BUY your way into Heaven! PLEASE!

With all due respect you might want to go back and re-read some of your posts, because there are several on here that think you are nothing but mean spirited . . . just something to consider.

I'm not sure that either of us are qualified to know whether someone is "deliberately" trying to lead people astray. I know that I am certainly not. There are many on here that I don't agree with, but I don't think they are trying to lead people astray.

I'm not sure where you got that statement, because no one has said that Christians are currently in hell, at least as far as I can see through Scripture.

Not sure what you mean by that question. I am a member of a Southern Baptist church and have always gone to a Southern Baptist church, except for a very brief time when we attended a Bible church. But first and foremost I am a child of God, that is awaiting the adoption (placement/acceptance) as a son (firstborn) of God.

The Bible. It's an absolutely AMAZING Book when we remove ourselves from the interpretation process and just allow Scripture to speak and allow the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into ALL Truth that is contained within.

The easiest place to see it is in the four Gospels.

 

Ed what causes you to make a distinction between an illustration and a parable and what would be the difference between the two as you see it? Thanks in advance. By the way I have never heard the 10 virgins referred to as anything other than a parable, so that's why I'm asking for clarification on your post.

 

Not a bad idea, I'd say, even if I do usually post in smaller print.

Not exactly, as to the group you are castigating. They are, IMO, preaching a false doctrine in this, and one that is actually more likely to be misleading as to what is actually beng taught, than what you are portraying, but it is more accurate to say that this is an attempt to (1) incorporate works into faith for salvation, by "backloading" and 'requiring' them as an integral part OF faith; (2) 'claiming' that supposedly non-existent "works" (based on some etheral "undefined standard") shows either an absence of faith in the first place, a loss of this faith, or some "undefined" dead faith, that could not have 'saved one' to start with; or (3) a back-door attempt at 'keeping the Mosaic law', or at least some of it. The result is some continually shifting murky mixture of "Lordship Salvation", "Galatianism", and "legalism", regardless of how it is so loudly portrayed to not be what it actually is.

This is the second time I am saying this. This particular forum is the "Other Christian Denominations" forum. They (whoever "they" may be) have every right to post in this forum, per BB rules. AND the BB is more than just a ""BAPTIST" message board", since that is how the Owner and Administrators have set it up. "them on here" have just as much right as you or me to post here, I will say again. You do not have to post here, nor do I. And should you or I not like it, there is not one earthly thing that says, should we so choose, we cannot start our own 'bored' - 'er I mean Board, and set it up anyway you or I would like it to be, rather than griping about another.

Ed

 

I believe that a "parable" is always named as such, and this is not so named. All parables could well to be said to be an illustration 'illuminating' some spiritual truth, in Scripture, but not all illustrations are necessarily parables, as I see it. Several so-called parables are not, IMO, including the account of the Father and his two sons, commonly referred to as "the parable of the Prodigal Son" (Scripture describes this unnamed individual as a "certain man", hence a specific individual, and something that is not usually associated with Jesus' parables); the account of the 'rich man' and Lazarus (Jesus never named any individual in any parable, and this is not stated to be a parable, either); the account of the "Good Samaritan", or the story of the widow and the two mites. None of these are stated to be 'parables", and I am reluctant to call them that, being as Jesus and the Gospel writers did not.

Ed

 

I agree fully, here. Just as it is said that we "are bought with a price", and God now owns us, so to speak. It says not one thing about Him giving back to us what is (really) ours, then.

Ed

 

Ed so it is really just semantics then as far as I can tell . . . yes?

 

Not really. A parable is a fictitious account, that is generally applicable to human life and conditions and is instructive of a heavenly truth. , a 'saying' illustrating the same, etc. A similie is a comparison of two unlike things, and an illustration is something that makes something clear. While there are some similarities in all, there are also some differences. And the four examples I gave of things often called parables that are not identified as such, are I believe, all examples of actual fact, as opposed to fictitious accounts.

Ed

 

I guess what I was getting at the most is you don't see a difference in the Truth that is to be gleaned from each set correct? The Scriptural Truth is the Scriptural Truth whether its a parable or illustration correct?

 

It's got nothing to do with buying. God didn't buy us. Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins. We are not slaves.

How can you give something to someone who already owns it?

We are adopted into God's family. God is my Father.

I paid the price for my children by going through labor. They are my children. They do not have to give themselves back to me.

AND, they will always be my children. Nothing can change that fact. Nothing can change the fact that I will always be God's child.

Our children rebel sometimes, but they are still our children.

We rebel by sinning sometimes, but we are still God's children.

 

Scripture does say we were purchased.

Acts 20:28, Revelation 5:9, I Corinthians 6:20

That is exactly what we are. At least that is what we should see ourselves as. Paul on numerous ocassions pointed out that he was a bond servant as did others.

We are born into the family, while adoption has yet to occur.

 

No it was not intentional to mislead about your views. I get the two confused as to which one will be in Hell for the 1000 years while Christ reigns.

I only stated it because that was some of what you were trying to get across to Claudia as them ALL being saved (which they are not) but they are locked out due to disobedience.

Sorry for misrepresenting your veiws.

 

Then where do you believe the Christians who are excluded from the thousand year reign will be and what will they be doing??

I know that you believe a persons spirit can be saved and at the same time that their soul can be lost. So they can be children of God but not Sons of God.

I might be mistaken here but I thought you held to the the Kingdom Exclusivism and the theology it espouses?? That might be my misunderstanding. However you have affirmed what I stated but corrected my misinformation.

 

No, Claudia, that is not what you have said, previously. Please think about what you say, and less confusion should result. You have said when we 'buy' we are just 'giving back to God what is already and rightfully His', to begin with.

If that is the case (which is not the meaning of "buy" in any sense), does it not follow that 'when God 'buys' us i.e. "redeems" us "out of the slave-market of sin," He then really just 'gives back to us what is rightfully ours'? We are now set free from the 'slave-market' for as God has purchased us with something far more precious than earthly 'riches', namely His own blood -

Scripture then says that we are to designed be a "love-slave", one that is not 'bound' anymore, but stays with the One who redeemed us, because of love. There is a tremendous difference between the two, the 'freed' 'love-slave' and the one who is bound, and not free. The book of Philemon describes just such a one in Onesimus, and speaks to both conditions in one individual, BTW. It has some geat insights, and the book of Ruth shows the great type of the 'Goel' Redeemer of Christ, by the picture of Boaz 'redeeming' Ruth.

Ed

 

Thanks for clearing that up!!!

Unfortunately there is nothing in that passage that indicates there are five saved and five unsaved. All the evidence is that they are all saved. There were 10 of them which means completeness. They were all the same. They were split up because of disobedience as you say.

Whether we are obedient or disobedient doesn't have anything to do with our salvation. That's what I've been trying to get Claudia to see. The whole context is not a context of eternal (spiritual) salvation, but of the kingdom of the heavens.

The only ones that can even be in view in that context are saved individuals.

The Bible explains it as hell or outer darkness. They will be receiving the disicipline they should have received during this lifetime.

For some reason Christendom believes that God is just going to let all flavors of Christians rule and reign with the Son. But the Bible tells us otherwise in a number of different ways.

Absolutely. That's what the Bible teaches, so I believe it.

I do believe in the word of the kingdom, or the gospel of the kingdom as it is called in Scripture.

 

Bump, bump, bump.

 

Is that the sound of one doing this three times?? :BangHead:

Just curious! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Claudia was banned?