Outer Darkness?

[aron]

So, exactly what did those scholars throughout the ages say about the outer darkness?

The podium is yours.Interesting how suddenly you don't want to discuss Lee's theology.

[aron]

Ignore it?

Oh , no. Lean into it.

This is as good a starting point as any really per my last post. What do learned men throughout the ages say about it?

Thanks
DrakeI don't know. Did Lee ignore this question, or did he mention it? Perhaps learned men are smart enough to avoid unfounded speculation, and if they project unproven hypothesis they label it as such, and not "recovered truth".

My own take is this - where the Bible is silent we should exercise caution. Usually reticence is the watchword. Otherwise you end up looking kinda dumb.

I don't have an answer on Moses, btw. Do you? No footnotes to offer?

[Sons to Glory!]

Here's something I quoted earlier that I now have a comment on. (I'm reading some of Hoyt's book on the subject of the Bema and also a book by Lutzer on the same. Both books published recently)

THREE VIEWS OF THE BEMA from Samuel L. Hoyt's "The Judgment Seat of Christ: A Biblical and Theological Study"

1. Some Bible teachers view the judgment seat as a place of intense sorrow, a place of terror, and a place where Christ display all the believer’s sins (or at least those unconfessed) before the entire resurrected and raptured church. Some go even further by stating that Christians must experience some sort of suffering for their sins at the time of this examination.

2. At the other end of the spectrum another group, which holds to the same eschatological chronology, views this event as an awards ceremony. Awards are handed out to every Christian. The result of this judgment will be that each Christian will be grateful for the reward which he receives, and he will have little or no shame.

3. Other Bible teachers espouse a mediating position. They maintain the seriousness of the examination and yet emphasize the commendation aspect of the judgment seat. They emphasize the importance and necessity of faithful living today but reject any thought of forensic punishment at the Bema. Emphasis is placed on the fact that each Christian must give an account of his life before the omniscient and holy Christ. All that was done through the energy of the flesh will be regarded as worthless for reward, while all that was done in the power of the Holy Spirit will be graciously rewarded. Those who hold this view believe that the Christian will stand glorified before Christ without his old sin nature. He will, likewise, be without guilt because he has been declared righteous. There will be no need for forensic punishment, for Christ has forever borne all of God’s wrath toward the believer’s sins.I would say that WL definitely tended to go with #1, with the last sentence being quite applicable in his teachings. Emphasis on fear. (WL might not have taught that sins were on display at the Bema though.)

What I see is more in line with #3, that is, rewards (gold, silver, stone) but also the realization of a loss of rewards (wood, hay, stubble) There will be much joy to go around, but also sorrow that individual believers weren't faithful in more things. I've also wondered if we will see clearly all the opportunities lost - lost opportunities to share Christ, therefore the kingdom work suffered . . . and also possibly the angst that others didn't come to Christ through us.

One author likens the scene to a commencement ceremony. There is great corporate joy for what has been accomplished, but also sorrow that more wasn't done. This author says the sorrow will be short-lived and no need for "forensic" (criminal investigation) judgement. However, tell that to the unfaithful servant who was cast into outer darkness! (but who knows how long that is for?! Perhaps just for the wedding feast? and how long is that . . . ?)

[Drake]

I don't know. Did Lee ignore this question, or did he mention it? Perhaps learned men are smart enough to avoid unfounded speculation, and if they project unproven hypothesis they label it as such, and not "recovered truth".

My own take is this - where the Bible is silent we should exercise caution. Usually reticence is the watchword. Otherwise you end up looking kinda dumb.

I don't have an answer on Moses, btw. Do you? No footnotes to offer?

That's ok, I'm sure we all are missing stuff....... what do the learned and educated men have to say about it?

Let's start there.

thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Here's something I quoted earlier that I now have a comment on. (I'm reading some of Hoyt's book on the subject of the Bema and also a book by Lutzer on the same. Both books published recently)

I would say that WL definitely tended to go with #1, with the last sentence being quite applicable in his teachings. Emphasis on fear. (WL might not have taught that sins were on display at the Bema though.)

What I see is more in line with #3, that is, rewards (gold, silver, stone) but also the realization of a loss of rewards (wood, hay, stubble) There will be much joy to go around, but also sorrow that individual believers weren't faithful in more things. I've also wondered if we will see clearly all the opportunities lost - lost opportunities to share Christ, therefore the kingdom work suffered . . . and also possibly the angst that others didn't come to Christ through us.. . ?)

Thanks StG,

The judgement seat of Christ is not to display and assess sins.... they are under the blood and as the first of four blessings of the new covenant God does not remember them anymore (Hebrews 8:12) .

Rather, the BEMA is to receive reward or punishment for works, deeds, and behavior after becoming a christian. For instance, lack of forgiveness, exacting payment from others and throwing others into prison though your payment was forgiven by the Lord, burying your talent and being an unprofitable servant.. etc. etc. All those are matters of determining an entrance into the manifestation of the kingdom... not salvation. That is what most christian theology misses... the kingdom and its manifestation and the requirements to enter... it is not a matter of fear.. it is a matter of attainment of the standards He has set to rule with Him. We have a clue to this when the thief on the cross repented and asked the Lord to remember him when He came into His kingdom. The Lord accurately and wisely said that on that very same day the repentant thief would be with him in Paradise (the pleasant part of Hades where Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham)... but He did not confirm the thief would join Him in His kingdom. The calls to the overcomers in Revelation 2 & 3 are also instructive in this matter. Not all will overcome but to those that do He will reward... including to shepherd the nations (Revelation 2:26-27) a clear reference to the time the Lord Jesus rules on the earth for 1000 years.

So, no, Brother Lee did not teach the BEMA was to rehash sins that the Lord has long forgotten and issue a reward or punishment based on those. If God were to do that He would be unrighteous.... and we know that He can never be unrighteous else the universe as we know it would collapse and we wouldn't be here chatting about it. ;)

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks StG,

The judgement seat of Christ is not to display and assess sins.... they are under the blood and as the first of four blessings of the new covenant God does not remember them anymore (Hebrews 8:12) .

Rather, the BEMA is to receive reward or punishment for works, deeds, and behavior after becoming a christian. For instance, lack of forgiveness, exacting payment from others and throwing others into prison though your payment was forgiven by the Lord, burying your talent and being an unprofitable servant.. etc. etc. All those are matters of determining an entrance into the manifestation of the kingdom... not salvation. That is what most christian theology misses... the kingdom and its manifestation and the requirements to enter... it is not a matter of fear.. it is a matter of attainment of the standards He has set to rule with Him. We have a clue to this when the thief on the cross repented and asked the Lord to remember him when He came into His kingdom. The Lord accurately and wisely said that on that very same day the repentant thief would be with him in Paradise (the pleasant part of Hades where Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham)... but He did not confirm the thief would join Him in His kingdom. The calls to the overcomers in Revelation 2 & 3 are also instructive in this matter. Not all will overcome but to those that do He will reward... including to shepherd the nations. (Revelation 2:26-27)

So, no, Brother Lee did not teach the BEMA was to rehash sins that the Lord has long forgotten and issue a reward or punishment based on those. If He were to do that He would be unrighteous.... and we know that He can never be unrighteous else the universe as we know it would collapse and we wouldn't be there chatting about it. ;)

DrakeOkay, sounds right. But I do think these days the reality of the Bema is coming out more and more in Christian writings (although I don't hear it spoken much). As said, the two books I mentioned were both published in the last few years. Others are also starting to share more about Bema accountability including Chuck Missler. It's about time and we all need it!

In our business, we get paid to help others be accountable to their own goals. While reaching the goal itself is certainly an incentive, of course not attaining it is a loss. Benefits to be enjoyed; losses to be avoided. Kind of like double motivation, eh?

I was talking to a brother about this yesterday and it occurred to me that in Matthew 25 we are shown two positive instances of faithful servants, and just one instance of what happened with the unfaithful servant. I don't think that was written happenstance (of course not!) - God wants us to be doubly encouraged as He is the God of all encouragement! But He also want's us to be fully aware of the consequences of not gaining the prize.

[Ohio]

Interesting how suddenly you don't want to discuss Lee's theology.
It's amazing how arrogant our beloved Drake becomes when the teachings of his favorite MOTA get challenged.

Drake, does it not trouble you upon learning of all the unrighteousness at LSM? Why would all the Apostles, knowing that they were teaching and writing of the New Covenant centered on the life, person, work, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, carefully guard their hearts and their living from unrighteousness? They were "apostles" after all, why should they even care if they fleeced the saints, covered up sins, smeared other ministers, hired family who molested the sisters, etc?

Paul even boasted of a conscience void of all offense, while Witness Lee just boasted in offenses.

[aron]

That's ok, I'm sure we all are missing stuff...Really? Then why 'one publication' edict?

It seems you don't like my line of questioning & so pretend not to 'get it' - rather you do get it & would prefer to change the subject post-haste.

I'm surprised you didn't try the "just pray about it" dodge, which LSM operatives usually fall back on when you begin to critically examine the contents of their theology. You know, the "you just need the vision" &c.

[Drake]

Okay, sounds right. But I do think these days the reality of the Bema is coming out more and more in Christian writings (although I don't hear it spoken much). As said, the two books I mentioned were both published in the last few years. Others are also starting to share more about Bema accountability including Chuck Missler. It's about time and we all need it!

In our business, we get paid to help others be accountable to their own goals. While reaching the goal itself is certainly an incentive, of course not attaining it is a loss. Benefits to be enjoyed; losses to be avoided. Kind of like double motivation, eh?

I was talking to a brother about this yesterday and it occurred to me that in Matthew 25 we are shown two positive instances of faithful servants, and just one instance of what happened with the unfaithful servant. I don't think that was written happenstance (of course not!) - God wants us to be doubly encouraged as He is the God of all encouragement! But He also want's us to be fully aware of the consequences of not gaining the prize.

Spot on.

The parable of the virgins in Matthew 25 is another good illustration of this.... all were virgins... some made it into the wedding feast... and some didn't.

Drake

[Ohio]

For instance, lack of forgiveness, exacting payment from others and throwing others into prison though your payment was forgiven by the Lord, burying your talent and being an unprofitable servant.. etc. etc. All those are matters of determining an entrance into the manifestation of the kingdom... not salvation. That is what most christian theology misses... the kingdom and its manifestation and the requirements to enter... it is not a matter of fear..
Sorry, this is not true at all. I'll give one instance to confirm.

Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians that they are members one of another, "many members but one body." He reproves them for how they have treated one another. His entire epistle expounds on this. Christians today also treasure the Lord's prayer, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." This theology is ingrained by ministers into the entire body of Christ. It is quite evident every where I visit.

Witness Lee altered this message deceptively as his power grew. Instead he taught "many churches but one body" referring to his ministry. Rather than loving, forgiving, and serving the brothers and sisters besides us, Lee twisted the emphasis to how was your relationship with the ministry. Thus brothers fought with brothers during the New Way over who was more "one with the ministry." Those workers who were not absolutely loyal to Lee, even to the point of ship-wrecking their own consciences, were discarded, quarantined, and slandered by Lee and his cadre of minions.

So don't tell me about forgiveness, loving the brothers, and treating them according to God. That's why I left your little club.

[Drake]

Really? Then why 'one publication' edict?

It seems you don't like my line of questioning & so pretend not to 'get it' - rather you do get it & would prefer to change the subject post-haste.

I'm surprised you didn't try the "just pray about it" dodge, which LSM operatives usually fall back on when you begin to critically examine the contents of their theology. You know, the "you just need the vision" &c.

Sorry aron....

