What must it be like -- to be wrong on a doctrinal POV?

[J. Jump]

Actually, in context and refering to the full counsel of God, any person who claims Jesus as Lord (if it be true and not just pretending) will bear good fruits because Jesus Christ lives in them and they are a good branch blooming out of a good Vine. Without the root of Christ a person's works are worthless.

Now you are going back to the Lord, Lord passage. And even contextually in the Lord, Lord passage this statement does not hold true. Because Scripture never says ANYTHING about "pretending." It never says anything about a true, genuine Christian. It doesn't say anyting about someone being "really" saved.

Being saved and Lordship are not the same thing. Being saved doesn't mean you will automatically let Christ be Lord of your life. If that were true then the statements commandng that we do so are pointless. Why would you command someone to do something there is no chance they are "not" going to do.

A saved person can claim they are allowing Christ to be Lord of their life, and they can even be showing some "good" works according to humanity, but that doesn't mean they will be accpeted as such on Judgment Day.

Lordship salvation in not supported in Scripture as much as people want it to be.

They cried Lord Lord and then listed the "good" works that they had preformed. We get ZERO evidence that they were just pretending or that they lied about their works. They expected their works to be accpeted as good, but they were rejected as lawlessness.

The ONLY hope that you and others have of that text supporting your view is if the criers were actually lying about their list of works. And there is no indication given that they are.

The man's very words condemned him before a loving and kind Master.

The Master is only loving and kind if you obey Him. There are MANY folks that are going to find out that "their" all loving and no condemnation Lord is not going to be very forgiving of their unfaithfulness and disobedience.

Again at every turn your argument fails.

Go back and study what it means to be born of God and then you will see these scriptures in a brand new light.

Acually I just got done with a study on the very subject. And being a child of God and being a disciple are not the same thing. Might I suggest that "you" go back and study.

The saved are Jesus' sheep and they follow Him!

No the saved are children of God. Some children obey and others rebel. Hebrews tells us that not all children obey, as does a great number of other places in Scripture.

Again and again and again your argument falls flat on its face. But you keep holding onto it if you will.

 

[Hope of Glory]

That's just it...the Spirit is never going to reveal something that is contrary to the Word. The Word gives us clear examples that it is at least possible, so that's good enough for me.

This is similar to the position that is taken by some in regards to the warnings that are given to saved people concerning things such as adultery. There are warnings given, with consequences for the actions, then some say, "Well, obviously a saved person wouldn't do these things, so it's saying that anyone who does this isn't saved". There's no such thing in the Bible, but people believe and teach that it is.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The kingdom is another topic and you should start a thread on it because it is not talked about much. I think you would get a huge response.

What!?! That's what the entire sermon on the Mount is about. It's what John the Baptizer came preaching. It's what Jesus came preaching. The Gospel of the Kingdom.

The message of salvation was old news, and so easy a baby could understand it. (Although, I suspect that then, just as today, there were many trying to convolute it and distort it.) What must I do to be saved? Believe (aorist; punctiliar; mental assent) on the Lord Jesus and you will (not "may") be saved. Plus nothing.

 

[Hope of Glory]

You said there were more than one. Can you give another? Salvation of the soul is another topic and the passage you gave doers not speak about that either. You are trying to have a passage say more than is written.

The passage given is from the sermon on the Mount.

It's a sermon about the Kingdom.

That is the salvation of the soul.

How much more relevant could it be?

 

[Hope of Glory]

They cried Lord Lord and then listed the "good" works that they had preformed. We get ZERO evidence that they were just pretending or that they lied about their works. They expected their works to be accpeted as good, but they were rejected as lawlessness.

The ONLY hope that you and others have of that text supporting your view is if the criers were actually lying about their list of works. And there is no indication given that they are.

I would like to add:

Can Satan cast out Satan?

 

[Hope of Glory]

So, I will repeat a question:

The two faithful "pound" servants were dealt with postively.

The one nagative "pound" person was chastised.

What happened to the other seven?

 

[steaver]

Ok brothers, you have had some time to vent and now let's get back to the text at hand.

Hope seems to support your views Jump so I would invite him to respond as well.

