Right Behavior Inherits Eternal Life

Ringo, True. But you did not answer my question.Is your position then that some of the brothers of the Lord Jesus Christ are to depart into the eternal fire?I think a simple Yes or No would suffice. I think that your handy lexicon should indicate that the word "nations" there is the same word elsewhere translated "Gentiles". No one is excluded from a general brotherhood of human beings. But not all are included in the brothers who share the same divine life as Christ has. The latter brothers were born the second time into this brotherhood. The first natural birth did not constitute them members of this brotherhood.You are saying that the so-called "Brotherhood of Man" is the meaning of the Lord's brothers.Well, on one level, I don't deny that there is something to a concept that we are all brothers. But given the full teaching of the New Testament we cannot extend this kind of brotherhood based on creation to mean the divine brotherhood of Christ's brothers.For a few examples:"But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,

​

Who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God" (John 1:12,13)This brotherhood is of "children of God" is granted "to those who received Him." It does not include those who received Him and those who did not receive Him. So any "brotherhood of man" is distinct from the brotherhood of God's children who received Christ and those people who did not and will not receive Christ.And here to receive is to believe "into His name" which would mean to believe into His living Person.Now these children of God form a brotherhood. Their haveing been begotten is not based on natural birth - "Who were begotten not of blood"Neither is this begetting based on the will of the fallen and sinful man "the flesh" - "nor of the flesh."Neither is it based even on the good part of man which God created and which we all retain some portion of - "nor of man."This having been begotten into the divine family has its source in the imparting of the divine life of God - "but of God". God has caused them to be regenerated, born of God, born again, born from above, born of the Spirit.Fallen man was said to not only be apart from God. He was apart from "the life of God""Being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God ..." (Eph. 4:18)This alienation from "the life of God" is remedied by the new birth in which God imparts something of His Holy Spirit into the believer's being. The believer believes "into His name" and in the sphere and realm of that name, that living Person, he is reborn within with the life of God.God's life being now imparted into the believer's life, he is no longer alienated from the life of God. And he is one of the children of God. And therefore he is in a brotherhood of the children of God which is asside from a brotherhood based merely on creation. It is based on the new creation. If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation.Did Jesus teach that all men were His brothers?In one passage He said that those who did His will were His brothers:"... who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, Behold, My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in the heavens, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Matt. 48b-50)Even in this general passage, the brothers are the disciples - "stretching out His hand toward His disciples ..."No doubt, doing the will of the Father makes the disciples brothers. But there are those who do not want to be disciples of Jesus. Can they assume to be the brothers of Jesus?Perhaps the Universalist or the Secular Humanist will answer "Yes indeed. We don't receive Jesus as the Son of God or as the Lord and Savior. But we are loving, respectful, kind, etc... Surely, we are really doing the will of God and are therefore brothers of this Jesus, who incidently was just a religious teacher who is dead and gone."However, they are not because of there natural goodness, in the divine brotherhood of Christ's disciples. The basic work of the will of God is to believe into Christ:"They they said to Him, What shall we do that we may work the works of God?

