand that eternal salvation is not by works. For some reason you hold onto your salvation by faith and works in SPITE of what Scripture says.
That's why I found it interesting in the first place that you started this thread and even others have voiced the irony that this posting came from you, when you yourself clearly look the other way and several passages of Scripture that crush your man-made doctrines.
Bottom line, because obviously you have no desire to come off dead center in your beliefs, is this . . . you continue to teach that knowing that one day you will have to answer for it. And the same for me. And to date I have discussed my beliefs with a great number of folks from the Baptist denomination as well as other denominations from PhDs to lay folks. And to date no one, including yourself, has been able to refute these teachings.
So until someone can I will continue to believe this way, because to date it is the ONLY way Scripture hamonizes with itself.
In your structure Scripture has all kinds of contradictions that I am unwilling to accept, because I think God is Big enough to make sure that doesn't happen.
That's why I found it interesting in the first place that you started this thread and even others have voiced the irony that this posting came from you, when you yourself clearly look the other way and several passages of Scripture that crush your man-made doctrines.
Bottom line, because obviously you have no desire to come off dead center in your beliefs, is this . . . you continue to teach that knowing that one day you will have to answer for it. And the same for me. And to date I have discussed my beliefs with a great number of folks from the Baptist denomination as well as other denominations from PhDs to lay folks. And to date no one, including yourself, has been able to refute these teachings.
So until someone can I will continue to believe this way, because to date it is the ONLY way Scripture hamonizes with itself.
In your structure Scripture has all kinds of contradictions that I am unwilling to accept, because I think God is Big enough to make sure that doesn't happen.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
J. Jump said:
As I said you would have more success arguing your case from another text since Matt 7 is only serving to highlight a flaw in your solution.
Why not at least give SOME attention to a chapter that might help you make some part of your argument? Pretending that you do not see your problem from Matt 7 "I never knew you" is not the right way to "make your argument". Rather it is clearly you trying to get your argument to "survive Matt 7"
Agreed but Matt 7 is not the place to do that.
Is this is the part where you quote Matt 7 to make your case?
I thought not.
Simply making a hollow claim to success there - is not the same thing as actually having done something sir.
If you have a glaring example that exposes me to the extent that your argument failed in Matt 7 -- then this is a good place to show it.
That would be an objective approach -- but simply claiming "I coulda done-it" is kinda like failing in the way the OP suggests.
I believe everyone on this board could close their eyes and ears and say the same thing you have said -- illustrating the OP perfectly sir.
Thanks.
In Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
It's only a flaw in your mind because you don't want to see Scripture any other way than the way you see it now. Of you course you say it's flawed because it destroys your doctrine.
But just because you "think" something is flawed doesn't make it so.
The whole of Scripture supports this so I've just dealt with what is at hand.
Okay I'll make you a deal. I quite pretending to see "my problem" in Matthew 7 when you quit pretending not to see "your problem" in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31 which destroys your works based conditional salvation doctrine.
Deal?
Sure it is. We have to compare ALL of Scripture with Scripture not just the pieces we like and ignore the pieces we don't like.
Yes again try Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31 which destroy your works based conditional eternal salvation doctrine.
There are a lot of people on this board that DO close their eyes and ears and as others have pointed out you are an example of your own OP.
But this argument really doesn't hold true for me because I just changed some major points in my understanding of doctrine under two years ago. So I think I have proven without a doubt that I am willing to overlook what I have been taught all my life to see what Scripture actually SAYS.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It is left as an incredibly simple exercise for the reader to see IF "depart from me I never knew you" is the preciese way to say "Why of Course you are still saved now come on in -- enter heaven and enjoy eternity my child".
I realize that my LEAVING THAT UP to the reader to decide for themselves may seem like a far too objective approach for what J.Jump needs -- but I believe the problem speaks for itself --
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Here we have me appealing to at least SOME effort by J Jump to provide some actual Bible support for his view instead of dwelling on a text that say "Depart from Me I never Knew you" as the best way to say "Come on in to heaven and enjoy eternity -- knowing Me has nothing to do with salvation".
Here we have J Jump pretending that EVERY text of scripture says "Depart from Me I never knew you -- means COME on into heaven and share eternity because salvation has nothing to do with knowing Christ".