Let's review briefly what we have already covered.

Here is the verse from the passage in question.....

Mat 7:23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The word Jesus spoke "I never knew you" is the center of the debate.

My position is that Jesus is refering to never knowing them spiritually through rebirth. I take this position because although Jesus "knows" all men in the God knows all sense, He does not live within all men through rebirth and this is a very personal "knowing" and only this kind of relationship can produce worthy works for Jesus Christ. All other works performed as worship to the Lord are as dung in the eyes of God if they are not done according to God's rules which are through regeneration in Christ.

Jump's position is that Jesus' word "I never knew you" is not refering to having not been born of God but is refering to Jesus not knowing them by their works. He believes that the "never knew you" is only in relationship to the works they had performed. Jump believes these people are saved but their works are found to be "iniquity" and they are sent to outerdarkness for 1000 years as disobedient children of God, not lost to hell.

I challenged Jump on this. I said but Jesus said "never" knew you. I said, would this not then mean that a born of God, child of God could be found with not even one worthy work to his name? Can this really be possible?

Jump produced a parable that he believed proved that a born again child of God could have not performed even one worthy work for the Lord.

Of course I challenged him on this, even appealing to the Spirit alone that (imho) I believe must be telling Jump that this just isn't possible, but he held his ground and is certain that a true believer can be a true slothful servant not having even one worthy work to his credit. Ever!

Now here is what I believe has happened. I believe Jump saw some possible truth in my view about Jesus' word "I never knew you" but could not accept this because of his salvation of the soul pov. Now this is just my opinion. But when i challenged him with, but Jesus said "never", and that if this was as he said about works, then this person must have not done even one worthy work as a born of God believer. I found this an impossibility, but he did not and found a parable which he believes supports the view that this is possible and therefore "never" having a worthy work fits his view of Jesus' word "I never knew you".

Ok, let's move on then. Jump has set his heart to believe all that I have presented here above about his position.

Let's take it from there then. Let's play this out with Jump's interpretation of scripture.

Next question for Jump and Hope. You guys have already established that your explanation for Jesus's word "never" is that there will be some saved people that will not have even one worthy work. Thus explaining the word "never" in "I never knew you", since this is focused on works alone according to your view.

Therefore, from that one MUST CONCLUDE that Matt 7 is speaking exclusively to those saved Christians who have not performed even one worthy work for their Lord. Those who have at the least one worthy work are not in focus here because you and Hope's position on Jesus' word "never" would indeed exclude all saved except those who have zero works.

I just want to get you guys on the record that you do understand that your view about Jesus' word "never" and your belief that Jesus said this because some saved will have zero works does then exclude all the saved that have one or more worthy work(s).

After confirmation that you guys do see this limits the passage to those Jesus "never knew" = "zero works" , we can move on.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

My position is that Jesus is refering to never knowing them spiritually through rebirth.

Steaver I stopped reading your post (although I will go back and re-read it all), because this was enough to say this is incorrect. First of all no one should be interested in "your" position. We shouldn't even have a "my" position. Let's just let Scripture say what it says insteading of adding "my" thoughts to the matter, because they don't matter .

Your position is that Jesus never knew them spirirtually through rebirth. However that's not what the text SAYS. The text is talking about WORKS. Therefore the text CAN NOT be talking about eternal salvation. Jesus NEVER says you have not accepted the fact that I'm going to die for you and shed My blood on your behalf because of your sin. He never gets into that.

For that matter the disciples themselves didn't even believe Jesus was going to die and Peter was bound and determined not to let it happen.

Again the plain reading of what the text actually SAYS has NOTHING to do with eternal salvation. So you take off on the wrong foot from the very get go and everythng else that follows is going to be a step in the wrong direction, because you didn't even take off in the right direction.

Off to re-read your entire post, and I may or may not respond, because now all we are doing is re-hashing the same material, which is pretty pointless.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob to Steaver --
Lighten up a bit. I actually did read "all" you wrote - and though I am glad to see that you did have moments where you were willing to consider other options with an open mind -- the part where you stated the "whipping" comment about your argument not fairing well illustrates the problem I am trying to highlight.

