The Boundaries of Reality

Originally posted by no1marauder
1. Your insistence to the contrary just brands you the arrogant fanatic that you are obviously are. If you can't explain why Jesus directly rejects your assertion, that's OK - but pretending that you have secret knowledge that changes the meaning of his words just shows how deluded you are.

2. No based on YOUR statements.

Freaky: Prior to meeting uper Duper God as given you info that others aren't entitled to (sounds Gnostic to me).

First of all, I must reiterate that nobody is claiming that works done in obedience to the gospel of Christ aren't of the greatest significance. Such works are evidences of a genuine, saving faith in Jesus Christ. And without such works it is evident that a genuine, saving faith in Jesus Christ may be absent.

Matthew Henry's Commentary says of Matthew 25:31-46, "we cannot hence infer that any good works of ours merit the happiness of heaven... Those good works shall be accepted which are done in the name of the Lord Jesus, Col. iii. 17."

If Christ were judging solely on works, then He would not require faith in Himself. Faith in Christ is of the utmost necessity. It is only through believing in Christ that a person's good works are done in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17), i.e., in obedience to the gospel. We can conclude, therefore, that the works which Jesus Christ cites in Matthew 25:31-46 are exclusively the works of the faithful.

-------------------------------

Regarding Matthew 25:31-46, you never mention the fact that Jesus does not separate the sheep from the goats based on their works. You only infer that He is judging mankind based on their works, but the scripture in question plainly shows that Christ divides one person from another based on an initial recognition, since it is only after He separates them that He begins to distinguish between those that are His and those that are not, i.e., between the godly and the wicked:

"All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say..." (Matt. 25:32-34).

Christ already knows who His "sheep" are. When He separates one person from another it is based on recognition. His "sheep" are those who believe that He is the Christ and follow Him. The "goats" are those who refused to believe that He is the Christ and who do not follow Him. Christ "knows" His sheep:

"But you (the goats) do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:26-28).

----------------------------

How does Christ recognize whether any given person is one of His sheep or not? There must be a certain invisible seal which a person bears, by which Christ is able to distinguish who are His brethren. The answer is simple: the Holy Spirit.

Here's what Christ says to His sheep on Judgment Day: "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34). Who are those who have a kingdom "prepared [for them] from the foundation of the world"? Again, the answer is simple: all those who have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. And who are those who have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them? Quite simply, those who believe in Jesus Christ.

In Christ's own words:

"Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive" (John 7:38-39).

Paul in Romans 8:16-17 declares that the Holy Spirit is proof that we are heirs of God's kingdom, "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ."

With Matthew 25:31-46 in mind, read this passage from Ephesians:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ ("...Come, you blessed of my Father..." - Matt. 25:34), just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ("...inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world..." - Matt. 25:34), that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:3-6).

Clearly, God has foreordained those who are His sheep. And who are they which are foreordained? Of course: those who trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation. And what distinguishing feature do those who trust in Christ all have? Easy: they are all sealed with the Holy Spirit.

"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" (Eph. 1:3-14).

Christ separates one person from another on Judgment Day, i.e., the "sheep" from the "goats," based on who is sealed with the Holy Spirit. Only His "sheep" are sealed with the Holy Spirit.

---------------------------

In conclusion, you have no basis to infer from the parable of the sheep and the goats that good works merit salvation. Plenty of people have good works, yet they may or may not trust in Jesus Christ. But Christ declared that those who refuse to believe in Him are "condemned already." If those who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ are "condemned already," then we can safely say that every one of the "sheep" in Christ's parable are believers (albeit, faithfully obedient believers).

Originally posted by no1marauder
1. Your insistence to the contrary just brands you the arrogant fanatic that you are obviously are. If you can't explain why Jesus directly rejects your assertion, that's OK - but pretending that you have secret knowledge that changes the meaning of his words just shows how deluded you are.

2. No based on YOUR statements.

Freaky: Prior to meeting ...[text shortened]... uper Duper God as given you info that others aren't entitled to (sounds Gnostic to me).

1. Your insistence to the contrary just brands you the arrogant fanatic that you are obviously are.
No, my insistence to the contrary is based upon the authority of truth. All subsequent branding is based upon your standards of reality.

... but pretending that you have secret knowledge that changes the meaning of his words just shows how deluded you are.
How positively naive of you. As an added bonus, that stance is truly arrogant in light of the truth shed by common sense... let alone the light from Scripture regarding the same. You deign yourself on equal footing with someone who has spent years devoted to the study of Scripture. Why, exactly, are pastors subjected to the rigors of post-secondary education prior to ordainment, if an eighth-grade reading level is all it takes to plumb the depths?

In your chosen profession, how far in the judicial system do you think one could get armed with the same reading ability and a copy of Black's?

That's simply changing the standard meaning of a word to fit your argument.
The meaning of the word is not changed. Upon what abstract thought is our definition of fair based, if not the character of God?

Does he need to be reminded about what happened to each person on this Non-Judgment Day?
Silliness gets you nowhere. It has already been stated that the purpose of the event is for the eternal record. Therefore, the record is for anyone who has access to the same: namely, man and angels.

