Requirements of Salvation

[Gr8Grace]

Galatians 6:1 ESV / 6 helpful votes
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

I always thought we were to be accountable to each other. Instead of gossiping or looking down your nose, should you not speak with a friend about a transgression in a gentle manner? But then, if transgressions don't matter with regard to salvation, then we mind our own business?

Paul doesn't say," You better give him the gospel, because he might not be saved or might be on his way out of salvation."

Thats why Paul says 'You who are Spiritual should restore him." A brother doesn't need his salvation to be questioned or restored, A brother needs his FELLOWSHIP to be restored.

A babe in Christ or a self righteous prig would just dig a deeper hole for the poor believer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OK. I won't question his actions. I think fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God though.

Correct. 1 Cor 6, Gal 5 and Eph 5 all say immoral behavior will result in not inheriting the kingdom. However, that does NOT mean not entering the kingdom. The 3 passages are about loss of eternal reward, which is significant.

For example, in 2 Tim 2:12, only those believers who 'endure' will "reign with Christ". This is a reward for faithful service. Rom 8:17b says only those who "share in Christ's sufferings", which is the same as 'enduring' in 2 Tim 2:12, will "share in His glory", which is the same as "reigning with Christ".

Unless, of course they repent and forsake their sin. Correct? What if they die in their sin?

Only unbelievers will "die in their sins". John 8:24 makes that clear.

 

[Athanasius377]

Are you going to addres your own 2 huge problems with Matt 22?

Ok, once again:

“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 22:11–14). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The King has not commenced the banquet rather he is inspecting the guests. So to say that he was admitted and then kicked out doesn't work. Second, I gave you the definition of the word in Greek which was a more formal tone than the english "Friend". The King is in fact distancing himself from the ill-attired guest. In case you missed it:

ἑταῖρος, ου, ὁ (Hom.+; also Ath. 31, 1 [v.l. ἑτέροι]) a person who has someth. in common with others and enjoys association, but not necessarily at the level of a φίλος or φίλη, comrade, companion, of a member of one’s group fellow-member D 14:2. Of playmates Mt 11:16 v.l. Of Jesus’ disciples (X., Mem. 2, 8, 1 al. Socrates refers to his pupils as ἑ.; Ael. Aristid. 47 p. 421 D. οἱ Πλάτωνος ἑ.; Porphyr., Vi. Pythag. 55 of Pythag.—Philo, Vi. Cont. 40 of Odysseus’ companions) Mt 26:50 (ἑταῖρε; cp. Jos., Ant. 12, 302 ὦ ἑταῖροι); GPt 7:26. Παπίας … ὁ Πολυκάρπου ἑ. γενόμενος Papias (1:2; cp. 11:1). As a general form of address to someone whose name one does not know: ἑταῖρε my friend (Theognis 753 Diehl; Aristoph., Pla., et al.) Mt 20:13; 22:12.—Instead of being an italicized variant of ἕτερος, the reading ἑταῖροι Lk 23:32

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 398). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Where have I done that? Please explain yourself.

It is your presupposition. A tradition if you will. It's placed over the top of scripture and is the lens by which you are reading this passage. Because of this you have heaven/the Kingdom having a dungeon where its dark and people are bound and are weeping and gnashing their teeth. Then there is the Fiery Furnace the burns people up in heaven/the Kingdom as well.

You have NOT, so please don't make this FALSE claim.

In case you missed it:

Matt 8:10-12
Matt 22:11-14
Matt 13:36–42
Matt 24:46–51
Matt 25:30
Luk 13:28
Gal 3:27
Rev 7:9
Rev 19:13

I did answer that. I didn't address the other passages that used "outer darkness" because they aren't relevant to Matt 22. I specifically did address Matt 22 and pointed out the 2 HUGE PROBLEMS that you have with your presumption about that parable, and you haven't addressed them yet.

btw, in Matt 22, ancient wedding banquets occurred at night. So being thrown out of the banquet hall would mean being cast into the darkness outside. Very simple.

I would probably want to avoid those passages because the term "outer darkness" is used the same way as in matt 22:11-14. So lets examine the phrase "outer darkness" and see what is going on.