I didn't answer your question about Moses because I don't think it is relevant... though I like the thought-provoking angle to your question.... but if you present the point of view of learned and educated men on this topic I will pay attention to what they have to say. Maybe they are silent or maybe the light will shine.. and since I would be just repeating the point of view of an uneducated China-man then I'm certain it is of little or no worth to you anyway.

So, please.. enlighten us about Moses not entering the Good Land but showing up on Mount Hermon with Jesus... what do they say about that?

Drake

[aron]

The topic was on outer darkness. The question was asked, Where in the Bible does it show defeated believers going into punishment for 1,000 years? The LSM answer was, The whole Bible shows this.

So we began to use the whole Bible. Revelations doesn't say anything about the 1,000 years in outer darkness. Nor did the epistles. Nor did the gospels. Instead, we heard, it was a pastiche, put together by an amateur theologian.

Okay, so let's critically examine it. . . but instead of answers, we got, Who have you got who's done better?

But who has to speculate 'better'?

[Drake]

The topic was on outer darkness. The question was asked, Where in the Bible does it show defeated believers going into punishment for 1,000 years? The LSM answer was, The whole Bible shows this.

So we began to use the whole Bible. Revelations doesn't say anything about the 1,000 years in outer darkness. '

Aron,

There are several erroneous statements in your post. First, to my knowledge you were challenged by Drake and Evangelical ... not LSM.

Secondly, I never said “the whole Bible shows this”... I said the topic of outer darkness and the judgement, and the millennial reign of Christ is covered mainly in the parables related to the kingdom in Matthew a book that is kingdom centered, some of the relevant verses in the epistles concerning judgement of the believers and the book of Revelation. I said this to open the aperture of what a Brother Lee taught in its entirety vs, your selective and narrow scope of using only some verses in Revelation.

Which brings us to the third erroneous statement.....that “we began to use the whole Bible” which you did not and you insisted that since the book of Revelation is the only place that mentions “1000 years” then I must explain what Brother Lee taught only from that book and only using footnotes. A ridiculous notion in almost every way like the nice Muslim who insisted I must prove that Jesus is God only using the red letters.

Fourth, it is the book of Revelation, not “Revelations”. Singular, in that the entire book is the revelation of the Person Jesus Christ. You probably knew that so don’t let your spell check get the best of you there as it often does me.

But, let’s move on to what your scholars have to say about it.. that will be most interesting.

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

Furthermore, this thread is about the outer darkness...and to StGs question about the duration of the punishment he has received two explanations... one from me on coming out after the “last farthing” has been paid and Evangelicals on the severity... number of lashes. Both of those explanations are based on the same assumption that *(1) there is an outer darkness, (2) it happens during the 1000 millennial reign of Christ, (3) it is a place of punishment to the believers who do not overcome, (4) the Lord will make the judgement, and (5) it will last no longer than the end of the 1000 millennial reign of Christ.

If not during the millennial reign of Christ, then when does the outer darkness occur? Do share.

Drake

(*numbers added by ALB)

Drake,

That's quite a number of assumptions. Can you share with us how did your validate each of them, please?

Well, may be except (1) which was explicitly mentioned in Matthew and (4) which I believe we all agree.

[Evangelical]

I think your have misread the bible again because of your own preconception. Please check 1 Cor 3:13. The fire is a test, not punishment.

You've missed the point too busy trying to sound smart.

Yes the fire is a test, but it then describes what happens to those who fail the test.

They "suffer loss" - that's a kind of punishment.

They are still saved - so the punishment is temporary.

[Drake]

Drake,

That's quite a number of assumptions. Can you share with us how did your validate each of them, please?

Well, may be except (1) which was explicitly mentioned in Matthew and (4) which I believe we all agree.

Hi alb,

I have provided my view on those points. Have a look at what I already stated, provide your point of view, and if there is something to discuss we can pick it up from there.

Thanks
Drake

[Evangelical]

A "correlation" and an "inference". Objectively speaking, an interpretation. Not 'truth'. Certainly not scripture. Every interpretation should be tested, if it is of the imagination (colored by ignorance, bias, and self- interest) or if it were truly of God and worthy of guiding the assembly.

To be fair, Drake said it was a construction of the human mind. To repeat, I believe this mind was not led by the Holy Spirit, but was rather at a point in religious history, and was struggling thru a Protestant dilemma (OSAS &c). Not the first to do so.

There is a reason James said, "Do not be many teachers". The hermeneutical world of LSM is case in point. (Ja 3:1) It reminds me nothing so much as the story of the old lady who swallowed the fly. But of course, that is inference. A correlation perceived by my human mind.

Hope that helps.

Interpretation would have been a better choice of word than imagination.

The thought of unicorns and rainbows while reading a parable is an imagination. Comparing two or more parables and then drawing a conclusion is correlation.

[A little brother]

You've missed the point too busy trying to sound smart.

Yes the fire is a test, but it then describes what happens to those who fail the test.

They "suffer loss" - that's a kind of punishment.

They are still saved - so the punishment is temporary.

What is the loss?

[Trapped]

Trapped,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Perhaps in seeking an explanation for tragic events one gravitates towards those that include purpose because the purely random or incidental seems otherwise senseless. I don’t know, but maybe we as humans want assurance that a similar random event of fate won’t also befall us so a reason or a cause is needed. The scripture that comes to mind is the man blind from his birth.. the people thought that maybe he or his parents sinned... but the Lord said it was so the works of God might be manifest.

My point is this, the Lord may act severely toward those who oppose His interests as with Pharoah, Herod, and yet sometimes He chastises His own harshly, or as StG prefers, firmly. Those that died in the wilderness probably consider it a 10 on the harsh scale. Moses was excluded from entering the good land after all that transpired because of one incident.... where he misrepresented God before the people. However, I do not believe that God is walking around with a stick to whack us.... rather, He wants us to enter the kingdom richly and has made all provision for us to do so. Yet, servants then are cast into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. That is a future matter, yet in this life God sends rain to the just and the unjust. I believe your testimony and the affect it had on you..... but it is not a teaching in the genre of warnings as is the teaching on outer darkness which is a warning for that future judgement day. Your experience, and that of others like it seems to issue primarily from the category of the man who was blind from birth. God may intervene as He pleases and we have to allow for that... but it is not a teaching used to subjugate and control the members of His Body. His ruling us is primarily by feeding us.

Drake


Drake,

Thanks for your response.

The first thing to note is that, for my part, my post was really intended to exist within the confines of the fear-based "don't leave the LC or else" side topic that popped up, rather than within the larger topic of Outer Darkness in this thread. So your note that "it is not a teaching in the genre of warnings as is the teaching on outer darkness which is a warning for that future judgement day" is true, and I never meant to represent it as such. My bad if it came across that way.

As a fellow human I certainly understand your point about wanting assurance that the fate that befalls someone else won't also befall us. I do this myself constantly when I hear the news....if someone gets murdered, I comfort myself with the fact that it was done on the street at 2am, which is somewhere I will never be. If someone dies in a house fire, I reassure myself that that won't happen to me because they didn't have a fire extinguisher and I do, etc, etc. I assume many people do this, possibly often without thinking, as a coping mechanism to get through each day when there are so many terrible things going on around us. That's fine, but most of us are also not on the podium representing themselves as God's speaking on this earth and the only ones who have the high truths. When ones in that position ascribe to God's punishment events in people's lives that have nothing to do with God's punishment, an unhealthy and warped view of God and what He wants will inevitably result.

I'm struggling a little with the connection you made with your comment about a man being blind from his birth so that the works of God may be made manifest. To me that describes suffering that befalls a human, explicitly stated not as the consequence of an act of sin, that the Lord uses to glorify Himself, with the result (at least in John 9:1-12 that you alluded to) being positive for that person in their human life and a glory to God. On the other hand, the situations I mentioned were passed off as suffering/death as a direct consequence of an act of "sin" (leaving the LC) that was represented as the Lord's punishment upon that person. These are two very different things, but I may be missing something you intended to convey.

God's teaching is not used to control and subjugate members of the Body, as you said. Agreed! But the teaching of men within the LC was. And it was very effective and very damaging.

Trapped

[Evangelical]

What is the loss?

Loss of the works

[Drake]

I'm struggling a little with the connection you made with your comment about a man being blind from his birth so that the works of God may be made manifest. To me that describes suffering that befalls a human, explicitly stated not as the consequence of an act of sin, that the Lord uses to glorify Himself, with the result (at least in John 9:1-12 that you alluded to) being positive for that person in their human life and a glory to God. On the other hand, the situations I mentioned were passed off as suffering/death as a direct consequence of an act of "sin" (leaving the LC) that was represented as the Lord's punishment upon that person. These are two very different things, but I may be missing something you intended to convey

I’ll clarify Trapped..... Concerning the man blind from birth and the brother who leaves the Lord’s Recovery and meets with some tragedy ..... my view was that as the man was not born blind because of sin, in like manner the brothers death was not a result of the sin of leaving the Lord’s Recovery... because I don’t believe it is a sin to leave the Lord’s Recovery and I never heard anyone teach it that way either.

Of course you rightly point out that the condition of the man born blind was to glorify God .. i was not trying to convey anything on that aspect regarding the tragedy that befalls a brother.

Drake

[A little brother]

Loss of the works

Weren't the works already lost in the burn test?

[Evangelical]

Weren't the works already lost in the burn test?

That's right, and the man himself was saved.

[A little brother]

That's right, and the man himself was saved.
So in your opinion, how long does this burn test last? Is this the 1,000 years of outer darkness?

[Evangelical]

So in your opinion, how long does this burn test last? Is this the 1,000 years of outer darkness?

No, they are different tests, but it shows that punishment for believers is not eternal. If outer darkness is eternal, then we cannot believe in eternal security.

[A little brother]

No, they are different tests, but it shows that punishment for believers is not eternal. If outer darkness is eternal, then we cannot believe in eternal security.

How do we know the ones cast out to outer darkness are believers? Just because of the term "servant"?

[aron]

Hebrews 3 and 1 Corinthians 10 show us a journey with a finish line. A coming promised rest. We should press on until the journey is over. This notion seems widespread in Christian faith, not confined to the LSM (tho I appreciate their emphasis).

But I find a "thousand year finishing school" to be unsatisfactory because Moses "didn't make it" yet he is with Christ on the Mountain in glory, in the gospels. Maybe you give him a pass but I don't; he's the same as the rest of us.

My personal theology is "we see Jesus" a la Hebrews 2:8. He is the overcomer. Getting lost in subjective introspection is a house of mirrors.

The thief on the cross was promised to be with Jesus in Paradise. He never even got baptized! How could he get "mature"? And the story of Lazarus and the rich man is relevant. You think the first-century audience would discount it because "it's not a parable"?

And how pleasant is the "pleasant section of Hades" when you have a thousand years of torment waiting?

No, I suspect that one immediately deals with the consequences of one's actions. I know life is like that - why should the afterlife be different? The criminal immediately deals with the consequence of the crime - there is flight, hiding, lies and so forth.

Jesus made it across the finish line. Keep your eyes on Him. Never look away.

[aron]

Interpretation would have been a better choice of word than imagination.

The thought of unicorns and rainbows while reading a parable is an imagination. Comparing two or more parables and then drawing a conclusion is correlation.

I drew on the wider conversation to use the word "imagination". Psalm 18 says, " He [the Father] rescued me [the Christ] because He [the Father] delighted in me [the Christ]." We have ample correlation in the NT that the Father delighted in the Son.

Yet Lee told us that this was the natural and fallen concept of the sinner David.

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews said, "We see Jesus" after extensive citation of the psalms. (2:8) Yet Lee taught his disciples to ignore the word of scripture.

Drake said that Moses' case doesn't interest him. Probably because it doesn't help his position. He's more interested in his position than the bible.