What a great sign that your argument has fully run aground sir!
Matt 7 IS the place that I make the argument that "Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father".
If I were misguided to the extent that I would pretend that I should JUST quote Eph 2:8-10 to make that case INSTEAD of going to a STRONG text that actually SAYS it like Mat 7 or Romans 2 or James 2 THEN and only THEN would I be following your model. But of course I would have to then PRETEND that Eph 2 is saying what Matt 7 says about "only he who DOES the Will of My Father" as IF EVERY text of scripture can be bent around to talk to the same subject no matter what it actually says!!
Why in the world you guys jump off these extreme ledges I have no idea!
But you are illustrating the point of the OP about what happens when an argument has obviously run aground -- in triplicate.
Thanks again.
in Christ,
Bob
Here we have J Jump pretending that EVERY text of scripture says "Depart from Me I never knew you -- means COME on into heaven and share eternity because salvation has nothing to do with knowing Christ".
What a great sign that your argument has fully run aground sir!
Matt 7 IS the place that I make the argument that "Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father".
If I were misguided to the extent that I would pretend that I should JUST quote Eph 2:8-10 to make that case INSTEAD of going to a STRONG text that actually SAYS it like Mat 7 or Romans 2 or James 2 THEN and only THEN would I be following your model. But of course I would have to then PRETEND that Eph 2 is saying what Matt 7 says about "only he who DOES the Will of My Father" as IF EVERY text of scripture can be bent around to talk to the same subject no matter what it actually says!!
Why in the world you guys jump off these extreme ledges I have no idea!
But you are illustrating the point of the OP about what happens when an argument has obviously run aground -- in triplicate.
Thanks again.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
J. Jump said:
Ok I will grant you that by showing a willingness to look beyond the blinders you have taken the right path toward truth that is beyond what you have been told to think. But as Peter illustrates in Matt 16 -- taking that step one day does NOT mean that you keep taking that step.
Christ said to Peter "blessed are you" and said that the Father revealed his truth to Peter and he accepted it even though his teachers were rejecting the truth about the Messiah.
BUT THEN Christ goes on to reveal the next truth to Peter and he stubbornly balks "May it NEVER BE Lord" and Christ said "Get thee behind me Satan" - which basically illustrates that having a past success in getting beyond what you were told to think does not mean that today you would be just as willing to make that same bold step forward when confronted with a glaring gap in another area.
Think about it. Review your last few posts -- you are showing the classic defensive signs of an argument that has fully run aground. The reader can easily see it sir.
in Christ,
Bob
By this very statement you are not leaving it up to the reader to decide, but you are putting your spin on what I have said to make it look silly.
You are not very honest in some of your postings.
If you really believed the problem spoke for itself you wouldn't have to interject anything else. But obviously you don't think the problem speaks for itself because you have color code and highlight and do all kinds of other crazy things to "point out" what you "think" is errant.
Somehow in your twisted view of reality that is probably true. But instead of deal with Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31 I notice that you just continue to ignore it and try to place the focus back onto me.
Which in reality is you proving once again your own OP.
What really does amaze me is you would create such a thread and think you are the only one that is immune to such a thing, but what actually happened is you described yourself to a T. And others have taken notice of it as well, yet you keep trying (for naught) to separate yourself from your OP. But the problem is you can't, which really cracks me up. Actually its more sad than funny.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Just because you are willing on Monday to search for Truth, doesn't mean on Tuesday you wont take a step backward.
Again in your twisted view of reality this may be a true statement. However just because you think something is true doesn't make it so.
You know I agree with your OP and I agree with the statement above this one, but the funny thing is is that when I talk about my views people are trying to get me to go back to what I once believed, so again while your claim is true it doesn't hold true in my circumstance.
I have decided to let Scripture speak and believe what it says. I can not go back to the way I once believed because it is incorrect. For you to say that I am a person that is unwilling to look at the Truth is just laughable.
I have proven that I am willing to do that. The only other people that have tried to prove this wrong is people like you that believe in conditional works based salvation. And Scripture just simply does not support such views. I look at your evidence, but when tested against Scripture it does not stand up.
Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31 alone prove you wrong. But instead of believing those Scriptures you do something else with them. I'm not even sure what you do with them? Do you ignore them? If you realize that you simply can't ignore them then how do you deal with them when they clearly prove that conditional eternal salvation is wrong?
Here's your chance to take your blinders off and deal with Scripture. Here's your chance to show the reader that you are open minded about Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Think about it. Review your last few posts -- you are showing the classic defensive signs of an argument that has fully run aground.
As I said - each time you issue ad hominem attacks instead of showing substance in your posts - you exhibit the classic signs of a failing argument.
My objective is not to "try to convince a closed mind" as much as you may think that this is my goal - not on this thread nor on any of my threads.
I am perfectly happy to leave this up to the reader to decide for themselves.
If J Jump (or anyone who believes that "I never knew you" means "saved and going to heaven STILL") can SHOW from Matt 7 that this is exegetically demonstrated FROM Matt 7 as the intent of Christ's words in Matt 7 pre-cross to the Jews... then instead of issuing ad hominem after ad hominem -- post something of substance.
The objective reaction WOULD have been to Respond to the point or simply admit that you argument has left you with no response.
Failing that - there is always ad hominem.
But as the OP points out - this is the classic sign of a defense that has run aground yet clung to "anyway".
in Christ,
Bob
As I said - each time you issue ad hominem attacks instead of showing substance in your posts - you exhibit the classic signs of a failing argument.
My objective is not to "try to convince a closed mind" as much as you may think that this is my goal - not on this thread nor on any of my threads.
I am perfectly happy to leave this up to the reader to decide for themselves.
If J Jump (or anyone who believes that "I never knew you" means "saved and going to heaven STILL") can SHOW from Matt 7 that this is exegetically demonstrated FROM Matt 7 as the intent of Christ's words in Matt 7 pre-cross to the Jews... then instead of issuing ad hominem after ad hominem -- post something of substance.
The objective reaction WOULD have been to Respond to the point or simply admit that you argument has left you with no response.
Failing that - there is always ad hominem.
But as the OP points out - this is the classic sign of a defense that has run aground yet clung to "anyway".
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Those who believe that they can become saved "apart from Christ" are sadly mistaken. "No other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" Acts 5
Those who believe they ARE saved YET apart from Christ are sadly mistaken. "Christ IN you the hope of glory" Col 1
Those who think that BOTH the sheep AND the goats are saved in Matt 25 are sadly mistaken.
Those who think that "I never KNEW you -- DEPART from Me" is the way to Say "you are welcome to fellowship with ME in heavenly bliss for all of eternity" are sadly mistaken.
WHY would such extra-Gospel extra-biblical out-on-a-limb positions be taken to start with?? do we see Christ saying in Matt 7 "Depart from Me into heavenly bliss for all eternity because I never knew you and you never actually followed me"??
It is left as an exercise for the reader to find such a teaching in MAtt 7 or confirm the obvious lack of it.
in Christ,
Bob
Those who believe they ARE saved YET apart from Christ are sadly mistaken. "Christ IN you the hope of glory" Col 1
Those who think that BOTH the sheep AND the goats are saved in Matt 25 are sadly mistaken.
Those who think that "I never KNEW you -- DEPART from Me" is the way to Say "you are welcome to fellowship with ME in heavenly bliss for all of eternity" are sadly mistaken.
WHY would such extra-Gospel extra-biblical out-on-a-limb positions be taken to start with?? do we see Christ saying in Matt 7 "Depart from Me into heavenly bliss for all eternity because I never knew you and you never actually followed me"??
It is left as an exercise for the reader to find such a teaching in MAtt 7 or confirm the obvious lack of it.
in Christ,
Bob
It is a very good example of James' "said faith" that is only "lip service".
I actually agree with the view you see in Matt 7..."Christ is arguing explicitly that those who make statements of faith having "the words only" but do not have the obedience that is an absolute must will be condemned at the 2nd coming? According to Matt 7 with the claim "I am a good tree" there MUST be "The good fruit"."
So what is the problem?
God Bless! :thumbs:
Unless one has come to embrace the total SDA package of dogma one has not experienced yet what it is to have changed one views for the better or for truth.