Why you bother to post in a Forum is a mystery if in the end you simply refuse to discuss matters because you claim that Super Duper God as given you info that others aren't entitled to (sounds Gnostic to me).
Your protestations notwithstanding, there exists three forms of truth within the Bible. One is for everyone, believer and unbeliever alike. It tells us the guiding principles for open societies. Another is strictly for unbelievers and informs the same how to enter into a relationship with God. The last is for believers only and can only be metabolized by the same, giving us the means to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Any other understanding of the concepts found therein will be superficial at best. I don't make the rules, no1...

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Agreed, and rec'd.

If Freaky is truly making the claim (and it appears he is) that one cannot truly understand the words of Christ without first believing that his death provided our salvation then there really is no point for him to be here.

Freaky...why are you here?

... then there really is no point for him to be here.
My apologies for offending your delicate sensibilities. I was not aware that you set the rules for engagement, neither was I aware of said rules.

Freaky...why are you here?
Voice of reason?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]... then there really is no point for him to be here.
My apologies for offending your delicate sensibilities. I was not aware that you set the rules for engagement, neither was I aware of said rules.

Freaky...why are you here?
Voice of reason?[/b]

No apologies necessary as I'm not offended. I don't set the rules for engagement, but if we are interested in a meaningful engagement then there do exist some necessary conditions. Not the least of which is you should not expect anyone to agree with your position if said position is informed by a document you claim we cannot possibly understand.

Further, how can you expect to be the voice of reason if, by your own admission, your reason in contrary to what the rest of us are capable of understanding as not theists?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
First of all, I must reiterate that nobody is claiming that works done in obedience to the gospel of Christ aren't of the greatest significance. Such works are evidences of a genuine, saving faith in Jesus Christ. And without such works it is evident that a genuine, saving faith in Jesus Christ may be absent.

Matthew Henry's Commentary says of Matth ers (albeit, faithfully obedient believers).

That's a nonsensical reading based on your preconceived notions. Christ specifically describes how the sheep differ from the goats i.e. one group has done the acts enumerated (or their equivalent) and the other hasn't.

Rather than read Matthew Henry, you should just read Matthew. You should also read Christ's description of Judgment Day in light of the two preceding parables particulary the servant who buries the talent in the ground and does not increase the value of what has been given him by his master. What does Matthew Henry tell you to think about that one? More importantly, what do you suppose the "talent" stands for (please read the entire chapter in context without polluting it with your preexisting dogma)?

Christ constantly and consistently stresses the need for good works in the Synoptic Gospels. According to your belief system, he's wasting his time; he should just be telling everybody to "believeth" in him and then they'll automatically start doing good works. Your theology makes a mockery of the first three Gospels rendering them almost superfluous. It's no wonder you almost never quote them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]1. Your insistence to the contrary just brands you the arrogant fanatic that you are obviously are.
No, my insistence to the contrary is based upon the authority of truth. All subsequent branding is based upon your standards of reality.

... but pretending that you have secret knowledge that changes the meaning of his words just shows how del g of the concepts found therein will be superficial at best. I don't make the rules, no1...

[/b]Why, exactly, are pastors subjected to the rigors of post-secondary education prior to ordainment, if an eighth-grade reading level is all it takes to plumb the depths?

Yes, but that has never led to any clear common agreement among either priests and pastors of differing denominations, or among the brightest and most learned of exegetes and theologians.

Even among Christians on here, we have seen versions of the Expert Reading (ER) position, the Plain Reading (PR) position, and the (in)famous Secret Decoder Ring (SDR)—the latter being distinguished by the argument that only those who are informed by the Holy Spirit (and presumably know they are) can really understand the text, whether they are ERs or PRs.

Originally posted by no1marauder


Rather than read Matthew Henry, you should just read Matthew. You should also read Christ's description of Judgment Day in light of the two preceding parables particulary the servant who buries the talent in the ground and does not increase the value of what has been given him by his master. What does Matthew Henry tell you to think about th e Gospels rendering them almost superfluous. It's no wonder you almost never quote them.[/b]

That's a nonsensical reading based on your preconceived notions. Christ specifically describes how the sheep differ from the goats i.e. one group has done the acts enumerated (or their equivalent) and the other hasn't.

Of course, but as Christ already stated, those who do not believe in Him "are condemned already" (John 3:18). And if they are already condemned for their unbelief, then logically NONE of the sheep in this parable could be unbelievers.

Admit it, you are wrong.

But if you insist on using one single parable for your entire understanding of biblical Truth, then I see no reason to continue our discussion. You're obviously using ignorance as a tactic in order to achieve a sense of one-upmanship rather than anyone's edification.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b/]1. Your insistence to the contrary just brands you the arrogant fanatic that you are obviously are.
No, my insistence to the contrary is based upon the authority of truth. All subsequent branding is based upon your standards of reality.

... but pretending that you have secret knowledge that changes the meaning of his words just shows how del g of the concepts found therein will be superficial at best. I don't make the rules, no1...