My point here has been that the "thousand years in finishing school" concept is an anachronism, designed to address the arguments of history (Calvinism/Arminianism). In some sense, it is preferable. And it helped Nee. But in another sense, that is like saying third grade is preferable to first grade - yeah, but so what? It doesn't help me. There is no indication that anyone in the 1st century used these interpretations. They come from the minds (imaginations) of Nee and Lee. The fact that Drake ignored Moses, and Lazarus and the rich man, shows what it takes to maintain this teaching. He's holding onto the spiritual equivalent of unicorns and rainbows.

[aron]

It seems you don't like my line of questioning & so pretend not to 'get it' - rather you do get it & would prefer to change the subject post-haste.

I'm surprised you didn't try the "just pray about it" dodge, which LSM operatives usually fall back on when you begin to critically examine the contents of their theology; the "you just need the vision" &c.

Oh, and don't forget the "how dare you slander God's chosen vessel" schtick. Anything to avoid addressing the substance of the issue at hand.

Suppose you go to a conference of the LSM. After the message, everyone stands and testifies of their "enjoyment" of the "rich ministry". But suppose someone actually has an issue, and raises it? There might be some attempt to paper over the perceived discrepancy. But ultimately there is the fallback to subjectivism: "get out of your mind, brother" or some such. The questioner is accused of being "dark" &c.

Witness Lee was the spiritual equivalent of PT Barnum. There were enough suckers out there that he and his progeny could make a living. But his theology in toto has little value, of itself. At best, it's a small part of the larger conversation. Yes, there are consequences for our actions. But Jesus is the consequence of God's saving love. Today he calls us - hear his voice. The consequences of his actions are eternal life to all who believe. This saving call should consume our attentions - not the imaginariums of spiritual hucksters.

[Drake]

Drake said that Moses' case doesn't interest him. Probably because it doesn't help his position. He's more interested in his position than the bible........The fact that Drake ignored Moses, and Lazarus and the rich man, shows what it takes to maintain this teaching. He's holding onto the spiritual equivalent of unicorns and rainbows.

First, I did not ignore the discussion about Lazarus, rather, I explained it and provided clarity to your erroneous statement that it was a parable.

Aron, why do you keep doing mischaracterizing what I say? It’s a waste of your, mine, and everyone’s time. I mean it’s not like it’s something I said last week, last month, or last year that is easily forgotten..... you keep mischaracterizing my posts that are still hot off the press..... anyone can read it for themselves and see you are making stuff up. In the future, if you are going to do a “Drake said...” I ask you to provide the exact quote along with it so everyone can see what you are talking about.

If you are so imprecise with my simple posts how are you ever going to explain a more complex analysis from learned and educated men, using the original languages, showing different types and applications of theology, bringing in the views of scholars throughout history?

By the way, when does that start? Are you up for the task?

Which brings us to Moses. I did not ignore Moses as you claim above, I said I did not see the relevance of Moses in the context of a discussion on outer darkness and then I encouraged you to start your compelling presentation with him if you prefer. Afterall, you introduced him so please show us how he fits into the outer darkness schematic.

Thanks
Drake

[aron]

Actually I too quickly dismissed the "ask the experts" question, seeing it as a dodge to get off the subject of the glaring lacks in the LSM hermeneutical programmme.

But while we're on the subject, there's a useful field of scholarship expanding knowledge of the conversation occurring around the time that Jesus and his disciples lived, taught, and wrote. It is called, roughly "Second Temple Studies". What did an apostle mean when he wrote something? What did shared meanings did a parable convey? What imagery was suggested by a turn of phrase?

We don't know much of what Jesus himself believed, other than that he was the Messiah, a rabbi (teacher), the King of Israel, Savior of the World, and Son of God. He repeatedly taught that he would suffer, be rejected, killed by men, and rise on the third day to glory. Beyond that, we should be cautious. . . the details of "outer darkness" or some other phrase are usually obscure.

These experts, though they understand Hebrew, and Greek, don't presume to know the meaning of every single phrase. They're usually humble in their assessments. "This could mean" such-and-such, not "this is the recovered truth". A little humility and reticence seem in order, and goes a long way. And they allow differences of interpretation to exist, and mutual uncertainty, instead of resorting to calling each other "dark" and "ambitious" and "divisive". It's rather refreshing, really. . . quite, um, Christian, even.

Devorah Dimant
John J. Collins
Annette Yoshiko Reed
James C. VanderKam
Peter W. Flint
Esther Chazon
Carol A. Newsom
Josef T Milik
John M. Allegro
Lawrence H. Schiffman
Gabriel Boccaccini
Yisrael Yadin
James H. Charlesworth
Emile Puech
Emanuel Tov

This is a good list to start. There are a lot more. Happy trails. See you at the finish line, whenever that may be.

(And don't go beyond what is written).

[awareness]

First, I did not ignore the discussion about Lazarus, rather, I explained it and provided clarity to your erroneous statement that it was a parable.

Aron, why do you keep doing mischaracterizing what I say? It’s a waste of your, mine, and everyone’s time. I mean it’s not like it’s something I said last week, last month, or last year that is easily forgotten..... you keep mischaracterizing my posts that are still hot off the press..... anyone can read it for themselves and see you are making stuff up. In the future, if you are going to do a “Drake said...” I ask you to provide the exact quote along with it so everyone can see what you are talking about.

If you are so imprecise with my simple posts how are you ever going to explain a more complex analysis from learned and educated men, using the original languages, showing different types and applications of theology, bringing in the views of scholars throughout history?

By the way, when does that start? Are you up for the task?

Which brings us to Moses. I did not ignore Moses as you claim above, I said I did not see the relevance of Moses in the context of a discussion on outer darkness and then I encouraged you to start your compelling presentation with him if you prefer. Afterall, you introduced him so please show us how he fits into the outer darkness schematic.

Thanks
Drake
I liked "imaginariums of spiritual hucksters."

Thanks
Harold

[Ohio]

I liked "imaginariums of spiritual hucksters."

Thanks
Harold
But aron said that, not Drake.

[awareness]

But aron said that, not Drake.
I know. I'm not sure bro Drake could recognized a spiritual huckster.;)

[Sons to Glory!]

How do we know the ones cast out to outer darkness are believers? Just because of the term "servant"?I don't know that anyone answered this, did they?

If you are asking regarding the three servants Jesus spoke of in Matthew 25, then yes, these are those who all knew the Lord. In verse 14 it says that the master called his own to him and they were all given talents. They were all aware that their master has gone away and would return. Two are faithful and show a profit to return to their master, and they are thereby praised and rewarded. The third servant had a skewed view of his master, feared him and was unfaithful. He received a rebuke, his portion was taken away, and he was cast into outer darkness.

How long was the unfaithful servant in outer darkness? It doesn't say.

[A little brother]

I am not sure whether I went too far. Like in the Old Testament, Nebuchadnezzar is called the Lord's servant. But he is not one of God's chosen people. So does a servant imply believer even though the Lord uses him?

Another example is Matt 24:45-51, the punishment of the evil slave was:
And will cut him asunder and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

The hypocrites don't sound like believers to me and the evil slave was treated the same.

Also in Luke 12:46,
The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him asunder, and will appoint his portion with the unbelievers.

[Sons to Glory!]

Yes, those are all difficult passages, and thanks for posting them all in one place!

As for that last one, I think it's pretty easy to see it was a believer: He was a slave of the master; there is an element of expectation for his master's return; and his portion is appointed with the unbelievers. Saying that his portion was appointed with unbelievers is a contrast to something, namely he (the slave) IS a believer.

There are those who accept the Lord and go off and do wicked things, and never repent and come back. These would be evil ones. It would be hard to reward these ones anything at all! And would they be hypocrites? I think so,, in that they have received the new life and nature, but are not living in any way according to it.

So there appears to be something the Lord does to these ones that is much more severe than what we think would be appropriate for a believer . . . but He is the righteous judge.

[A little brother]

If the contrast in Luke means the slave is a believer, then the concern would be the believer is treated the same as unbeliever. Could it possibly not just be severity but duration as well?

[Ohio]

I am not sure whether I went too far. Like in the Old Testament, Nebuchadnezzar is called the Lord's servant. But he is not one of God's chosen people. So does a servant imply believer even though the Lord uses him?

Have you ever read what incredibly wondrous things Jehovah says about the heathen Cyrus, King of Persia, thru Isaiah in Chapter 45 -- more than a century before it happened?
1.Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed.
2. “I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze [gates of Babylon] and cut through the bars of iron,
3. I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel, who call you by your name.
4. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.
5. I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
6. That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7. I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things.
8. “Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain down righteousness; let the earth open, that salvation and righteousness may bear fruit; let the earth cause them both to sprout; I the Lord have created it.
9. “Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’?
10. Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’ or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’ ”
11. Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him: “Ask me of things to come; will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands?
12. I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.
13. I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,” says the Lord of hosts.

[Sons to Glory!]

If the contrast in Luke means the slave is a believer, then the concern would be the believer is treated the same as unbeliever. Could it possibly not just be severity but duration as well?I think there are far too many places that show that if a person is rebirthed with the new life (they at one point accepted that Christ died for them and Christ's life gets into them), therefore they are in fact God's children, then they won't suffer eternal punishment. They may be really BAD children, but nonetheless His family.

And that's also a good post by Ohio regarding Cyrus, king of Persia - He will have mercy on and chooses whom He pleases!

[A little brother]

Then the question is who is truly rebirthed. I still can't imagine how a regenerated believer truly with God's life in him still act like an unbeliever in the world. I have to take the position that there are only true believers and unbelievers. True (faithful) believers get the reward and unbelievers get the punishment in the end.

There are so many warnings from the apostles to "believers" in the NT. I don't think it is just about missing rewards, it is something much more severe.

I am not saying salvation can be lost, it is more about whether we are truly saved in the first place.

2 Peter 2:20 For if, having escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but having again been entangled in these, they are defeated, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

[A little brother]

Have you ever read what incredibly wondrous things Jehovah says about the heathen Cyrus, King of Persia, thru Isaiah in Chapter 45 -- more than a century before it happened?

Yes I have. When I know God can use someone so unexpected (well, may be not so unexpected given it was foretold a century before), it hurts my heart to see people who should be children of God but acting otherwise.

[Drake]

I think there are far too many places that show that if a person is rebirthed with the new life (they at one point accepted that Christ died for them and Christ's life gets into them), therefore they are in fact God's children, then they won't suffer eternal punishment. They may be really BAD children, but nonetheless His family.

Right, you may be naughty but you can't be unborn!

[Sons to Glory!]

Then the question is who is truly rebirthed. I still can't imagine how a regenerated believer truly with God's life in him still act like an unbeliever in the world. I have to take the position that there are only true believers and unbelievers. True (faithful) believers get the reward and unbelievers get the punishment in the end.

There are so many warnings from the apostles to "believers" in the NT. I don't think it is just about missing rewards, it is something much more severe.

I am not saying salvation can be lost, it is more about whether we are truly saved in the first place.

2 Peter 2:20 For if, having escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but having again been entangled in these, they are defeated, the last state has become worse for them than the first.This verse in 2nd Peter . . . I think if someone is a defeated Christian, then their state actually is worse in this life (than they were before being saved). They have tasted what is true and have rejected it. Therefore nothing remains for them. I actually think I've experienced some of that (haven't we all to some degree?) - the flesh is godless. It doesn't believe in God or any of the things of God. We carry this flesh with us. It's dark. It can sink itself into one heck of a funk, complaining, feeling sorry, woe is me, confusion, etc. We all carry this in our flesh (no good thing dwells there). So if someone went back to living 100% in their flesh, there is no hope . . . no nothing! Might as well just pull the trigger ("Bullet in the brainpan: Squish!" for those Firefly fans) and put it out of its misery. ("The mind of the flesh is death" Romans 8)

However, I don't believe this equates to an eternal loss of salvation. This child (hard to call a "believer") will suffer an incredible loss. So much so that it is hard to imagine the grief, pain and deepest regret - yes, much weeping and gnashing of teeth for all they carelessly threw away and counted as nothing. How long this suffering will last? Don't know, but it's not pretty.