1.23 τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον: (an idiom, literally ‘the outer darkness’) a place or region which is both dark and removed (presumably from the abode of the righteous) and serving as the abode of evil spirits and devils—‘outer darkness, darkness outside.’ ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον ‘they will be thrown into outer darkness’ Mt 8:12.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 6). New York: United Bible Societies.

τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον (to skotos to exōteron), abode of evil spirits (the outer darkness) (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30+)

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The outer darkness, obviously a reference to hell, represents what it is like where God is not found. Translators should try to retain this image, saying “the dark world where God is not (or, does not go)” or “the dark place away from God’s rule.” Some have said “the great dark place of hell.” “Dark” or “darkness” may have to be rendered as “black” or “place with no light.”

Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. (1992). A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew (p. 231). New York: United Bible Societies.

Now lets see what some the Early church fathers had to say about the subject:

Augustine:
Observe that what you are hearing in the Gospel is now actually happening. Therefore I tell you, he says, on account of the centurion whose faith he had praised so much, as of a foreigner in the flesh but a member of the household at heart (cf. Eph 2:19): Therefore, he says, many will come from east and west. Not all, but many, from east and west, the two points of the compass designating the whole world. Many will come from east and west, and will sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness.… Now we see Christians from east and west summoned to a kind of heavenly banquet, to sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, where the food is justice and the drink wisdom.

Williams, D. H., & Wilken, R. L. (Eds.). (2018). Matthew: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. (D. H. Williams, Trans.) (p. 174). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Athanasius Contra Mundum!

Epiphanius the Latin

They will come from the east and from the west, and they will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. For not all these who are from Israel, are Israelites; nor are all those who are from Abraham, his sons; but in Isaac there will be named a seed for you (Gen 21:12). It is not someone born according to the flesh, but he who was begotten according to the Spirit through believing the faith. And so all nations that are across the whole world that have believed in Christ through faith will come with the fruits of justice and sanctity and will recline with the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven. Moreover the sons of the kingdom, that is, the Jews, who used to boast that they were sons of Abraham and are not, will be cast out into the outer darkness because the just man lives by faith, just as all the patriarchs did.


Williams, D. H., & Wilken, R. L. (Eds.). (2018). Matthew: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. (D. H. Williams, Trans.) (p. 174). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hippolytus:
Then shall the son of perdition be brought forward as the accuser, with his demons and with his servants, by angels stern and inexorable. And they shall be given over to the fire that is never quenched, and to the worm that never sleeps, and to the outer darkness.

Ferreiro, A. (2003). Introduction to the Twelve Prophets. In A. Ferreiro (Ed.), The Twelve Prophets (p. 273). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Add to that the more than a dozen commentaries on scripture and not one, not even one agrees with your doctrine. Nor do they report your position as a minority position. That's not just weak sauce that's a nothing burger.

 

[Athanasius377]

Read it again, please. You responded to Gr8Grace's post. Not mine. You have 2 huge problems that you need to answer regarding the parable in Matt 22.

My apologies, I responded in a later post.

 

[Athanasius377]

2 John 1:8~~New American Standard Bible
Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.
1 John 2:28~~New American Standard Bible
Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

I agree that the idea of rewards full/partial works here. I object to the treatment of outer darkness though as it so plainly means hell as I outlined in post #103.

2 Tim 2:12~~New American Standard Bible
If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;(Reign)

So we could use the analogy of the military. Do we stay a private or do we live the Christian way of life and become a General?

The Private had the same opportunity to become a General as the General did. The private still participates and has his perfect, joyful place.........but he isn't in with command central and the General planning operations.

Or we could use the analogy of growing in the grace and knowledge of The Lord Jesus Christ. Do we stay a babe in Christ or do we fully mature by living the Christian way of life?

The babe has to be taught bible doctrine, they neglected it in time. Rather than teaching it(excluded in something that they should have been included in/ they are in the dark/ outside of the 'know') they need to be taught. This doesn't take away the joy and perfectness of heaven. Everyone has their perfect place, but it is not all equal.

I'm not ok with this. Let's put the quote back into context:
8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 The saying is trustworthy, for:

If we have died with him, we will also live with him;

12 if we endure, we will also reign with him;

if we deny him, he also will deny us;

13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—

for he cannot deny himself.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (2 Ti 2:8–13). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

I don't see the analogy because its not in this text. I don't deny that there are rewards in heaven to varying degrees. What I deny is that Outer Darkness means anything other than hell. And i deny 2 Tim 2:8-13 has anything to do with that doctrine.