Oddly enough, Jesus didn't just preach to those who had "spent years devoted to the study of Scripture"; in fact, he seems to have had a rather low regard for them. You are nothing but a present day Pharisee.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]That's a nonsensical reading based on your preconceived notions. Christ specifically describes how the sheep differ from the goats i.e. one group has done the acts enumerated (or their equivalent) and the other hasn't.

Of course, but as Christ already stated, those who do not believe in Him "are condemned already" (John 3:18). And if th ...[text shortened]... as a tactic in order to achieve a sense of one-upmanship rather than anyone's edification.[/b]

Relying on John to interpret Matthew is putting the cart before the horse; Matthew was written decades before John. If you want to interpret Matthew, you'll have to actually read it rather than relying on fundie crib notes.

Of course, Christ's description of Judgment Day A) Isn't a parable; and B) Would be considered kinda important to those really interested in Christ's message.

I don't care if you continue this "discussion" or not as all you are doing is parroting what others have told you. You steadfastly refuse to respond to most points anyway; I raised two issues in the last post that you ignored. For all our edification, perhaps you could discuss the servant with the talent PARABLE and why Jesus bothers to stress good works throughout the Synoptic Gospels (though it would help if you read them) if the doing of good works is automatic for believers. Thanks.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Relying on John to interpret Matthew is putting the cart before the horse; Matthew was written decades before John. If you want to interpret Matthew, you'll have to actually read it rather than relying on fundie crib notes.

Of course, Christ's description of Judgment Day A) Isn't a parable; and B) Would be considered kinda important to th uld help if you read them) if the doing of good works is automatic for believers. Thanks.

It is not putting the cart before the horse. Christ said the same thing in Mark, "...he that believeth not shall be damned" (16:16). If you want to get technical, Mark is not only one of the synoptic gospels, but predates even Matthew! If it is true that all unbelievers are damned, then the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46 can only be believers.

I'll discuss the parable of the talents as soon as you truly grapple with this problem in your theology.

EDIT: BTW, you're right, I was mistaken to refer to Matthew 25:31-46 as a parable.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is not putting the cart before the horse. Christ said the same thing in Mark, "...he that believeth not shall be damned" (16:16). If you want to get technical, Mark is not only one of the synoptic gospels, but predates even Matthew! If it is true that all unbelievers are damned, then the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46 can only be believers.

I' ...[text shortened]... ology.

EDIT: BTW, you're right, I was mistaken to refer to Matthew 25:31-46 as a parable.

Mark 16:16 is a thin reed to base your argument on:

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. Below are some excerpts from various scholarly sources that conclude that the verses are a later addition.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html


Besides it is possible that all the sheep are believers (though what Jesus means by believers seems to be quite different from your definition; obviously the thief on the cross makes no mention of believing that Jesus is dying for our sins or will be physically resurrected) but that doesn't mean that some believers i.e. those who fail to do the required good works aren't among the goats.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
No apologies necessary as I'm not offended. I don't set the rules for engagement, but if we are interested in a meaningful engagement then there do exist some necessary conditions. Not the least of which is you should not expect anyone to agree with your position if said position is informed by a document you claim we cannot possibly understand.

Fu ...[text shortened]... n, your reason in contrary to what the rest of us are capable of understanding as not theists?

Not the least of which is you should not expect anyone to agree with your position if said position is informed by a document you claim we cannot possibly understand.
I don't recall expressing an expectation for agreement.

Further, how can you expect to be the voice of reason if, by your own admission, your reason in contrary to what the rest of us are capable of understanding as not theists?
The standard to which I align myself informs my opinions. It is reasonable to live as such, as that is exactly what you do, as well. When I say that you (or anyone else) is off-base in relation to truth, it is only possible if I have a standard. That you are not aware of that standard does not make it any less reasonable for me to uphold the same.

Originally posted by vistesd
Why, exactly, are pastors subjected to the rigors of post-secondary education prior to ordainment, if an eighth-grade reading level is all it takes to plumb the depths?[/b]

Yes, but that has never led to any clear common agreement among either priests and pastors of differing denominations, or among the brightest and most learned of exegetes and theol ...[text shortened]... irit (and presumably know they are) can really understand the text, whether they are ERs or PRs.[/b]

The point had less to do with consensual agreement than with qualifications.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Oddly enough, Jesus didn't just preach to those who had "spent years devoted to the study of Scripture"; in fact, he seems to have had a rather low regard for them. You are nothing but a present day Pharisee.

Hilarious. In typical fashion, you throw out the baby with the bath water and declare the area clean. So Jesus despised the religious of His day owing to their intense study of Scripture? Or, instead, did he castigate them for failing to see Him in the same?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The point had less to do with consensual agreement than with qualifications.

But, Freaky—you stand neither in the hermeneutical stream of the Jewish Oral Torah (which tradition takes back to Sinai, but which historically gets lost in the mists of time some centuries before Jesus), nor in the tradition of the earliest post-apostolic Christians. Who is the qualified interpreter you found who finally “got it right”?