[Ohio]

Then the question is who is truly rebirthed. I still can't imagine how a regenerated believer truly with God's life in him still act like an unbeliever in the world. I have to take the position that there are only true believers and unbelievers. True (faithful) believers get the reward and unbelievers get the punishment in the end.

Little Brother, many children of God have acted worse than the unbelievers. Look at what Paul writes about Christians in God's great house (2.20) in II Timothy 3.

I have met some who confessed to being genuinely saved and baptized as children, yet as adults were as prodigals (Luke 15) who cared nothing for God.

There are also some who harbor bitter hatred towards God because of past pains and disappointments.

The lives of God's children are as diverse as His entire creation.

[Ohio]

This verse in 2nd Peter . . . I think if someone is a defeated Christian, then their state actually is worse in this life (than they were before being saved). They have tasted what is true and have rejected it. Therefore nothing remains for them. I actually think I've experienced some of that - the flesh is godless. It doesn't believe in God or any of the things of God. We carry this flesh with us. It's dark. It can sink itself into one heck of a funk, complaining, feeling sorry, woe is me, confusion, etc. We all carry this in our flesh (no good thing dwells there). So if someone went back to living 100% in their flesh, there is no hope . . . no nothing! Might as well just pull the trigger ("Bullet in the brainpan: Squish!" for those Firefly fans) and put it out of its misery. ("The mind of the flesh is death" Romans 8)

However, I don't believe this equates to an eternal loss of salvation. This child (hard to call a "believer") will suffer an incredible loss. So much so that it is hard to imagine the grief, pain and deepest regret - yes, much weeping and gnashing of teeth for all they carelessly threw away as nothing. How long this suffering will last? Don't know, but it's not pretty.
Good points.

[A little brother]

Little Brother, many children of God have acted worse than the unbelievers. Look at what Paul writes about Christians in God's great house (2.20) in II Timothy 3.

I have met some who confessed to being genuinely saved and baptized as children, yet as adults were as prodigals (Luke 15) who cared nothing for God.

There are also some who harbor bitter hatred towards God because of past pains and disappointments.

The lives of God's children are as diverse as His entire creation.

That why I am not sure what is "genuinely saved" and who are really children of God. I certainly hope myself to be. But somehow I guess I can never be 100% sure until that day. :D

I can only trust God that He knows who to choose.

[Sons to Glory!]

That why I am not sure what is "genuinely saved" and who are really children of God. I certainly hope myself to be. But somehow I guess I can never be 100% sure until that day. :D

I can only trust God that He knows who to choose.It's a faith thing (not by sight). Have you called on Him and accepted Him? Have you had His speaking within at any time? Have you experienced any joy related to His promises or in prayer or in fellowship? If you've answered any in the affirmative, then His life is in you.

And if so, then take it by faith regardless of feelings, because His word says you are saved and in God's family!

[Sons to Glory!]

Hey - for anyone interested, I just posted a draft paper I wrote entitled, "Faithful in a Few Things" in another thread here:

Faithful in a Few Things (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=78621#post78621)

It was four Word doc pages, so sorry, it's a little long. It regards many of the things around this current discussion. Please let me know what you think, in light of our discussion here.

[awareness]

That why I am not sure what is "genuinely saved" and who are really children of God. I certainly hope myself to be. But somehow I guess I can never be 100% sure until that day. :D

I can only trust God that He knows who to choose.
Yes bro Little brother, all this talk about outer darkness, Hades, and the lake of fire gives me the heebie-jeebies. Cuz a long time ago I realized that, if it depends on me I'm in trouble.

But it doesn't depend on me. So no worry about outer darkness, or all the rest.

That's why I love the song, Rocka my soul in the bosom of Abraham.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzsy-RVnI0U

[Evangelical]

How do we know the ones cast out to outer darkness are believers? Just because of the term "servant"?

They could be tares, is true. A genuine believer would most likely be profitable in even small things which are rewarded (Matthew 25:40). The small things we do without thinking anything of them, are considered by the Lord as being done unto Himself.

[Ohio]

It's a faith thing (not by sight). Have you called on Him and accepted Him? Have you had His speaking within at any time? Have you experienced any joy related to His promises or in prayer or in fellowship? If you've answered any in the affirmative, then His life is in you.

And if so, then take it by faith regardless of feelings, because His word says you are saved and in God's family!
I agree wholeheartedly. The Lord has promised that if we seek Him with all our heart, we will find Him. Every person on earth owes it to him/herself to do this much. (Jeremiah 29.13; Matt 7.7; Luke 11.9)

Our father of faith Abraham, simply believed God and that became righteousness to him. (Genesis 15.6; Romans 4.3)

The simplest definition of salvation is to become righteous as Abraham, by believing that Jesus Christ died for us to pay our debt to the law, and rose from the dead to give us eternal life.

[aron]

I can only trust God that He knows who to choose.

For me, the answer is simple: God chose Jesus Christ. The NT repeats this refrain over and over. Don't ever take your eyes off God's selection and you'll do fine. "We have the prophetic word made firm" - it is Jesus. There can by definition be none else. The NT is utterly clear on this point.

The danger of the performance-based 'charismatic' experience is that the enemy can distract you to focus on yourself.

"Hey, Ma! Look at me! I'm exercising my spirit!"

Now you become the subject of attention, not Jesus. The self has found a new cloak, labeled "enjoyment" or whatnot.

[Ohio]

Great point. LSMers love to tout their meeting style with all the members "functioning" in the meetings. Yet who has adequately examined the downside of this "performance-based" system? If we must "know them by their fruit," then after all the years, where are all the blessed recipients?"

I was fortunate to be in a region that at least was aware of some of the dangers of these public performances. Cheers and adulation bestowed on young believers is not all good. Seeds of vain glory can also be sown into their hearts, deceiving their growing faith. How easy it has become to fake the real thing and perform for a willing audience. And whoch LC leader dares to suffer backlash for signaling the dangers here?

We have some of these testimonies on this forum. Make no mistake, LSM has damaged many a young faith seed with their programs.

[aron]

How easy it has become to fake the real thing and perform for a willing audience.

Matthew 6:1,2

"Be careful not to perform your righteous acts before men to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be praised by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward."

The caution applies not only to giving, but to any act: if it gets social reinforcement (warm fuzzies all around) then one may do it for the group approval, assuming this is a one-to-one analog of "gaining Christ". So just go to the right meeting, shout the right phrases, and 'voila'! You're on your way. . .but if the phrases shouted get 'funny' - i.e. they depart more and more from the plain words of the gospel, what to do? All you have is your so-called enjoyment, trusting in your performance. And thus the anxiety and uncertainty.

And the builders of the system have nice income flow, for themselves and even their occasionally 'unspiritual' progeny. "Truly I tell you, they already have their reward." They've used their home-grown theology and transferred subjectivism to build an earthly kingdom.

[Drake]

Hey - for anyone interested, I just posted a draft paper I wrote entitled, "Faithful in a Few Things" in another thread here:

Faithful in a Few Things (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=78621#post78621)

It was four Word doc pages, so sorry, it's a little long. It regards many of the things around this current discussion. Please let me know what you think, in light of our discussion here.

StG,

Well said. If you were going to take it to the next level I suggest three extensions of what you started. First, the assurance of our eternal security is based on God’s righteousness.... He has bound Himself to the sacrifice and shed blood of Christ and can never change His mind. He cannot make a claim on two for sin, His Son and us... were He to do that He would be unrighteous. There is a Psalm that says the foundation of His throne is based on righteousness, meaning His ruling in the universe is based on righteousness. Therefore, our eternal salvation is assured because He is righteous and could never do anything uprighteous like demand payment for the same sin twice. If He ever were unrighteous, even in one small matter, like not forgiving a little brother whose sins, each and every one of them, have been washed by the blood of Christ then the foundation of His throne would collapse and the universe would no longer exist as we know it.

Secondly, related to God’s righteousness is reward and punishment for works, deeds, profit, growth, and readiness after becoming a born again child of God. He is righteous in this also in that He has given us everything pertaining to meeting the standards of the reward of the Kingdom and to enter the joy of the Lord. The parable of the talents show that the entrance to the kingdom was based on a doubling of what the Lord had given each servant. To the one that was given 5 talents a total of 10 were returned to Him. Likewise to the one given 2 another 2 were added, so 4. These servants were counted worthy of entering the joy of their Lord. Had the servant given 1 talent doubled what he had been given he too would have been rewarded the same as the other two servants. By this we can see how righteous the Lord is in the matter of reward and punishment. The parable also hints that had the unfaithful servant merely returned interest he would have received something!

Third, I suggest adding your three principles at the beginning as a framework for the article and a summary of them at the end. Tell them what you are going to tell them , then tell them, then tell them what you told them.

Alb, if you have read this far I encourage you to read StG’s article. I believe it is the Lords timely provision for you as are replies to you specifically about eternal salvation by other brothers in this thread.

Drake

[Ohio]

The caution applies not only to giving, but to any act: if it gets social reinforcement (warm fuzzies all around) then one may do it for the group approval, assuming this is a one-to-one analog of "gaining Christ". So just go to the right meeting, shout the right phrases, and 'voila'! You're on your way. . .but if the phrases shouted get 'funny' - i.e. they depart more and more from the plain words of the gospel, what to do? All you have is your so-called enjoyment, trusting in your performance. And thus the anxiety and uncertainty.

Years ago TC, while giving a regional message, had a young rising young star stand up and give a demonstration of public prayer. Young JV told us all how to do it, and then gave a demonstration -- "start out slow, increase speed, short succinct phrases, etc. ... -- all to thunderous "amens" from the audience. It was perhaps the first time I ever considered that public prayer could all be manipulated. Apparently JV was really good at this. I, however, was not that good.

Bottom line is this: Every unique practice and teaching must be tested and proven. Some require the test of time. Some require the test of Christian scholarship. Some require a simple examination with the scriptures. "But ... test all things, hold on to only the good." (I Thess 5.21)

[Sons to Glory!]

StG,

Well said. If you were going to take it to the next level I suggest three extensions of what you started. First, the assurance of our eternal security is based on God’s righteousness.... He has bound Himself to the sacrifice and shed blood of Christ and can never change His mind. He cannot make a claim on two for sin, His Son and us... were He to do that He would be unrighteous. There is a Psalm that says the foundation of His throne is based on righteousness, meaning His ruling in the universe is based on righteousness. Therefore, our eternal salvation is assured because He is righteous and could never do anything uprighteous like demand payment for the same sin twice. If He ever were unrighteous, even in one small matter, like not forgiving a little brother whose sins, each and every one of them, have been washed by the blood of Christ then the foundation of His throne would collapse and the universe would no longer exist as we know it.

Secondly, related to God’s righteousness is reward and punishment for works, deeds, profit, growth, and readiness after becoming a born again child of God. He is righteous in this also in that He has given us everything pertaining to meeting the standards of the reward of the Kingdom and to enter the joy of the Lord. The parable of the talents show that the entrance to the kingdom was based on a doubling of what the Lord had given each servant. To the one that was given 5 talents a total of 10 were returned to Him. Likewise to the one given 2 another 2 were added, so 4. These servants were counted worthy of entering the joy of their Lord. Had the servant given 1 talent doubled what he had been given he too would have been rewarded the same as the other two servants. By this we can see how righteous the Lord is in the matter of reward and punishment. The parable also hints that had the unfaithful servant merely returned interest he would have received something!