 

[Gr8Grace]

I agree that the idea of rewards full/partial works here. I object to the treatment of outer darkness though as it so plainly means hell as I outlined in post #103.

Read post #103

2 Point's:

Why is an unbeliever in heaven and then gets kicked out?
Not answered.


Why does God Call Him friend?

Your definition~~

ἑταῖρος, ου, ὁ (Hom.+; also Ath. 31, 1 [v.l. ἑτέροι]) a person who has something in common with others and enjoys association, but not necessarily at the level of a φίλος or φίλη, comrade, companion, of a member of one’s group fellow-member D 14:2.

Sounds a whole lot like a believer who is out of fellowship to me. Maybe look past what you want to see?

The Lord Jesus makes it clear to unbelievers.......I NEVER knew you.
Matt 7:23~~New International Version
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Evildoers in this context~~~~Self righteous prigs claiming all their 'good' works for the Lord. And He NEVER knew them. Not ,I had something in common with you. Not, I enjoyed association with you. Not, I had a level of knowing you........That is from YOUR post 103.

Pretty flimsy.

 

[Salvadore]

Gr8Grace, your answers seems really angry. Is it ok for people to ask questions or test their thinking without being attacked?

 

[Athanasius377]

Why is an unbeliever in heaven and then gets kicked out?
Not answered.

Actually I did. But I will repeat it if you missed the first two times. First the relevant verse:

“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 22:11–14). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

You will notice the banquet had not started yet. The King has not commenced the banquet but rather he is inspecting the guests. So to say that he was admitted and then kicked out doesn't work.

Second, I gave you the definition of the word in Greek which was a more formal tone than the english "Friend". The King is in fact distancing himself from the ill-attired guest. In case you missed it:

ἑταῖρος, ου, ὁ (Hom.+; also Ath. 31, 1 [v.l. ἑτέροι]) a person who has someth. in common with others and enjoys association, but not necessarily at the level of a φίλος or φίλη, comrade, companion, of a member of one’s group fellow-member D 14:2. Of playmates Mt 11:16 v.l. Of Jesus’ disciples (X., Mem. 2, 8, 1 al. Socrates refers to his pupils as ἑ.; Ael. Aristid. 47 p. 421 D. οἱ Πλάτωνος ἑ.; Porphyr., Vi. Pythag. 55 of Pythag.—Philo, Vi. Cont. 40 of Odysseus’ companions) Mt 26:50 (ἑταῖρε; cp. Jos., Ant. 12, 302 ὦ ἑταῖροι); GPt 7:26. Παπίας … ὁ Πολυκάρπου ἑ. γενόμενος Papias (1:2; cp. 11:1). As a general form of address to someone whose name one does not know: ἑταῖρε my friend (Theognis 753 Diehl; Aristoph., Pla., et al.) Mt 20:13; 22:12.—Instead of being an italicized variant of ἕτερος, the reading ἑταῖροι Lk 23:32

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 398). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

It seems you do not understand how to use a lexicon like BDAG. BDAG by the way is the standard of koine Greek lexicons. The entry will give you the common definition first and then give variations of the reading while citing relevant texts both ancient and biblical as evidence. The text highlighted in red was relevant as it cites Matt 22:12 which you left off in your response. The point is the King does not know who this guest is or his name. Sound familiar?

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 7:21–23). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Besides these two points you also have to explain away four other verses, three in Matthew and one in Luke, three different reputable, reliable lexicons, evidence from the early church fathers especially with Augustine. And I would like to see a reliable orthodox commentary give the exegesis on Matt 22 that you have. Because I can show you 12 that dispute your reading. Not only do they not give credence they don't even acknowledge there is a minority position that sounds anything like your position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"Are you going to addres your own 2 huge problems with Matt 22?"

Ok, once again:

“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 22:11–14). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The King has not commenced the banquet rather he is inspecting the guests.

THis is merely an assumption. When a king comes into the banquet hall, you'd better believe the banquet has begun.

So to say that he was admitted and then kicked out doesn't work.

It is EXACTLY what happened. The ill-attired guest WAS IN the banquet. You can't get around it. But it appears you are going to simply deny reality here. If that's your ploy, it is pointless to have any further discussion with you. I deal ONLY with reality.