My argument is not that this is an issue with Steaver -- it is that it is an issue with humans.

in Christ,

Bob

Steaver said --
Brother, do you see the deep seated attitude that you have towards me for opposing your views?

Err - umm "no". That is why this little detail is in the quote above "not that this is an issue with Steaver -- it is that it is an issue with humans."

How can you quote that and then say "see this means you have an issue with ME"??

Our disconnects in communication seem to be at very basic levels sir.

Here is what you gathered from my post......."I am glad to see that you did have moments where you were willing to consider other options with an open mind"............... I don't have "moments", I am always willing to consider other options with an open mind.

I see. So the problem that I am identifying with "the human race" you claim does not apply "to Steaver".

I beg to differ - it appears to me that you are as human as the next guy.

Care to reconsider?

Where my mind "appears" to be closed ( and yours as well) is where we have already went over and over the same text and we each could not see the others pov as just.

Indeed you seem to be closed to any additional information on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

I believe Jump saw some possible truth in my view about Jesus' word "I never knew you" but could not accept this because of his salvation of the soul pov.

That made me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle. And just to set the "record" straight...I see ZERO evidence of Truth in your stance, so don't carry on with any belief that I have agreed with anything that you have said regarding this text...that I can remember anyway.

As far as the other part of your post goes, I'm not even sure what point you were trying to reach. And I certainly don't think there would be any need to "go on" as you suggest because we can't even agree on the starting block. How in the world is there any common ground to "go on?"

 

[BobRyan]

Since Jump and Steaver and sorta off topic I will use your discussion to refocus on the OP.

Jump -- can you state Steaver's position on the point where you differ AND his complaint about your view on the same doctrine in a way that Steaver would say "yes that is what I have been saying" ?

Steaver - can you do that with Jump's argument? Show the essence of what he is saying and why he objects to your posiiton to the point that jump would say "Yes that is what I have been saying"?

It is not required that you compromise your views - but you should at least be accurate enough to state the other person's views that you object to --

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

I will have to give Steaver credit as he does seem to be one here on this board that has the "best" handle on what I believe and to date I can not remember a time that he has purposefully misrepresented what I believe.

I think both of us could do exactly what you have said, but I don't see what the point is you are trying to make with your post.

And I completely understand why he is viewing some of the texts the way he is, because if he doesn't then he would be able to hold on to his belief structure. And I'm also sure that he would fell comfortable saying the same thing about me.

However in the final analysis we both can't be right, because we are on total opposite ends of the spectrum. I guess the reality is that we could both be wrong, but I don't see a third option in a lot of the texts we have been discussing.

 

[steaver]

Steaver - can you do that with Jump's argument? Show the essence of what he is saying and why he objects to your posiiton to the point that jump would say "Yes that is what I have been saying"?

It is not required that you compromise your views - but you should at least be accurate enough to state the other person's views that you object to --

In Christ,

Bob

Yes I have done this in my last post. I have stated Jump's view and I have stated my view.

i am now awaiting for Jump and Hope to confirm the final conclusion that must be reached concerning Matt 7 in light of their interpretation of Jesus' word "never".

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

(Jump).....Steaver I stopped reading your post (although I will go back and re-read it all), because this was enough to say this is incorrect. First of all no one should be interested in "your" position. We shouldn't even have a "my" position. Let's just let Scripture say what it says insteading of adding "my" thoughts to the matter, because they don't matter .

Of course our "thoughts" matter. You added your thoughts to the scripture when you decided that "I never knew you" was "I never knew you for worthy works". And I added my thoughts to the scripture when I decided that "I never knew you" was "I never knew you as a child of mine".

We both added our "thoughts" to this statement of Jesus' because of context and other scriptures. So I can say i am just letting the scripture speak and you will say that you are just letting the scripture speak. You will say that you are letting scripture interpret scripture and so will I. Let's not play with these kind of word symantics. We BOTH have a POSITION on the interpretation!