Third, I suggest adding your three principles at the beginning as a framework for the article and a summary of them at the end. Tell them what you are going to tell them , then tell them, then tell them what you told them.

Alb, if you have read this far I encourage you to read StG’s article. I believe it is the Lords timely provision for you as are replies to you specifically about eternal salvation by other brothers in this thread.

DrakeThanks for taking the time to read it and to give some thoughtful feedback! I have given the draft to a number of ones and will see what everyone thinks - I appreciate the suggestions you gave and will consider implementing them. As said, it really was a first draft - it just flowed out during two plane rides I made last week, and is basically the same as it was on the yellow legal pad I used. So I know it very likely needs improved organization, etc.

Did you find the references good enough, or should I add more? - there's a balance in this for the sake of reading simplicity (and length), but I want to be sure the reader knows the pertinent scripture.

[Sons to Glory!]

Hey - in reading this book last night regarding the Bema ("Your Eternal Reward: Triumph and Tears at the Judgment Seat of Christ" by Lutzer) the author conveyed something that hit me. He was talking about the three servants in Matthew 25 and said the unfaithful one was not willing to take a risk with what was entrusted to him by his master. The faithful servants had traded their entrusted talents in the marketplace and had doubled their master's money. The unfaithful one was afraid to take that risk, and hid the talent.

It hit me that this is what the Lord is asking us to do - take a risk with what He has given us! So much of the time I just stay with what is comfortable, not willing to go too far out. If you read the paper I just posted, "Faithful in a Few Things," then you know I have my four basic "few" things I know from the Lord to be faithful in (and I'm pretty comfortable with). But stepping out to do just a little more than that . . . well it seems a little "risky." I had never seen the faithful/unfaithful servants story in that light!

(And of course, this "risk" we know is really no risk at all, and is the very best investment of all!)

[Drake]

Thanks for taking the time to read it and to give some thoughtful feedback! I have given the draft to a number of ones and will see what everyone thinks - I appreciate the suggestions you gave and will consider implementing them. As said, it really was a first draft - it just flowed out during two plane rides I made last week, and is basically the same as it was on the yellow legal pad I used. So I know it very likely needs improved organization, etc.

Did you find the references good enough, or should I add more? - there's a balance in this for the sake of reading simplicity (and length), but I want to be sure the reader knows the pertinent scripture.

Hi StG,

I thought the references were good.... I think Psalm 89:14 would help to explain that the righteousness of God is the surety of our salvation and that He is bound by His covenant. God loves us, but He may not like us from time to time. Nevertheless, He must and will honor His own word.

Grace to you
Drake

[Drake]

Hey - in reading this book last night regarding the Bema ("Your Eternal Reward: Triumph and Tears at the Judgment Seat of Christ" by Lutzer) the author conveyed something that hit me. He was talking about the three servants in Matthew 25 and said the unfaithful one was not willing to take a risk with what was entrusted to him by his master. The faithful servants had traded their entrusted talents in the marketplace and had doubled their master's money. The unfaithful one was afraid to take that risk, and hid the talent.

It hit me that this is what the Lord is asking us to do - take a risk with what He has given us! So much of the time I just stay with what is comfortable, not willing to go too far out. If you read the paper I just posted, "Faithful in a Few Things," then you know I have my four basic "few" things I know from the Lord to be faithful in (and I'm pretty comfortable with). But stepping out to do just a little more than that . . . well it seems a little "risky." I had never seen the faithful/unfaithful servants story in that light!

(And of course, this "risk" we know is really no risk at all, and is the very best investment of all!)

Right. The one talented servants may be intimidated or introspective about only having 1 talent... watching the 5 talented one give back 10, or the 2 talented one give back 4... he might be thinking his 1 talent could never return 10 or 4 ... he thinks probably not even 2.... so he buries it. Yet the Lord only asks him to invest what he has received.

I think of it this way.... Billy Graham was a 5 talented member of the Body.... he returned 10 (arguably more than that but to stay within the lines of the parable) ... we could get introspective about that and say "y'know, Brother Billy really understands how to lead people to the Lord... but I never could do what he does so I won't even try to preach the gospel... he more than makes up for my lack". That would be to bury our one talent in the matter of gospel preaching and thereby not fulfilling the great commission. Or in practical service in the church.. or any number of related talents we could be guilty of burying our talent.

There is something more there related to the comment " I knew you were a harsh man".... the Lord did not dismiss the point but rather turned it back on the unfaithful servant. "Knowing I was harsh...". Yet the attitude on the part of the servant seems to be making excuses in blaming the Lord for his burying the talent. So, there is the risk of failure... but maybe he felt some despising toward the Lord.. like "you gave them 5 and 2 talents... but me you gave only 1". I'm still chewing on that.

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Right. The one talented servants may be intimidated or introspective about only having 1 talent... watching the 5 talented one give back 10, or the 2 talented one give back 4... he might be thinking his 1 talent could never return 10 or 4 ... he thinks probably not even 2.... so he buries it. Yet the Lord only asks him to invest what he has received.

I think of it this way.... Billy Graham was a 5 talented member of the Body.... he returned 10 (arguably more than that but to stay within the lines of the parable) ... we could get introspective about that and say "y'know, Brother Billy really understands how to lead people to the Lord... but I never could do what he does so I won't even try to preach the gospel... he more than makes up for my lack". That would be to bury our one talent in the matter of gospel preaching and thereby not fulfilling the great commission. Or in practical service in the church.. or any number of related talents.

DrakeRight! And I think there are a limited number of 5 talent ones. But there's a lot of us one talent ones (present company excepted of course). One talents are the infantry - the boots on the ground. If we don't do it, then who will!?

I am more and more aware that God has placed me with my family, my church-folk, my neighbors, my co-workers, my body, my house, money, vehicles - you name it! This is what He has given me and where He has me, and in these is where I need to be faithful.

[Drake]

Right! And I think there are a limited number of 5 talent ones. But there's a lot of us one talent ones (present company excepted of course). One talents are the infantry - the boots on the ground. If we don't do it, then who will!?

I am more and more aware that God has placed me with my family, my church-folk, my neighbors, my co-workers, my body, my house, money, vehicles - you name it! This is what He has given me and where He has me, and in these is where I need to be faithful.

yessir.

Be faithful to His calling where, when , and what.....and then be faithful if and when He calls you to a new where, at a new when, with a new what.

We never know about the future in our lives... .... and what is in the past is a frozen record.... but we have the present to do something about .... by following His instant leading and returning an investment on that which He gave us.

Drake

[awareness]

Be faithful to His calling where, when , and what.....and then be faithful if and when He calls you to a new where, at a new when, with a new what.
Drake
Well amen brother Drake.

[A little brother]

Thank you all, Sons to Glory, Ohio, Awareness, Evangelical, Aron, and Drake. We may have different viewpoints but I see the oneness in the body of Christ when all of you reach out to give advice to this little brother.

Since I rejoined the LC years ago, I started to re-examine every teaching I received from it. I began to realize that we are quick to fit ourselves into God's great promises/blessings, and to fit others into God's major warnings/accusations. To be fair, this is not just LC specific but applicable to Christians as a whole. May be it is because of how we received the gospel in the first place - God's perfect message preached through imperfect man to even more imperfect sinners.

We all treasure the subjective personal relationship with God. But I also tried to read the Bible more objectively to understand what God really says by firstly taking away the "I" from the context. So far I found this quite fruitful. It did no harm to my sujective experiences with God and actually helped me understand God and myself better.

Somehow, Matt 23:23 has become one of my favorite reminders.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth of the mint and the anise and the cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law -- justice and mercy and faithfulness. But these you should have done and not neglected the others.

We might think it is only about the others who have neglected the weightier matters. But we could be the other way round. We focus so much on the "higher truth" that we might have neglected the "lighter" matters. We point everything to Jesus and say it is not about us, but we forgot He appointed us to work on a few things. It actually doesn't matter that much which is the weightier and which is the lighter because Jesus told us not to neglect either.

Also, while Jesus is all in all, let's not neglect there is a "you" in

"And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength.",

no matter how small and insignificant this "you" is in front of our great God.

[aron]

...while Jesus is all in all, let's not neglect there is a "you" in

"And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength.",

no matter how small and insignificant this "you" is in front of our great God.
I see differently: the only person who fulfilled this law down to the proverbial "jot and title" was Jesus. The rest of us may indeed love, for an hour or two, but eventually we go back to being ourselves: unlovely, unlovable, and unloving. Jesus alone is the Way.

The rest of us may succeed in part, but we fail in part. And to fail in part, before God, is to fail. Only Jesus crossed the finish line. The rest of us fell.

Now, of course as disciples we must follow Jesus. Those who were dead in sins and offenses hear His voice and live; we rise to walk in newness of life. Of course that last sentence has a "we" in it. But I posit that the "we" only has validity inasmuch as its constituents realize "it's no longer I but Christ".

As soon as the "we" (or "I") begins to assume in our consciousness an ontological significance in and of itself, it becomes a gilded harlot. . . or, Lot's wife who turned back to gaze on what God had condemned.

The trick is to focus unyeildingly on Him. Then the love will flow: not ours but His.

The performance-oriented "we enjoy Christ" rubric is a decisive step down the slippery slope because now "we" is the subject of conscious attention and activity, while "Christ" is merely an object to be shuffled about. . .either waved or ignored, depending on the perceived need of the moment.

[Ohio]

Not only are you a young child carrying around that burden, but once you grow up some and realize that you were cheated out of knowing the real person and heart of God, you are then left to wrestle with the questions of "Where was God in all this? Why would He let me go on for so long under such a heavy burden without stepping in to clear it up? If He really wants a relationship with me, where was He to correct the misrepresentation and show Himself to me? Does He really love me or just love seeing me hurt?"

It really does a number on you.
You are right.

Nearly all of us have our complaints about our own personal upbringing. I had mine. It was these almost cries for justice and answers that led me to the Savior, after stumbling into many shameful and painful pits. Since then life has not been a bed of roses without its discouragements. It was these events which force us to take serious assessment of our short time on earth. Do we zoom in on what we find missing and objectionable, or do we "treasure hunt" to find some heavenly gems in our own dumpster of life.

Fortunately, I've done both. I say fortunately because what if I had never sought the Answer, and then found Him? Of course, most of us would like to believe that "if God was good," we should never have had the difficulties we did in the first place. Why was I created the way I was? Why was I in this family? Why was everyone picking on me? Questions like this tormented me at one time. Over time I came to learn the secret of ascension. Actually I did this many times over the years, since I was first saved, before I even realized what I had done.

Briefly, I somehow rise above the situation and look down with a new point of view. I see suffering as short-lived and temporary. Instead of seeing my own health issues, I see those born blind, those hit by tragedy, those far worse off than me. Instead of comparing downward from some perceived ideal, I compare upward. All my complaints then seem tiny from above. Things take on new perspective. Eternity comes into view. The blessings of my Father can also be seen. The little annoyances almost disappear. The needs of others can be seen. The important things come into focus.

Trapped, hope this helps somehow.

[countmeworthy]

You are right.

Nearly all of us have our complaints about our own personal upbringing. I had mine. It was these almost cries for justice and answers that led me to the Savior, after stumbling into many shameful and painful pits. Since then life has not been a bed of roses without its discouragements. It was these events which force us to take serious assessment of our short time on earth. Do we zoom in on what we find missing and objectionable, or do we "treasure hunt" to find some heavenly gems in our own dumpster of life.