Second, I gave you the definition of the word in Greek which was a more formal tone than the english "Friend".

hetairos: a companion
Original Word: ἑταῖρος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hetairos
Phonetic Spelling: (het-ah'-ee-ros)
Definition: a companion
Usage: a companion, comrade, friend.

The King is in fact distancing himself from the ill-attired guest.

He sure did. He had his friend cast outside the banquet hall, into the "outer darkness". The guest was no longer a guest.

In case you missed it:

ἑταῖρος, ου, ὁ (Hom.+; also Ath. 31, 1 [v.l. ἑτέροι]) a person who has someth. in common with others and enjoys association, but not necessarily at the level of a φίλος or φίλη, comrade, companion, of a member of one’s group fellow-member D 14:2. Of playmates Mt 11:16 v.l. Of Jesus’ disciples (X., Mem. 2, 8, 1 al. Socrates refers to his pupils as ἑ.; Ael. Aristid. 47 p. 421 D. οἱ Πλάτωνος ἑ.; Porphyr., Vi. Pythag. 55 of Pythag.—Philo, Vi. Cont. 40 of Odysseus’ companions) Mt 26:50 (ἑταῖρε; cp. Jos., Ant. 12, 302 ὦ ἑταῖροι); GPt 7:26. Παπίας … ὁ Πολυκάρπου ἑ. γενόμενος Papias (1:2; cp. 11:1). As a general form of address to someone whose name one does not know: ἑταῖρε my friend (Theognis 753 Diehl; Aristoph., Pla., et al.) Mt 20:13; 22:12.—Instead of being an italicized variant of ἕτερος, the reading ἑταῖροι Lk 23:32

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 398). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

So what?

I asked:
"Where have I done that? Please explain yourself."

It is your presupposition. A tradition if you will.

This is no answer at all. Merely your own opinion. Give me clear evidence if you have any.

It's placed over the top of scripture and is the lens by which you are reading this passage. Because of this you have heaven/the Kingdom having a dungeon where its dark and people are bound and are weeping and gnashing their teeth.

Please just read my posts before making such an embarrassing mistake. The outer darkness is simply OUTSIDE the banquet hall. I said nothing about your make believe dungeon nonsense.

You need to leave your fantasy world and return to reality.

Then there is the Fiery Furnace the burns people up in heaven/the Kingdom as well.

More made up fantasy. There is NOTHING in Matt 22 about a firery furnace.

But glad you brought that up. Let's examine another passage about "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
Matt 13:42, 50
42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Here's the point. When hell is in view, it is MENTIONED specifically. So, find any verse where "outer darkness" specifically refers to hell.

In case you missed it:

Matt 8:10-12
Matt 22:11-14
Matt 13:36–42
Matt 24:46–51
Matt 25:30
Luk 13:28
Gal 3:27
Rev 7:9
Rev 19:13

I haven't missed anything.

No mention of hell in Matt 8.
No mention of hell in Matt 22.
Hell IS mentioned in Matt 13, as I just showed above.
No mention of hell in Matt 24.
No mention of hell in Matt 25.
Luke 13:28 is a repeat of Matt.
This is Gal 3:27 - for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. No idea why you cited it.
REv 7:9 - After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
No idea why you cited this verse either.
Rev 19:13 - He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Another verse that has no relevance to your opinion.

I would probably want to avoid those passages because the term "outer darkness" is used the same way as in matt 22:11-14.

Interesting. Those words don't even occur in many of the citations above.

So lets examine the phrase "outer darkness" and see what is going on.

1.23 τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον: (an idiom, literally ‘the outer darkness’) a place or region which is both dark and removed (presumably from the abode of the righteous) and serving as the abode of evil spirits and devils—‘outer darkness, darkness outside.’ ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον ‘they will be thrown into outer darkness’ Mt 8:12.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 6). New York: United Bible Societies.

τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον (to skotos to exōteron), abode of evil spirits (the outer darkness) (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30+)

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The outer darkness, obviously a reference to hell, represents what it is like where God is not found. Translators should try to retain this image, saying “the dark world where God is not (or, does not go)” or “the dark place away from God’s rule.” Some have said “the great dark place of hell.” “Dark” or “darkness” may have to be rendered as “black” or “place with no light.”

Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. (1992). A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew (p. 231). New York: United Bible Societies.

Ha. In the parable of the wedding banquet, what is very clear (reality check) is that anyone thrown out of the hall would be in the darkness outside, or outer darkness. When Matthew wanted to make the point about hell and "weeping/gnashing of teeth", he SPECIFICALLY says so by "fiery furnace". But where he wasn't referring to hell, he only mentions a very common occurrence when being thrown out of a building at night. So there you go.

Now lets see what some the Early church fathers had to say about the subject:

Yawn.

Augustine:
Observe that what you are hearing in the Gospel is now actually happening. Therefore I tell you, he says, on account of the centurion whose faith he had praised so much, as of a foreigner in the flesh but a member of the household at heart (cf. Eph 2:19): Therefore, he says, many will come from east and west. Not all, but many, from east and west, the two points of the compass designating the whole world. Many will come from east and west, and will sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness.… Now we see Christians from east and west summoned to a kind of heavenly banquet, to sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, where the food is justice and the drink wisdom.

Williams, D. H., & Wilken, R. L. (Eds.). (2018). Matthew: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. (D. H. Williams, Trans.) (p. 174). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Athanasius Contra Mundum!

Epiphanius the Latin

They will come from the east and from the west, and they will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. For not all these who are from Israel, are Israelites; nor are all those who are from Abraham, his sons; but in Isaac there will be named a seed for you (Gen 21:12). It is not someone born according to the flesh, but he who was begotten according to the Spirit through believing the faith. And so all nations that are across the whole world that have believed in Christ through faith will come with the fruits of justice and sanctity and will recline with the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven. Moreover the sons of the kingdom, that is, the Jews, who used to boast that they were sons of Abraham and are not, will be cast out into the outer darkness because the just man lives by faith, just as all the patriarchs did.


Williams, D. H., & Wilken, R. L. (Eds.). (2018). Matthew: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. (D. H. Williams, Trans.) (p. 174). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hippolytus:
Then shall the son of perdition be brought forward as the accuser, with his demons and with his servants, by angels stern and inexorable. And they shall be given over to the fire that is never quenched, and to the worm that never sleeps, and to the outer darkness.

Ferreiro, A. (2003). Introduction to the Twelve Prophets. In A. Ferreiro (Ed.), The Twelve Prophets (p. 273). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

The early church fathers lost the idea of grace by the 2nd Century. I wouldn't ever want to quote them on very much.

Add to that the more than a dozen commentaries on scripture and not one, not even one agrees with your doctrine.

Unless you've read EVERY SINGLE ONE, you have NO basis upon which to make a conclusion. So what that you found "more than 12" that agree with you? Big deal. How many commentaries are out there that agree with me? You'd love to fantasize that none do. But unless you've read them all, all you have is presumption.

Nor do they report your position as a minority position. That's not just weak sauce that's a nothing burger.

Like that's a big deal?? That just shows a very dishonest common tater. They don't want people to even know there's a different view. But you, in your fantasy, think it's a big deal that your common taters don't bother mentioning a different view.

That's just being dishonest. The point is this: there are Bible scholars with multiple degrees after their name, who strongly disagree with many other Bible scholars who have the SAME number of degrees behind their names. So what?

There is a booklet available that fully explains what the "outer darkness" refers to in EACH and every passage where it occurs.

What Is the Outer Darkness? – Grace Evangelical Society

I invite you to get and read the book, since your common taters weren't honest enough to even acknowledge other views.

May you be blessed by the truth.

 

[Athanasius377]

I asked:
"Are you going to addres your own 2 huge problems with Matt 22?"

THis is merely an assumption. When a king comes into the banquet hall, you'd better believe the banquet has begun.


It is EXACTLY what happened. The ill-attired guest WAS IN the banquet. You can't get around it. But it appears you are going to simply deny reality here. If that's your ploy, it is pointless to have any further discussion with you. I deal ONLY with reality.


hetairos: a companion
Original Word: ἑταῖρος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hetairos
Phonetic Spelling: (het-ah'-ee-ros)
Definition: a companion
Usage: a companion, comrade, friend.


He sure did. He had his friend cast outside the banquet hall, into the "outer darkness". The guest was no longer a guest.


So what?

I asked:
"Where have I done that? Please explain yourself."