(Jump).......Your position is that Jesus never knew them spirirtually through rebirth. However that's not what the text SAYS. The text is talking about WORKS. Therefore the text CAN NOT be talking about eternal salvation. Jesus NEVER says you have not accepted the fact that I'm going to die for you and shed My blood on your behalf because of your sin. He never gets into that.

Yes, that is my position. And I have stated yours as well and have attempted to show you in error. As you have me. So I want to move on. I posted your position on Jesus' word "never". I am now waiting for your reply to the conclusion that your position leads us to.

(Jump).......As far as the other part of your post goes, I'm not even sure what point you were trying to reach. And I certainly don't think there would be any need to "go on" as you suggest because we can't even agree on the starting block. How in the world is there any common ground to "go on?"

I have conceded that we have not agreed. That is why I posted our views showing the differences.

Now I want set aside my view and allow your understanding of Jesus' word "never" play itself out to the final conclusion of Jesus' "I never knew you".

Here it is from before.......

Let's take it from there then. Let's play this out with Jump's interpretation of scripture.

Next question for Jump and Hope. You guys have already established that your explanation for Jesus' word "never" is that there will be some saved people that will not have even one worthy work. Thus explaining the word "never" in "I never knew you", since this is focused on works alone according to your view.

Therefore, from that one MUST CONCLUDE that Matt 7 is speaking exclusively to those saved Christians who have not performed even one worthy work for their Lord. Those who have, at the least, one worthy work are not in focus here because you and Hope's position on Jesus' word "never" would indeed exclude all saved except those who have zero works.

I just want to get you guys on the record that you do understand that your view about Jesus' word "never" and your belief that Jesus said this because some saved will have zero works does then exclude all the saved that have one or more worthy work(s).

After confirmation that you guys do see this limits the passage to those Jesus "never knew" = "zero works" , we can move on.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

Of course our "thoughts" matter.

No they don't. That's the whole problem. Scripture is not left open to man's interpretation. There is a right way to view Scripture and then there are all the other errant ways to view Scripture. One is Spirit led. The others are either flesh or Satan led. Those are the only two options.

Now you can argue that you have the Spirit led view and I can disagree, but you can't argue that your thoughts matter, because they don't.

You added your thoughts to the scripture when you decided that "I never knew you" was "I never knew you for worthy works". And I added my thoughts to the scripture when I decided that "I never knew you" was "I never knew you as a child of mine".

See here is the biggest difference in our two answers. I let the Scripture speak and you let Steaver speak with all due respect.

The larger context of the sermon on the mount itself is not an eternal salvation message and the more detailed context is not an eternal salvation message. There is NOTHING said about His death and shed blood as their Substitute. NOTHING is said about them rejecting Him as the Lamb of God. There is NOTHING there that suggests eternal salvation is in view.

One of us is adding to the text. I think it should be obvious to anyone that reads this thread who that is and what is being added .

Let's not play with these kind of word symantics.

That was my whole point in the other post. There is no point incontinuing in a conversation because you are unwilling to budge off your interpretation. And you have shown me absolutely no evidence to return to something that I used to believe.

So I want to move on.

WHY? We have no common ground to move forward one. It makes no sense to continue in a conversation. You are obviously dead set, at this point, on what you believe and there is nothing that I'm going to say that is going to convince. That's not my job and you don't want to see things any other way. There is no purpose other than to waste time.

After confirmation that you guys do see this limits the passage to those Jesus "never knew" = "zero works" , we can move on.

Move on to what? More Scripture we aren't going to agree on?

I'm not even sure what confirmation you are looking for. Yes there are going to be Christians that stand at the JSOC and don't have a single work to show for their Christian life. That's going to be terrible sad, but that's just how it's going to be.

Just because other saved individuals have one work and some 1,000 works doesn't mean they are going to receive entrance into the kingdom. Entrance into the kingdom is based on faith and works. And in order to finish the race a person needs know where the finish line is.

To be perfectly honest that is one of the biggest problems in Christendom today. I have several good friends that are very devout in their obedience, but they have no clue as to what the purpose of the Christian life is and then are just working aimlessly not knowing what they are doing. They are running, but they've never been taught about the course and they have no clue where the finish line is or what they are even running for.