Fortunately, I've done both. I say fortunately because what if I had never sought the Answer, and then found Him? Of course, most of us would like to believe that "if God was good," we should never have had the difficulties we did in the first place. Why was I created the way I was? Why was I in this family? Why was everyone picking on me? Questions like this tormented me at one time. Over time I came to learn the secret of ascension. Actually I did this many times over the years, since I was first saved, before I even realized what I had done.

Briefly, I somehow rise above the situation and look down with a new point of view. I see suffering as short-lived and temporary. Instead of seeing my own health issues, I see those born blind, those hit by tragedy, those far worse off than me. Instead of comparing downward from some perceived ideal, I compare upward. All my complaints then seem tiny from above. Things take on new perspective. Eternity comes into view. The blessings of my Father can also be seen. The little annoyances almost disappear. The needs of others can be seen. The important things come into focus.

Trapped, hope this helps somehow.

I am reminded of John 10:10... the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy..but Jesus came that we would have life and have it more abundantly.. even overflowing..

So many people have been deceived by going to 'church'. I know many here have returned to 'church' and are happy and content. Good for you so this may not pertain to you.

That said, many people have given their lives and energy to 'the church' rather than to Jesus forgetting that we need our lamps to be filled daily with His Spirit. If He leads us to do good works so be it. Good works follows our Faith in HIM.

They eventually get burned out or deceived that 'the church' is more important than anything else. Loyalty is to the 'pastor' more than the congregation from my observation and even less to Jesus.

I have been reading testimonies of people leaving the 'church of Christ'...so many people are TRAPPED by religion. We forget GOD is not a religious Deity. We can't please HIM in our natural man! But as we have communion with HIM He directs our path.

Btw.. at my bible study last night, we had a guest who used to go to the church our hosts attend. Since we are reading Joshua, he brought a Shofar, a long ram's horn and blew it beautifully. He stopped attending the church he was raised in about 5-6 yrs ago.

What a SURPRISE he converted to JUDAISM! Big time, unwavering Jew!! I realized he never experienced the Holy Spirit and God's Word inside him..thus he was never born again... after attending Christian 'church' all his life. Anyway..

I am grateful for the scriptures:
Jesus began a good work in me.. in fact a MOST EXCELLENT work in me and not only me but to His followers..to His brethren, to the born again saints washed and cleansed in the Precious Blood of the Lamb and He is going to finish it. (Phillipians 1:6)

I am grateful He will never leave me (or us) and never, ever forsake us.

I am grateful for the Holy Spirit revealing 1 Corinthians 10:13 back in 1975

There is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: yet God is faithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able; but will with the temptation (trial) also make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it.

Bottom line.. Satan, that old serpent does not want us to have a relationship, communion, Faith in Christ Jesus our Savior. He thrusts us into situations that cause us to doubt God is for us. To distrust believers, our fellow brethren.

Imagine what all those poor Catholic children endured during the 40s, 50's and 60s from the pedophile 'priests' in the RCC in Philadelphia!! May GOD truly have mercy on them and heal them and reveal HIMSELF to those people who were violated as children.

If there are any scriptures I hold on to, it is the ones I just mentioned:

Philippians 1:6
Hebrews 13:5
and 1 Corinthians 10:13

Blessings and healing from God to all.

[Sons to Glory!]

So many people have been deceived by going to 'church'. I know many here have returned to 'church' and are happy and content. Good for you so this may not pertain to you.

That said, many people have given their lives and energy to 'the church' rather than to Jesus forgetting that we need our lamps to be filled daily with His Spirit. If He leads us to do good works so be it. Good works follows our Faith in HIM.

They eventually get burned out or deceived that 'the church' is more important than anything else. Loyalty is to the 'pastor' more than the congregation from my observation and even less to Jesus. Yes. Oh the system of things we humans find ourselves in! My my.

The devil basically doesn't care what system of things someone gives themselves to - sports, fashion, TV & movies, career, politics, partying, crime . . . but also good religion (e.g., Christianity) or (dare I say it!?) even family. Some systems may be more quickly destructive to a person, but in the end, if he can us into the dirt without us experiencing the living Christ, he's been successful!

[Sons to Glory!]

Thank you all, Sons to Glory, Ohio, Awareness, Evangelical, Aron, and Drake. We may have different viewpoints but I see the oneness in the body of Christ when all of you reach out to give advice to this little brother.
Yes and AMEN! This is the oneness of Christ and what is really true of us - the one Spirit! (not all the bickering, etc.) This encouraged my spirit.

"Behold how good and how pleasant it is . . ."

[A little brother]

The performance-oriented "we enjoy Christ" rubric is a decisive step down the slippery slope because now "we" is the subject of conscious attention and activity, while "Christ" is merely an object to be shuffled about. . .either waved or ignored, depending on the perceived need of the moment.

Aron, Thanks for your sharing. I agree the danger of "performance-oriented we enjoy Christ". On the other hand, there is another danger of we do nothing, focus on enjoying Christ and let the rest come naturally (WL and LSM have been teaching this for over half a century). Ends up people were so absorded into this ideal and became talkers and not doers. In my opinion, this second danger is the greater problem in the LC.

Take the example of what we have been talking about in this thread - the servants in Matt 25. The master left after entrusting the servants with the talents. If the faithful servants were busy looking for their master, they would have failed the assignment. In fact, their works with the entrusted talents were their linkage with the master. It was the third servant who played safe and did as little as possible while the master was not with him.

Again, I am not saying we don't have to focus on Christ. It is just that we cannot neglect either the focus on Christ and works (as in Matt 23:23 I shared earlier).

One common logic flaw I found from many of WL's messages is the "if it is A, then it must not be B". Christ and works are never mutually exclusive. If we as believers claim all our works could only be from our old selves, we could be rejecting the works of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Phil 2:13 For it is God who operates in you both the willing and the working for His good pleasure.

Let's also take a look at Paul's epistles. He usually did not just talk about "it is no longer I but Christ", he also included many practical matters (works) and greetings to individuals (not just Christ, but people in Christ) in the ending chapters. Take Ephesians as an example, Paul could have finished the whole epistle with that wonderful message of "be filled unto all the fullness of God" in end of Chapter 3. Yet he continued with another three chapters on practical church living. I think he had spoken clearly what was in his mind.

[aron]

Take the example of what we have been talking about in this thread - the servants in Matt 25. The master left after entrusting the servants with the talents. If the faithful servants were busy looking for their master, they would have failed the assignment. In fact, their works with the entrusted talents were their linkage with the master. It was the third servant who played safe and did as little as possible while the master was not with him.

Again, I am not saying we don't have to focus on Christ. It is just that we cannot neglect either the focus on Christ and works (as in Matt 23:23 I shared earlier).

One common logic flaw I found from many of WL's messages is the "if it is A, then it must not be B". Christ and works are never mutually exclusive. If we as believers claim all our works could only be from our old selves, we could be rejecting the works of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Phil 2:13 For it is God who operates in you both the willing and the working for His good pleasure.
We're both saying the same thing, from different perspectives. I was making my point because in the LC the real danger lies in your trusting yourself - your calling, your confessing, your sharing in meetings, your alignment with Anaheim. If you do all this then you'll make it into the Wedding Feast and avoid 1,000 years of outer darkness, with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I'm stressing the point that if you seek first the kingdom of God, everything else will be added to you including the (necessary) good works and the "kingdom reward". If you keep your eyes on the King, you'll get everything else.

The LC seduces you to trust your "enjoyment" as if that were something in and of itself, of independent value. It's a Chimera. Eventually your enjoyment is subsumed by theirs. Eventually the Guru wants to take some church funds to bankroll his son's business, or set his other son over the churches as "the office." That's his enjoyment; now what has happened to yours? Gone. Suddenly it's all about "being restricted for the Body".

If you had simply kept your eyes on Jesus, you would have gotten all that already. All the struggles, the hope, the triumphs - they are all His. Our faith brings us along for the ride. To quote a Hippie poet: "The bus came by, and I got on; that's when it all began." Jesus is our bus, and faith puts us on it.

[Sons to Glory!]

...Third, I suggest adding your three principles at the beginning as a framework for the article and a summary of them at the end. Tell them what you are going to tell them , then tell them, then tell them what you told them.Finally got around to looking at this paper again, and I incorporated the matter of God's righteousness as a basis for His action (thanks!). However, what do you mean by my "three principles" to add as a summary?

[Drake]

Finally got around to looking at this paper again, and I incorporated the matter of God's righteousness as a basis for His action (thanks!). However, what do you mean by my "three principles" to add as a summary?



From post #192..

"So I want to bring these three things up again, as we didn't get many responding aye or nay. Can we have consensus on these three basic principles?


1. The Father loves us and we are reborn with a gift of new life - His life - in us, and therefore children of God who are true believers are thereby saved eternally.

2. There are many warnings in the OT and NT telling us we are accountable - there is some degree of scrutiny by God in the next life (and also this life) - for our works after we receive the new birth.

3. God is righteous and His judgments are just. He is firm yet He is fair in all His ways."

these were very relevant to topic... so I thought including them up front would be good and then summarizing with them in the end. something like this

Front: " In this paper three basic and scriptural principles will be covered....... "

Middle: the article itself

End: " I have endeavored to show from the scriptures three principles of the Christian faith concerning the Father's love, regeneration, righteousness, and His judgments.... "

Drake

[aron]

Actually I too quickly dismissed the "ask the experts" question, seeing it as a dodge to get off the subject of the glaring lacks in the LSM hermeneutical programmme.

But while we're on the subject, there's a useful field of scholarship expanding knowledge of the conversation occurring around the time that Jesus and his disciples lived, taught, and wrote. It is called, roughly "Second Temple Studies". What did an apostle mean when he wrote something? What did shared meanings did a parable convey? . . .A little humility and reticence seem in order, and goes a long way. And they allow differences of interpretation to exist, and mutual uncertainty, instead of resorting to calling each other "dark" and "ambitious" and "divisive". It's rather refreshing, really. . . quite, um, Christian, even.

Devorah Dimant
John J. Collins
Annette Yoshiko Reed
James C. VanderKam
Peter W. Flint
Esther Chazon
Carol A. Newsom
Josef T Milik
John M. Allegro
Lawrence H. Schiffman
Gabriel Boccaccini
Yisrael Yadin
James H. Charlesworth
Emile Puech
Emanuel Tov

This is a good list to start. There are a lot more. Happy trails. See you at the finish line, whenever that may be.

(And don't go beyond what is written).

I forgot Loren Stuckenbruck. He's really good, I think. To be clear, I'm not his disciple and have not sent him any money. But I've listened to some of his ideas & they've helped to form mine. He teaches in a university, has books and magazine articles out, has speeches on YouTube. Nothing hidden in a corner. All available to anyone. Go down to your public library and help yourself. No need to play the "authority and submission" game with some wanna-be satrap like Nee or Lee.

Back to the teachings of Jesus: as you do to others , so will be done to you. Forgive and you'll be forgiven. Show mercy and you'll receive mercy. And the opposites are true as well, and are explicitly affirmed. If you don't show mercy, no mercy will be shown you. It's not confusing, and some special interpretation can't overturn it.

People like Darby, Nee & Lee, Calvin once had their place. They rejected traditions of men & looked at scripture & asked, "What does it mean?" But their question really was, "What does it mean to me?" Now we're beginning to ask, "What did this mean to Jesus, to John and Peter and Paul, to first-century readers?" We must be a little more cautious with our assertions. But I find them to be rewarding questions to ask.

As an example, if you consider what "outer darkness" meant without consulting supporting documents like the Book of Enoch, your answer will be short. Yes, it's not scripture, I know, but is cited by scripture (Jude) and is probably referenced by Jesus in passages like Lazarus and the rich man, and "an evil spirit goes out of a man and travels through waterless places seeking rest". The fact that copies were found at Qumran, and that the Ethiopian churches preserved copies is significant. It was part of the conversation, and informed the understandings of things like judgment, reward, and "many stripes". People like John Darby and Watchman Nee lacked such resources. We do not.