This is no answer at all. Merely your own opinion. Give me clear evidence if you have any.


Please just read my posts before making such an embarrassing mistake. The outer darkness is simply OUTSIDE the banquet hall. I said nothing about your make believe dungeon nonsense.

You need to leave your fantasy world and return to reality.


More made up fantasy. There is NOTHING in Matt 22 about a firery furnace.

But glad you brought that up. Let's examine another passage about "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
Matt 13:42, 50
42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Here's the point. When hell is in view, it is MENTIONED specifically. So, find any verse where "outer darkness" specifically refers to hell.


I haven't missed anything.

No mention of hell in Matt 8.
No mention of hell in Matt 22.
Hell IS mentioned in Matt 13, as I just showed above.
No mention of hell in Matt 24.
No mention of hell in Matt 25.
Luke 13:28 is a repeat of Matt.
This is Gal 3:27 - for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. No idea why you cited it.
REv 7:9 - After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
No idea why you cited this verse either.
Rev 19:13 - He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Another verse that has no relevance to your opinion.


Interesting. Those words don't even occur in many of the citations above.


Ha. In the parable of the wedding banquet, what is very clear (reality check) is that anyone thrown out of the hall would be in the darkness outside, or outer darkness. When Matthew wanted to make the point about hell and "weeping/gnashing of teeth", he SPECIFICALLY says so by "fiery furnace". But where he wasn't referring to hell, he only mentions a very common occurrence when being thrown out of a building at night. So there you go.


Yawn.


The early church fathers lost the idea of grace by the 2nd Century. I wouldn't ever want to quote them on very much.


Unless you've read EVERY SINGLE ONE, you have NO basis upon which to make a conclusion. So what that you found "more than 12" that agree with you? Big deal. How many commentaries are out there that agree with me? You'd love to fantasize that none do. But unless you've read them all, all you have is presumption.


Like that's a big deal?? That just shows a very dishonest common tater. They don't want people to even know there's a different view. But you, in your fantasy, think it's a big deal that your common taters don't bother mentioning a different view.

That's just being dishonest. The point is this: there are Bible scholars with multiple degrees after their name, who strongly disagree with many other Bible scholars who have the SAME number of degrees behind their names. So what?

There is a booklet available that fully explains what the "outer darkness" refers to in EACH and every passage where it occurs.

What Is the Outer Darkness? – Grace Evangelical Society

I invite you to get and read the book, since your common taters weren't honest enough to even acknowledge other views.

May you be blessed by the truth.

Ok, so lets recap. You can't demonstrate the truthfulness of your position from Scripture, from any competent lexical sources, from any historical source or from any reputable commentary. Your position is that for the last 1800 years this doctrine was lost but two guys and a fax machine in Texas recovered it. Um kay.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ok, so lets recap. You can't demonstrate the truthfulness of your position from Scripture, from any competent lexical sources, from any historical source or from any reputable commentary.

So, let's recap. Your so-called "reputable" sources are obviously dishonest. I use a commentary that actually lists the various views on specific passages. And that source then supports their view from the context of the passage. Unlike your sources.

Your position is that for the last 1800 years this doctrine was lost but two guys and a fax machine in Texas recovered it. Um kay.

Hardly. But you don't even know about any other view, since your so-called "reputable sources" don't have the honesty to even mention other views.

I would NEVER trust any source that won't even admit other views. There's something very sneaky about that.

I strongly encourage you to go to the link I provided and get the book on the "outer darkness" and read it with an open mind. Not the closed mind you now have, since your so-called "reputable sources" won't even acknlowledge other views.

Follow the evidence from that book. At least read what it says about the outer darkness.

 

[Gr8Grace]

Gr8Grace, your answers seems really angry. Is it ok for people to ask questions or test their thinking without being attacked?

Not angry at all. Blunt and passionate about His Word.

 

[Gr8Grace]

Here is another brief overview of "outer darkness" from a Grace perspective.
The "Outer Darkness" in Matthew and Its Relationship to Grace

 

[Athanasius377]

So, let's recap. Your so-called "reputable" sources are obviously dishonest. I use a commentary that actually lists the various views on specific passages. And that source then supports their view from the context of the passage. Unlike your sources.


Hardly. But you don't even know about any other view, since your so-called "reputable sources" don't have the honesty to even mention other views.