It's really sad and the teachers/preachers that have been entrusted their souls are going to have to answer for that one of these days .

 

[BobRyan]

Ok both J Jump and Steaver appear to agree that Steaver's summation of both sides is exactly where they stand.

Post 87 on this thread --

Let's review briefly what we have already covered.

Here is the verse from the passage in question.....

Mat 7:23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The word Jesus spoke "I never knew you" is the center of the debate.

My position is that Jesus is refering to never knowing them spiritually through rebirth. I take this position because although Jesus "knows" all men in the God knows all sense, He does not live within all men through rebirth and this is a very personal "knowing" and only this kind of relationship can produce worthy works for Jesus Christ. All other works performed as worship to the Lord are as dung in the eyes of God if they are not done according to God's rules which are through regeneration in Christ.

Jump's position is that Jesus' word "I never knew you" is not refering to having not been born of God but is refering to Jesus not knowing them by their works. He believes that the "never knew you" is only in relationship to the works they had performed. Jump believes these people are saved but their works are found to be "iniquity" and they are sent to outerdarkness for 1000 years as disobedient children of God, not lost to hell.

In the spirit of my opening post I would ask for ONE MORE STEP in being objective given the condition of the human nature in not wanting to see where each view is wrong.

Answer the question "what is being sovled" by the other side's view. It is a step in objectivity but it has to be done to "see the forrest" not just trees.

As much as we like to think that views are just acceptance of fact - when pushed on any given doctrine we immediatly show that we have a REASON for selecting a certain doctrinal view - we see it as solving something.

So What "problem" is Steaver solving with his solution?

What "problem is J Jump Solving with his solution?

Hint: they BOTH are trying to solve a problem for OSAS.

Do you know what it is?

Having said that - I agree with Steaver on his interpretation of Matt 7.

This is a good example of a focus on a text where Steaver can claim that he holds HIS view BECAUSE of a text like this.

This is also a good example in J Jump's model of holding his view IN SPITE of a text like this.

The result is that the constant circling back and forth leaves J Jump "solving a problem" in Matt 7 and it leaves Steaver "highlighting the strength" of his view as seen here.

Steaver adds this note in his post 87

Jump produced a parable that he believed proved that a born again child of God could have not performed even one worthy work for the Lord.

Obviously J Jump needs to go to something like that because Matt 7 IS NOT a core foundation for him as it is for Steaver's argument.

Come on guys - be objective for a second.

Now here is what I believe has happened. I believe Jump saw some possible truth in my view about Jesus' word "I never knew you" but could not accept this because of his salvation of the soul pov. Now this is just my opinion.

Agreed - but what your missing is that the MOTIVE for J Jump clinging to the salvation of the soul vs saved in the kingdom POV is that he is trying to solve the problem of "perseverance" in the Bible.

You see the STRENGTH of Jump's argument is in the devastating nature of the Perseverance texts and the fact that THEY can not be satisfactorally SPUN about as if to say "well then you were never saved in the FIRST PLACE".

By contrast - Matt 7 is a good example of one that CAN easily fit the "never saved in the first place" model because it does NOT argue for "perseverance" it argues for "being obedient" vs NOT being obedient. Having fruits vs NOT having them. It says nothing about BEING a good tree and the BECOMING a bad one!

Thus it is perfect for Steaver's argument and is totally a CHALLENGE for J Jumps! Thus a wise tactic for Steaver is to stay focused on Matt 7 and a less-effective tactic for J Jump is to NOT drag in the blatantly clear PERSEVERANCE texts at every opportunity. (It is left as an exercise for the reader to see how they did on that count)

Hint: though I agree with Steaver's POV on THIS text - I agree with J Jumps on the PERSEVERANCE texts - at least to the point that he admits to the devasting good-tree THEN bad-tree aspect of those OTHER non-Matt7 texts (Hint: Matt 18 forgiveness revoked, 2Tim 2 "If we deny him", 1Cor 9 "LEST after preaching the gospel to others I MYSELF should be disqualified...etc etc.).

Result: The fact that this debate is allowed to isolate itself to Matt 7 clearly gives Steaver the advantage in that case.