[Sons to Glory!]

People like Darby, Nee & Lee, Calvin once had their place. They rejected traditions of men & looked at scripture & asked, "What does it mean?" But their question really was, "What does it mean to me?" Now we're beginning to ask, "What did this mean to Jesus, to John and Peter and Paul, to first-century readers?" We must be a little more cautious with our assertions. But I find them to be rewarding questions to ask.

As an example, if you consider what "outer darkness" meant without consulting supporting documents like the Book of Enoch, your answer will be short. Yes, it's not scripture, I know, but is cited by scripture (Jude) and is probably referenced by Jesus in passages like Lazarus and the rich man, and "an evil spirit goes out of a man and travels through waterless places seeking rest". The fact that copies were found at Qumran, and that the Ethiopian churches preserved copies is significant. It was part of the conversation, and informed the understandings of things like judgment, reward, and "many stripes". People like John Darby and Watchman Nee lacked such resources. We do not.Interesting . . . Please elaborate more - what do you see as the meaning of "outer darkness?"

[aron]

Interesting . . . Please elaborate more - what do you see as the meaning of "outer darkness?"
To go back to my point - the question is not, "What do you see as the meaning" today any more than what Calvin saw in the 16th century or Darby in the 19th. The question is, "What did this term mean in 1st-century Judea?" There are two reinforcing lines of inquiry. In one, we look at the word or phrase or concept. The actual idea conveyed - remember that Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, as well as a prophet. In parables he was a rabbi.

I've gone into this at length with 'ekklesia' - Jesus didn't invent a term wholecloth in Matt. 16. See, e.g., the LXX of Psalm 1 and Psalm 22 (cf Heb 2:12).

So don't expect anyone to spoonfeed you; if you want answers, you'll have to dig. But that's where contemporary scholarship comes in.

[Sons to Glory!]

To go back to my point - the question is not, "What do you see as the meaning" today any more than what Calvin saw in the 16th century or Darby in the 19th. The question is, "What did this term mean in 1st-century Judea?" There are two reinforcing lines of inquiry. In one, we look at the word or phrase or concept. The actual idea conveyed - remember that Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, as well as a prophet. In parables he was a rabbi.

I've gone into this at length with 'ekklesia' - Jesus didn't invent a term wholecloth in Matt. 16. See, e.g., the LXX of Psalm 1 and Psalm 22 (cf Heb 2:12).

So don't expect anyone to spoonfeed you; if you want answers, you'll have to dig. But that's where contemporary scholarship comes in.No, I was asking what you, personally, thought was the meaning of outer darkness.

[aron]

No, I was asking what you, personally, thought was the meaning of outer darkness.

To me, outer darkness is separation from God.

Scripture shows us 3 falls: the fall of Satan, the fall of man, and the fall of the angels. Note that Genesis 6 occurs after Genesis 3. And this isn't extraneous to the Christian's mind because both Jude and 2 Peter spent time on the cause and consequences of the third fall. If you want to peer into darkness, read those chapters. "When light becomes dark, how great is the dark!"

Loren Stuckenbrucks book on the fall of the angels is really enlightening.

It is all about one thing - obedience. The Son loved the Father and obeyed, and the Father delighted in the Son and and raised him to glory.

Jesus dealt with all 3 falls. Most people I talk to only are aware of the first two. But to ascertain unseen realms as Jesus and his disciples might have - then clarity and dimension begin to emerge. Suddenly everything has its imperative, holistic sense. As you do, so it will be done to you. It's so simple even a Galilean fisherman can grasp it. And yet a Pharisee is in awe of its brilliance.

Do not do unto others as they do to you; rather do unto others as you would have them do. Outwardly, not much will change, at least in the beginning. But inwardly it is the difference between heaven and hell. I believe it is our path across that great gap. "And where I am going, you know the way."

[Ohio]

To me, outer darkness is separation from God.


Could we say more specifically that outer darkness is separation from God during the wedding dinner of His Son?

[Sons to Glory!]

Could we say more specifically that outer darkness is separation from God during the wedding dinner of His Son?Wedding feast = 1000 year reign?

[awareness]

Loren Stuckenbrucks book on the fall of the angels is really enlightening.
Thanks. But only Prosperity Preachers can afford his books.

[aron]

Thanks. But only Prosperity Preachers can afford his books.

It's called "Interlibrary Loan".. most libraries have them. The book is widespread enough that most libraries have one in their network.

Also Annette Yoshiko Reed did a book on the fall of the angels. Not as good but still readable.

The alternative is either: 1) to pretend this subject is irrelevant (and ignore Jude and 2 Peter and Genesis 6); 2) to find yourself on a website where they are telling you about the Annunaki and alien giants; or 3) to listen to some home-brewed Protestant or post-Protestant teaching like Lee put out. Or didn't, as the case may be. You know, the old Calvinist "this means that" stuff.

[aron]

Could we say more specifically that outer darkness is separation from God during the wedding dinner of His Son?

Wedding feast = 1000 year reign?

The important thing for me as a Christian is to separate what is "truth" with what is "interpretation".

What is objective "truth" for the Christian believer: 1) God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day; 2) God loved the world so much that He sent His only begotten Son; 3) If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, you will be saved; 4) &c, &c, &c.

To me that is "Truth". A teaching, or interpretation, is on the meaning of a parable, or the "rapture" versus the "tribulation". Those are our hermeneutical or narrative overlays.

Even my "There are 3 falls in scripture" (post #329) is an interpretation. There maybe more than 3 falls. . . and the Genesis 6 story, even though seemingly alluded to in Jude v.6 and 2 Peter 2:4, is not necessarily the same as the "one third of the stars" swept down by the dragon's tail in Revelation 12:4. We may connect the proverbial dots, or find 'correlation' as Evangelical says, but that is our personal interpretation, not truth.

I've already said why I think the "1,000 years of darkness" is unsatisfactory for me. Evangelical admits it's a theological bandage to bridge the gap between "OSAS" and "Arminianism". Arguably preferable to either of them, but "recovered truth"? A stretch. My main issue is that the two NT sections (Hebrews 2 & 1 Cor 10) covering the fall of the Israelites in the Wilderness doesn't answer what happened to Moses. If falling in the Wilderness means eternal perdition, why is Moses on the mountain with Jesus in the gospels? If it means "dispensational punishment" then why does Moses skip the 1,000 years of "summer school"? God is not a respecter of persons; if Moses gets transformed by the age of the gospels, then others may be as well. And if the OT Israelites are, why not the Christians?

Secondly, 1,0000 years of "wailing and gnashing of teeth" seems somewhat arbitrary and not like the God seen in the Bible. Evangelical says "same time, different severity" for the punishment. Perhaps, perhaps not. That is an interpretation, not truth.

And Drake says that I'm supposed to offer an alternative. No, I'm not. I'm not supposed to give a definitive interpretation of every Bible verse. I've already stated what I believe to be the truth - see above. To some extent I'm willing to live with the unknown. And that doesn't mean we "disregard judgment" if we say that we don't have to systematize our parables. It just means that we want to make up our own mind, our own way. Why did Nee get to read all those books and pick his understanding, and we don't? What if we don't want to be spoon-fed someone's private interpretation as our 'reality'?

On to Lazarus and the Rich Man, and Outer Darkness. Interestingly, the Rich Man is "in torment" and yet we're told that "he lived luxuriously" on earth. How are those commensurate? Because in both, the RM was separated from God. His wining and dining was to cover the fact that inside he was miserable, separated from his Creator. When he was dead, the wine was gone and bare torment was left. In both cases (alive on earth and dead in Hades), the separation and darkness was the same.

And it makes no difference to me whether the Lazarus and the RM is a "true story" or a "Parable". In either case there is a message. And the message of Scripture is consistent.

[awareness]

It's called "Interlibrary Loan".. most libraries have them. The book is widespread enough that most libraries have one in their network.

Also Annette Yoshiko Reed did a book on the fall of the angels. Not as good but still readable.

The alternative is either: 1) to pretend this subject is irrelevant (and ignore Jude and 2 Peter and Genesis 6); 2) to find yourself on a website where they are telling you about the Annunaki and alien giants; or 3) to listen to some home-brewed Protestant or post-Protestant teaching like Lee put out. Or didn't, as the case may be. You know, the old Calvinist "this means that" stuff.
I have both the hard and Kindle copies of "Fallen Angels - and The Origins of Evil - Why the Church Fathers Suppressed the Book of Enoch and its Starling Revelations." by Elizabeth Prophet.

And yes, most Christians won't touch the subject. I find it fascinating.

[ZNPaaneah]

For something so consequential I couldn't understand why there was not some kind of gauge on my arm that showed my current level of oil so I could gas or throttle my openness as needed!


The NT is full of various "gauges"

When Jesus touches the bier of the dead boy that is a gauge. According to the law if someone with a nazarite vow touches death the vow is over and they have to start again. Since Jesus is our high priest and he is not of the priestly lineage but rather is a priest after the order of Melchisedek He is a nazarite. When He touches death something has to give, He was putting His entire earthly ministry on the line because of his compassion for the widow.

This "gauge" as you put it is described in the book of James where he says that: "The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working."

This should be your experience, if not, that is an indication that you are "low on oil".

[ZNPaaneah]

I was merely responding to Drake's Matt. 18:34 statement, which is about forgiveness, and not outer darkness.

Matthew 18 begins with a question about "who is greatest in the kingdom", probably a good starting point for anyone studying overcomers. The chapter ends with who is the least in the kingdom, those who are petty and do not forgive their brothers from their heart, these ones are "cast into prison until they can pay all they owe" which based on the initial debt of 10,000 talents (perhaps $10 million in today's currency) is going to be a very long time.

Again, this concept of debtors prison in this parable is similar to the discussion of being thrown into "outer darkness".

[ZNPaaneah]

Thanks. Yes, I saw that and the follow-on discussion. My question has to do with the time: Why is it the full thousand years, or is it a portion of time - 5 minutes or 500 years? Where specifically do we get the time factor and the teaching I heard much about, that it is 1,000 years?

I think the basis is on the reference to the judgement seat of Christ and the Great White Throne judgement. Since the time frame between the two is taken to be 1,000 years.

Interestingly, I think the account of the false prophet is instructive. The standard theology is that at the end of this age the believers are judged and the overcomers enter into the joy of their Lord for the thousand year millennial reign. Then at the end of that age the Great White throne judgement will sort out both believers and unbelievers. It is taught that it is at this judgement that some are sent to the Lake of Fire. However, the false prophet is already in the lake of fire prior to the Great White Throne judgement. Obviously you are free to hypothesize why this is, my best guess is that the False prophet, based on Matt 7, wanted to be judged at the judgement seat of Christ thinking he was a believer, the Lord accommodated him, and sent him to the Lake of Fire 1,000 years early.

What I find interesting is that Matt 18 refers to all 3 cases, the overcomers (who is greatest in the kingdom?), outer darkness (debtors prison) and the false prophet (those that stumble the least in the kingdom).

[ZNPaaneah]

Yep.

Reminds of a nice young Muslim man I once talked to.

I was preaching the gospel to an Imam and some of his followers...... an intense encounter as you might imagine. After an hour or so, not sure exactly cuz time flies by when you’re having fun, and the screaming on their side subsided a few decibels a young man pulled me aside, handed me a KJV Bible, and challenged me to show him where it says “Jesus is God”. Several verses came to mind and as I started to thumb through to them he added “but you can only use the verses in RED”. He meant of course that He only wanted the proof from the actual quotes of Jesus as indicated by the red text in his Bible.