I would NEVER trust any source that won't even admit other views. There's something very sneaky about that.

I strongly encourage you to go to the link I provided and get the book on the "outer darkness" and read it with an open mind. Not the closed mind you now have, since your so-called "reputable sources" won't even acknlowledge other views.

Follow the evidence from that book. At least read what it says about the outer darkness.

Here is a list of my commentaries. Its not these sources don't have differing views. They just don't have your view. The reason they don't list your view is because it isn't a valid reading of the passage. I stopped counting at 14.

Tyndale commentary
New American Commentary
Word Biblical commentary
New International Commentary the NT
The Concordia Commentary
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
A Popular commentary on the NT (Schaff)
A Pillar commentary on Scripture
The Expositor's commentary on Scripture
Matthew Henry's Commentary
Cabmridge Bible for Universities and Schools Commentary
Kreztman's Popular Commentary
Hermania Commentary
United Bible Society Handbook on Matthew

I don't have the space to paste each commentaries' Point of view in a post. The NICNT alone is almost 8 pages long Matt 22. ANd by reputable I mean someone whose been trained in original languages, hermeneutics, exegesis etc. Not just some guys alone with too much time on their hands and recording their own personal musings.

 

[Athanasius377]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
Friend, I don’t care what someone thinks the Lord should have said to suit his/her pet doctrine. I only care about what the Lord said. If you have to start with the idea the Church was wrong for 1800 years that should be a big red flag.
I suspect the impetus of theology is a reaction to Reformed Theology and I frankly don’t have a skin in this game. I’ve given you the best sources I know of most of which are primary. I think you would agree this is about as far as we can take this discussion as we are too far apart.
So may the Peace and Blessings of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be upon you and remain with you. Amen.

 

[JLB777]

Born again means to be transformed by God into a new moral life.

Born again is when we are born of the Spirit, by obeying (believing) the Gospel.

Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 1 Peter 1:22-23



This is not a process.

Transformation is a process, being born again is not.

We all are born spiritually dead, and must be born again, or born of God through believing and therefore obeying the Gospel message.




JLB

 

[JLB777]

Correct. 1 Cor 6, Gal 5 and Eph 5 all say immoral behavior will result in not inheriting the kingdom. However, that does NOT mean not entering the kingdom. The 3 passages are about loss of eternal reward, which is significant.

Not inheriting the kingdom of God is crystal clear.


A person who does not inherit the kingdom of God goes to the everlasting fires of hell.


Very clear.

Very simple.




JLB

 

[FreeGrace2]

Friend, I don’t care what someone thinks the Lord should have said to suit his/her pet doctrine.

Well, I fully agree with this.

I only care about what the Lord said.

Again, I fully agree.

If you have to start with the idea the Church was wrong for 1800 years that should be a big red flag.

I never said anything about "the Church" regardless of how long.

I suspect the impetus of theology is a reaction to Reformed Theology and I frankly don’t have a skin in this game. I’ve given you the best sources I know of most of which are primary. I think you would agree this is about as far as we can take this discussion as we are too far apart.
So may the Peace and Blessings of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be upon you and remain with you. Amen.

If I could just ask a question. Regarding your view on the 'outer darkness", what was your main point about it in Matt 22?

 

[Gr8Grace]

Born again is when we are born of the Spirit, by obeying (believing) the Gospel.

Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 1 Peter 1:22-23



This is not a process.

Transformation is a process, being born again is not.

We all are born spiritually dead, and must be born again, or born of God through believing and therefore obeying the Gospel message.




JLB

 

[BlessedCreator]

Faith means to have trust/confidence in God.
You can't have trust in God without having a good conscience toward God.
You can't have a good conscious toward God without obeying Him.
Believing in Jesus is the first commandment of God we are told to obey.
There are many other commandments we must live in obedience unto if we desire to be saved.

We are told in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJB
"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

We see just from those 2 verses alone that there is a standard of righteous and holy living that God requires of us if we are to be counted worthy.
That is what is being spoken of in James 2:26 where it says faith without works is dead.

The works are not any righteous or holy works of our own, but of God. The works are the will of God, told to us through the commandments and precepts taught in the Holy Bible.

Without obedience unto God's will, your faith is dead, you are not living a holy life, and you will not see the Lord.

Hebrews 12:14 KJB
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: "