​

Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe into Him whom He has sent"( John 6:28,29).This would be the same as being His disciples who compose His brothers. No, those who reject the Son of God are not the Lord's brothers because they are in the brotherhood of all men.In fact there were times in which Christ stressed that the opposers were children not of God but of the devil:"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father ..." (John 8:44). This is the Lord Jesus reference not to the brotherhood of sons of God but the brotherhood of sons of Satan the devil.Coming back to Matthew chapter 12 ... the disciples who do the will of His Father are the brothers. In the chapter following this we have the parable of the wheat and the tares - Matthew 13:24-30 which He Himself interprets in verses 36 through 43.The wheat and the tares apparently look the same up to a certian point. But the wheat was sown by the Son of Man and the tares was sown by "his enemy" (v.25). The wheat and the tares grow together in the world. And though the situation of them both growing is a cause of great confusion and perplexity to the Sower's servants, they are instructed to allow both to grow together until the harvest time.The wheat represents the sons of the kingddom. And the tares which closely resemble the wheat up to a certain point, represent "the sons of the evil one" (v.38). The wheat therefore represents one brotherhood and the tares represent another brotherhood. Any attempt to combine them into one magnanimus brotherhood of the sons of the kingdom with the sons of the evil one is pure folly.The destinies of the two groups of "sons" is different also.In verse 30 Christ gives the parabolic conclusion:"Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of the harvest I will sau to the reapers, Collect first the tares and bind them into bundles to burn them up, but the wheat gather into my barn" (v.30)And in verses 40 through 43 He gives the interpretation of the two different destinies of the "sons of the kingdom" and "the sons of the evil one" sown by His enemy."Therefore just as the tares are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the consummation of the age. The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the stinblingblocks and those who practice lawlessness, And will cast them into the furnace of fire ... Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Two types of sons means two types of brotherhoods. The wheat and the tares do not share one brotherhood. Sons of the kingdom are related to the King of the kingdom in life. And sons of the evil one are related in nature to the enemy of the King of the kingdom.The enemy of the Lord Jesus the Sower, sowed tares in among the wheat in the world in order to cause confusion and to frustrate the wheat from growing. This corresponds to false Christian brothers sown by the enemy of Christ among genuine Christian brothers. Both grow together "in the world". And the Christian brothers are not to try to eliminate them from "the world". The job of separation will be carried out by the angels at the end of the church age.The professing "brothers" claiming to be in the Christian brotherhood will be collected and burned up. "Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father"Now, none of this that I have written has to do with the works of those Christian brothers after they have believed into His name to become His regenerated brothers. This is not a teaching saying that the works of Christians do not matter. That is another issue.This is a teaching proving that the so called Brotherhood of Man is not the brotherhood of the disciples who are the brothers of the Lord Jesus. Elite to me would mean something far above the standard.The saved human beings are not far above God's standard. They are right AT the standard in terms of the required response to His plan of salvation. If is normal that man should believe in God's salvation and in God's Christ.So being saved unto eternal life should not be regarded as ELITE. It should be regarded as a healthy normal response. Why should men and women NOT believe in God's love as manifested in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ?It seems that the proud and unbelieving are the ones who want to be elite. We all realize that we need God. So as He comes in the Son Jesus Christ, why should we be among the "elite" group of those who reject such love and redemption.So just WHO is it then who desires to be in the elite group? I would say it is those TOO PROUD to repent and believe the gospel.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 04:29 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 04:33 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 04:40 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 04:46 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 04:51 PM

Ringo, If you mean "Love thy minister" means love thy clergy, that is not what I meant at all. I think that your misunderstanding comes from a desire to make Matt. 25:31-46 the only passage in the entire New Testament.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 04:57 PM

You're evading a simple question. I wonder why.You apparently don't want to draw a logical conclusion from your interpretation of the passage.And, uh Ringo, this is not the first Bible Study I ever had, Okay? I think at this point, I would only want to ask you how seriously do you take the book of Revelation?I believe that Matthew has something to do with Revelation and Daniel has something to do with the other two books.Do you want to isolate Matthew 25:31-46 from all other prophetic passages? I think the "Bible Study" should consider other portions of the Bible and how they relate together. Along with the question of do you want to isolate the passage from all other prophecies, I would like to also ask this:Are only the direct quotations of Jesus meaningful to you? Do you feel that the surrounding comments of the gospel writers are error prone, faulty, full of mistakes, and generally messed up what Jesus taught?Is that the school of thought you're coming from? For example, what I quoted to you about "As many as received Him ..." in John's gospel. Does that comment of the Apostle John have no significance for you? Could you please show me the exact words by which you derive that the goats claimed to have received Him?Where in the passage do they give "lip service" to the plan of God? And where in the passage to they claimed to have received Him?You were stressing to me what is written? That God only knows the deepest thoughts and intentions of people's hearts, I would agree.But if you try to develop a teaching that the disciples are never to discern anything about the motives of people, I don't think you will get far.Jesus told the disciples to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. He told them that He was sending them forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.Neither of these sayings implies that the disciples of Jesus should be foolishly oblivious about the nature of people they move among. So to not have a judging attitude is one thing. To be foolishly blind as to the intentions and motives is another thing. The latter would not be being wise as serpents. And it would not be discerning when a wolf is about to chomp into you.In the epistles there are plenty of exhortation to be discerning and wise as to our own behavior and that of others.You seem to want to use "Judge not that you be not judged" as a means of destroying the boundary between those called out and those not called out. In other words there is no ekklesia. Or the whole world is the ekklesia.I have been a disciple of Jesus for many years. One can be not judgmental and yet not be foolishly blind to be led astray by teaching, example, or behavior.So your Bible Study could be called "No Justification By Faith."You're restrictive and selective, carefully choosing only those passages in Matthew which seem to refute justification by faith. "If I turn the other cheek, if I love my enemy, if I am perfect as My heavenly Father is perfect, if I don't look at a woman to lust after her in my heart, if I don't be a hypocrit, if I give the undergarment to the one who demands my cloak, if I walk three miles with the one who asks me to go one mile, if I leave my gift at the altar and reconcile to my brother, if I don't swear by Jerusalem or by God's throne or by one hair on my head, if I cut out my sinning eye, if I cut off my sinning hand, if I cut off my sinning foot, if I don't drop one tittle from the law, if I don't sound the trumpet when I give alms, if I don't pray out loud for a show, if I love my enemies, if I don't call my brother Moreh or knuckle head or you fool, if I do all these things in Matthew's gospel and if I cloth the naked, visit the imprisioned, and care for the sick who are my brothers in the brotherhood of man, if I do all these things that Jesus taught His disciples in Matthew, then .... I will have eternal life. Bible says so. Don't have to be concerned about faith. Don't have to listen to Romans, Galatians, John's gospel, Don't need Acts, or anything Peter preached, Don't need Luke. Everything right here in Matthew tells me I can be justified by being a good fella, which I have always been anyway. "I think I have the jest of your Bible Study. Been through it before.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 06:32 PM

