Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The questions I would really appreciate twin1954's thoughts on are those I asked in Reply #424, regarding the Scripture passage tendered by MoreCoffee (Matthew 25:31-46) in Reply #401, and the interpretation he put on it.
So I'm looking forward expectantly to twin1954's thoughts on those questions as well, whenever their posting is deemed appropriate.
I am sorry I had forgotten about it. The thread lay dormant for a while and it slipped my mind. I will do my best to get to it today.I previously posted (after thanking twin1954 for his response):
I understand that twin1954's discretionary time may be limited.
Therefore I hope that someone else may be able to step into the breach an address the questions from a Baptist perspective (either official or unofficial).
It would be great if someone would.
Yes He did. It was His intention to teach His disciples answering their question concerning the end.Pedrito said:1. Did Jesus reveal information about a time yet future (future both then and now)?
Yes. Verse 32 clearly says that.2. Did Jesus state that he was going to gather the nations at that time?
All people from all nations.3. Is the clear meaning of that statement: (a) that Jesus is going to gather all people from all those nations; or (b) that he is going to gather people here and there from the nations?
Beware of the natural understanding. What we naturally understand is always wrong. Actually we are not told how they understood the sermon. We do know that up until He had been raised from the dead they didn’t really fully grasp much except that He was the Messiah. He taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus and opened their understanding of the Scriptures and they began to recall His teachings with spiritual eyes.3a. What did the disciples naturally understand Jesus' words to mean?
No. What He did was contrast those who were religious, specifically the Jews of His day, and true believers. He was simply pointing out that those who think they are serving God, when didn’t we do those things, and those who actually did them but didn’t even know that they had will receive a different judgment.4. Did Jesus clearly state the basis on which one group extracted from those gathered people would be going to Heaven?
Not in the way you think. As I explained above He was giving a parable which is intended to teach only one thing and we cannot try to determine doctrine from every statement in a parable. He did state the basis but it wasn’t what they didn’t do but the fact that they were false religionists.5. Did Jesus clearly state the basis on which the other group extracted from those gathered people (the remainder) would go to Hell?
No. He used it as a prooftext in order to prove his pretext. In order to interpret the passage the way he did you must rip it from its context and make it stand alone as though it wasn’t a parable.6. Was the explanation given by MoreCoffee correct?
The same place we all get our ideas, from our tradition. Tradition isn’t bad unless it is not according to the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole. Then it is deceiving and dangerous. Col. 2:8-236a. If not, where as a church-goer did he get the idea?
Because He wasn’t teaching details concerning the judgment but contrasting false religion and true.6b. If so, then why didn't Jesus mention those who were never exposed to his brethren, and never had the chance to qualify or disqualify themselves in the manner described?
Now we now that the Lord always dealt with spiritual truth never physical things. His parables are meant to teach one thing not many and each one has a clear meaning concerning the religion of His day and ours. All three parables are a picture of true and false religion.
Not at all. My exegesis clearly explains what Christ was teaching by those who work because their religion is based on it and those who are true believers who work but because it is natural to them as born again believers.Your exegesis seems to be evading what Jesus spends most of his time on in this parable, which is that the sheep and goats are distinguished by their works. Furthermore, this parable is not alone in that. Similarly, the parable of the talents describes the talents as a gift, but says that the servants are responsible for what they do with the gift.
This is not necessarily a rejection of Reformed theology. We don't have to understand the works as something that the people produced for themselves. They could be a demonstration of the fact that they are in Christ. After all both justification and perseverance could be seen as gifts from God. Calvin points us to verse 34 particularly as indicating this . (However he also notes that a non-predestinarian reading of verse 34 is possible.) But the parable does seem to focus on their difference in works. I don't know where your idea that a parable can only teach one thing came from, but if it were true, the one thing would be that the sheep and the goats are distinguished by their works.
In fact I think the parable talks about lots of things: the fact that we're going to be judged, whatever you think verse 34 means, the fact that the sheep and the goats are distinguished by their works, and the fact that Christ's followers seem to produce these works naturally, not as a way to earn credit with God. Those with an inclusivist view could understand the latter point in an even more interesting way: those who Jesus approves may not even realize that they are following him.
Go ahead and ask. I would much rather have you monopolize my time, which you wouldn't be doing, than to waste it arguing over nonsense. There is nothing that I would rather be doing than talking about the things of Christ.Thank you twin1954 for your insight.
Based on that insight, I will possibly request (at some future time, so as not to monopolise your time now) your understanding on another story told by Jesus.
I will most probably post the request in this thread, rather than (as a visitor) start a new thread.
For now, please just accept my thanks.
I would love to get your take on Jesus' story being referred to. (Luke 16:19-31)Being in Paradise (Abraham's bosom) was not the penalty, but was the result, and everyone there (since the death of righteous Abel) were without remedy. It is still separation from God the Father which is a penalty as well.
...
Just because they were not in torment does not mean that everything was fine.
Since I was studying the passage in order to answer you I felt that the Lord gave me a message from it for this morning. Here are my sermon notes on it if you care to read them.Thank you twin1954 for your invitation in Post #451.
In the thread “Baptists and the Virgin Mary” Avid made reference to Abraham's Bosom in Post #22.
He said:
I would love to get your take on Jesus' story being referred to. (Luke 16:19-31)
Thanks.
The first verse you quote says God wants everyone to repent, this is true. He wants all men saved.
Few accept....
The word of GOd goes to all men.
Your(sic) next problem is your reading NIV.
Throw it away and get a real bible.
The pure version is KJV...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?