Now THIS is an example my friends of the benefit of objective analysis where you allow yourself to step back from the dog-chasing-its-tail meltdown symptom (that this goes to in a heartbeat) and consider the points dispassionately and objectively.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So if this were a game - points would go to Steaver on this Matt 7 discussion for two reasons.

Number one it only highlights the strength of Steaver's position and number two it forces J Jump over the same GAP in his argument so that he has to take some pretty offbeat (out on a limb) positions to respond instead of resting in the strength areas of scripture where his argument is actually being made about "being in then being out".

And the answer is ---

J Jump is right about "those other texts" showing "good tree going to bad".

Steaver is right about Matt 7 NOT being an example of one of those texts!

----

But they are both in error in this regard.

J Jump is wrong in supposing that anyone is "lost saved" or "out of the kingdom but in heaven" or "saved in a perseverance gospel model but not allowed into the kingom during the millennium". His attempt to spin Matt 7 as if IT was one of the perseverance texts exposes the gaps in his argument.

Steaver is wrong about those Perseverance texts - and so he has to spin them into "not saved to start with" as if THEY were all Matt 7. Since J Jump is not dragging Steaver's argument over that ground - its gaps remain hidden in this discussion.




in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I will have to give Steaver credit as he does seem to be one here on this board that has the "best" handle on what I believe and to date I can not remember a time that he has purposefully misrepresented what I believe.

I think both of us could do exactly what you have said, but I don't see what the point is you are trying to make with your post.

...
However in the final analysis we both can't be right, because we are on total opposite ends of the spectrum. I guess the reality is that we could both be wrong, but I don't see a third option in a lot of the texts we have been discussing.

The "point" is to move beyond the circle you two are in so you can see the "forrest for the trees" in comparing your views.

Hint: So far you are only rehersing the weakness in your view with this focus on Matt 7. Steaver is free to place your view on the horns of a dilemma in the very wording of the text - time after time after time. And Steaver has wisely selected Matt 7 for the focus as it highlights the theme of the OP by illustrating a point in your own argument where it is forced to "cross the tire hazard backwards" time after time -- you have to come up with some made up solution that simply is not in the text. You are easily being seen to not accept what is glaringlhy in the text and your position is easily walked out on a limb that totally exposes the weakness of your argument based on a focus on a text like Matt 7 .

Bottom line is -- in a focus like that "the objective reader" is going to come away seeing Steaver's side of the argument every time.

You are correct that you can not both be right and it is possible that you could both be wrong "on something" regarding this topic. That is certainly an objective position. And it is key to walking out of the tail-chasing circle you two are in at the moment. In fact it is very key for you sir because you have taken one step toward a solution that is beyond what Steaver has - but because you are stradled across the fence and have not taken the other step - he has the luxury of exposing a flaw in your half-and-half postion with a text like Matt 7. Hint - you can not solve the problem of perseverance that Steaver's argument has and STILL cling to OSAS -- if you do Matt 7 texts are perfectly designed to body slam your argument.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Wow Bob! That was very interesting.

I would like to persu your analysis further and I am game to letting you put forth questions to challenge my view, kinda like a mediator, but I do not want to take away from getting an answer from Jump or Hope on the final conclusion that their interpretation of Jesus' word "never" leads one to. I don't mean to highjack your thread but it seems that this is the very thing you was eluding to in the op.

If they will not answer it will, to me, show a perfect example of your OP. Something that I am sure Jump believes he does not do. He has done this before with me when pressured to give an answer. he says what's the use and goes away. Does this not in itself show a very big weakness in his view? Twice now he has posted and has not answered. He is setting up a retreat. I think that is what the op was suggesting happened with the Sadducees.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Hope of Glory]

My biggest problem is a time crunch right now. The Lord has blessed me with more work than I can get finished. (I needed money, and the Lord provided it through new contracts.)

I have 4 days now to complete about 3 weeks' worth of work, if I am to catch my flight to visit family that I haven't seen in over 2 years. I've been working 20 hour days, taking brief breaks to read and reply to a few posts.

However, I will come in here later and reply. At length. This is a topic that we covered in great detail at church, but it takes time to reply.