jar, Are you a Preterist?

Purpledawn, Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back -I never said that actions will not be judged for those with faith. Not once did I say that.In fact I gave five instances just prior to Matthew 25:31-46 in which I said the judgment of believers in Christ is indicated. That includes judgment upon their works.I did say that there was more than one judgment. So the phrase "judgment day" needs the question "Which judgment?"Ringo316,As far as you being a gentlier kinder type? I can play hardball if you want.But for the record, whatever others wrote here, I never said that the works of those justified by faith either do not matter or are not judged. So your favorite strawman won't work as far as I'm concerned.There is one other thing I did say. I said that the judgment of the works of believers has nothing to do with their eternal redemption. It has to do with their reward or discipline during the 1,000 year millennial kingdom.If you at all took Revelation seriously you would see that six times in chapter 20, PRIOR to the eternal age of the new heaven and new earth, it says that the saints of Christ will reign with Him 1,000 years.In that intervening time BEFORE the eternal age spoken of in Revelation 21 and 22, the believers justified by faith are rewarded in varying degrees for how much Christ's life was able to be expressed from within them.1.) The church age2.) The Millennial age3.) The eternal ageOne error that you have is that you are applying a judgment of the living before the Millennial Age (#2) and interpreting it as the final judgment before the eternal age (#3).Where are the dead mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46? Do you assume that "all the nations" includes those resurrected from the dead too? Why? What ground do you have to prove that this judgment is the LAST judgment?No proof has been given that this is the last judgment. No proof has been given that the dead are inluded in this judgment. And in Revelation the LAST JUDGMENT is of the DEAD.Now, where would you like to be slapped?This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 08:59 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:00 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:02 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:02 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:04 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:05 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:19 PM

I see. It all took place already?Tell me when was Satan bound for 1,000 years so that he could not deceive the nations anymore (Rev.20:3)?

Ringo, If the subject matter is "What occurs in the way of judgment when Christ 'comes in His glory and all the angels with Him' " other prophecies of the same theme are relevant to the context.Thus the references to Daniel and Revelation.Nice hip shot. But a little off target.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:31 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:31 PM

Ringo, I see a patten developing.Whatever brings out a weakness in your interpretation is "another topic."Right!This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:37 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:37 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-08-2005 09:38 PM

Ringo, That's your style.Now notice - Rev.20:4 speaks about a "judgment ... given" to the resurrected saints of God. Says it was "the first resurrection" (v.6).Then Rev. 20:12 talks of another judgment, 1,000 years latter - "the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were completed" (v.5)That is two resurrections and two judgments. They are separated by 1,000 years.So when we say "day of judgment" or "judgment day" and you want to get specific you ask "Which judgment?"

Ringo, Why not in this topic?Are you saying that you wish I would just go away? I'm crushed.