That is selective and that is what Aron is also doing.. pivoting his argument on “1000” or limiting it to the book of Revelation. Plugging his ears to the whole in favor of a part to support his argument. In so doing he is violating an important matter concerning the Word of God. He is breaking it. Jesus told the Jews they were doing this when He referred to Himself as the Son of God and He challenged them concerning their own teaching “gods” in Psalm 82. He said the scripture cannot be broken. Aron’s argument fails were he to allow Brother Lees teaching on the subject from whole Bible.... so he slices and dices the Word of God... breaking it.

Drake

It may seem an unreasonable request, but why? We have a basis to think that the millennial kingdom is 1,000 years.

We have a basis to feel that the end of this age will be a judgement, and the end of the millennial kingdom will also have a judgement.

Why wouldn't the determination that you enter "outer darkness" or "the joy of your Lord" be made at the Lord's judgement seat. Seems quite consistent with the NT revelation. Why wouldn't the judgement to enter into the kingdom for all believers, even those in the "outer darkness" be made at the Great White Throne? seems reasonable.

[ZNPaaneah]

"So I want to bring these three things up again, as we didn't get many responding aye or nay. Can we have consensus on these three basic principles?

[COLOR=Purple]
1. The Father loves us and we are reborn with a gift of new life - His life - in us, and therefore children of God who are true believers are thereby saved eternally.

2. There are many warnings in the OT and NT telling us we are accountable - there is some degree of scrutiny by God in the next life (and also this life) - for our works after we receive the new birth.

3. God is righteous and His judgments are just. He is firm yet He is fair in all His ways."

[COLOR=black]

I think this is missing a very important point that we learn in Matt 18.

Very often Christians think it is a binary choice -- overcomer or outer darkness. Matt 18 begins with "who is the greatest" and ends with the one being sent to debtors prison. But why? Because he violated the principle "forgive us as we have forgiven those that sin against us".

On this thread there have been mentioning of those who have no hope of being an overcomer to the point it has become a sad joke. But, can't you at least forgive those who have sinned against you? That is all it takes to avoid outer darkness.

[Sons to Glory!]

I think this is missing a very important point that we learn in Matt 18.

Very often Christians think it is a binary choice -- overcomer or outer darkness. Matt 18 begins with "who is the greatest" and ends with the one being sent to debtors prison. But why? Because he violated the principle "forgive us as we have forgiven those that sin against us".

On this thread there have been mentioning of those who have no hope of being an overcomer to the point it has become a sad joke. But, can't you at least forgive those who have sinned against you? That is all it takes to avoid outer darkness.And we also need to consider the words spoken to the faithful servants in Matthew 25, "Well done good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in a FEW things; I will set you over many. Enter into the joy of your master."

As I mentioned earlier, this was quite the eye-opener for many of us when a brother recently shared his experience of the Lord touching him about this matter. Many of us get the idea with the Bema and overcoming that the bar is set really high and we must be a SuperSaint to somehow get over it. (I was so inspired that a 4 page paper on the subject just flowed out of me and I posted it on this forum a couple weeks ago. So far I think the only one who acknowledged it was Drake . . See here for "Faithful in a Few Things" paper (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=78621#post78621) )

[ZNPaaneah]

And we also need to consider the words spoken to the faithful servants in Matthew 25, "Well done good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in a FEW things; I will set you over many. Enter into the joy of your master."

As I mentioned earlier, this was quite the eye-opener for many of us when a brother recently shared his experience of the Lord touching him about this matter. Many of us get the idea with the Bema and overcoming that the bar is set really high and we must be a SuperSaint to somehow get over it. (I was so inspired that a 4 page paper on the subject just flowed out of me and I posted it on this forum a couple weeks ago. So far I think the only one who acknowledged it was Drake . . See here for "Faithful in a Few Things" paper (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=78621#post78621) )

What do you mean "acknowledge"?

[Sons to Glory!]

What do you mean "acknowledge"?Just that I don't think anyone else mentioned they had looked at it. They may have read it, but didn't mention it to my recollection (but then again I'm in the 4th quarter, so perhaps not as fresh as I used to be . . . LOL)

[Sons to Glory!]

So I've been reading two recent books on the Bema, "The Judgment Seat of Christ: A Biblical and Theological Study" by Hoyt and "Your Eternal Reward: Triumph and Tears at the Judgment Seat of Christ" by Lutzer. I finished the Lutzer book and passed it along to another bro who wanted to read it. This book was an easy read and I agreed with 96.7% of what it said. The brother I gave it to is quite well read, and said he is enjoying it.

The book by Hoyt is a much more academic and systematic approach, and therefore I have to engage my brain a little more (oh no! :xx:). I'm maybe 1/3 through it and so far both books agree on the main points regarding the Bema. However, last night I read where Hoyt stated that the unfaithful servant in Matthew 25 was not a believer. Surprisingly, he did not go into much detail other than to quote one other person on the subject. Up until that point he pretty exhaustively covered each and every point he's made, very systematically.

The reason I can't agree is that Jesus starts this parable by saying this, "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods."

BTW - This goes along with what Jesus told regarding the 12 virgins in the preceding parable - they were all virgins, they all had lamps burning (although half were going out), they all arose to meet the bridegroom.

Can anyone provide a solid reason from scripture that any of these ones presented in Matthew 25:1-30 were not born again?

[Sons to Glory!]

Looks like maybe I'm just having a conversation here with myself! Am I the only one laboring on Labor Day weekend!? (yes, I have my honey-do list . . .) ;)

While reading "The Judgment Seat of Christ" (Samuel Hoyt) book, I read where he doesn't see the unfaithful servant in Matthew 25 being a true born-again one. He gives as his only reference to support this contention this webpage called "Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth - will this be the fate of true Christians?" by George Zeller. See Weeping & Gnashing article here (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesgn.htm)

In this reference, the 7 instances of weeping & gnashing of teeth in the NT are explored. It is stated that it is commonly held that three of these instances pertain to the wicked and four pertain to Christians. A concluding quote from the above link postulates otherwise: Wherever you find the expression "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in the New Testament, know of a certainty that it is a description of the judgment and doom of lost, unsaved men who will not inherit and not even enter the kingdom. It is never used to describe the fate of saved people.

I sent brother Hoyt an email regarding this matter, and here it is:Hi Brother,

I'm enjoying your book, "The Judgment Seat of Christ." I have a question regarding an apparent disparity regarding the unfaithful servant in Matthew 25.

On page 78 (paperback) it states that this unfaithful servant is "an unsaved man facing eternal damnation." I read the footnote referencing the supporting online article by George Zeller, which I also read.

The issue I have with this is that a simple observation of what Jesus told us at the beginning of the parable, doesn't seem to concur that the unfaithful servant is not one of His own: “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them." (Matt 25:14) They were his servants. He entrusted wealth to them. If the two faithful ones belonged to the master, we have to say the unfaithful one did too.

Thanks for writing this book in such a systematic, thoughtful and Christ-centered way!

The Lord be with your spirit!
The basic conclusion Hoyt comes to in his book (as I can ascertain thus far) is that Christians at the Bema will be rewarded for their works or will suffer the loss of those rewards -- and while there may be distress and anguish felt by the child of God on account of their works falling short and therefore not being well-pleasing to the Lord, there will be nothing negative long-term (except the ongoing loss of the reward), and no specific punishment (per se) for their shortcomings. I'm a little over halfway through the book, so perhaps Hoyt develops some additional thoughts regarding his overall thesis . . .

[ABrotherinFaith]

This is one of the most interesting topics ( it's been discussed here before) to me, not just as a Christian but as a former LCer. Their air of superiority is at least in part, rooted in there teaching of who is (LCers) and who isn't (the rest) an overcomer. I don't remember hearing that ALL those in the LC woikd be overcomers, but I do remember hearing that overcomers came from among the Recovery, and not in a general sense... More exclusively. I'm looking forward to reading the links you've provided.

[Sons to Glory!]

This is one of the most interesting topics ( it's been discussed here before) to me, not just as a Christian but as a former LCer. Their air of superiority is at least in part, rooted in there teaching of who is (LCers) and who isn't (the rest) an overcomer. I don't remember hearing that ALL those in the LC woikd be overcomers, but I do remember hearing that overcomers came from among the Recovery, and not in a general sense... More exclusively. I'm looking forward to reading the links you've provided.Great! There is a lot of back & forth discussion on this thread about this topic. The thread started a little over a year ago on the outer darkness topic, then got off point and went cold, then got resurrected exactly a month ago). There's been a lot of discussion a month!

Have you read the paper I'm working on? If not, here it is. It's still a work in progress and is called, "Faithful in a Few Things." It's based on fellowship a few of us in Scottsdale have had over the last few months, about what the Lord is showing us fresh on this topic. 211

[Sons to Glory!]

I was reading some links an ex-LC brother (Terry Risenhoover) recently sent me to various writings by the Plymouth Brethren. In one of these a brother named Kelly takes on Govett for his view that the unfaithful servant goes into Hades for a thousand years. Evidently, and I haven't confirmed this in his writings, Govett held this view.

Govett pastored at the Surrey Chapel until his death. M.E. Barber fellowshiped there and she strongly influenced Nee. This may be where WL got this view -- that believers will spend 1,000 years in outer darkness (or Hades).

I appreciate how Govett writes with good clarity, but if he holds this view I don't think I can agree with him on this. At least not with the current light I've been given . . .

But I also appreciate the differing views as this is a meatier subject to grasp I think. Praise God that our oneness doesn't depend on agreeing on this kind of non-essential doctrine! (I'd much rather have different views than be in lockstep.)

So does anyone know for sure whether Govett held the view that those who don't have works which survived the Bema would spend 1,000 years in Hades?

(Also, for anyone interested, here is the latest and hopefully final edit of the "Faithful in a Few Things" paper. Lots of little proofings and edits by others on this version!)

[Drake]

Thanks StG,

The judgement seat of Christ is not to display and assess sins.... they are under the blood and as the first of four blessings of the new covenant God does not remember them anymore (Hebrews 8:12) .

Rather, the BEMA is to receive reward or punishment for works, deeds, and behavior after becoming a christian. For instance, lack of forgiveness, exacting payment from others and throwing others into prison though your payment was forgiven by the Lord, burying your talent and being an unprofitable servant.. etc. etc. All those are matters of determining an entrance into the manifestation of the kingdom... not salvation. That is what most christian theology misses... the kingdom and its manifestation and the requirements to enter... it is not a matter of fear.. it is a matter of attainment of the standards He has set to rule with Him. We have a clue to this when the thief on the cross repented and asked the Lord to remember him when He came into His kingdom. The Lord accurately and wisely said that on that very same day the repentant thief would be with him in Paradise (the pleasant part of Hades where Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham)... but He did not confirm the thief would join Him in His kingdom. The calls to the overcomers in Revelation 2 & 3 are also instructive in this matter. Not all will overcome but to those that do He will reward... including to shepherd the nations (Revelation 2:26-27) a clear reference to the time the Lord Jesus rules on the earth for 1000 years.

So, no, Brother Lee did not teach the BEMA was to rehash sins that the Lord has long forgotten and issue a reward or punishment based on those. If God were to do that He would be unrighteous.... and we know that He can never be unrighteous else the universe as we know it would collapse and we wouldn't be here chatting about it. ;)

Drake

I'm bringing this forward because I believe this should be front and center in every Christian's understanding and to guide and remind each of us of this most solemn event that awaits our future.

I need this reminder and so do we all.

I mentioned elsewhere that our (the believers) words and deeds will be judged by the Lord in the air at His return. At that time, believers will either receive a reward (to enter into the 1000 year reign with the Lord) or will suffer a dispensational punishment in outer darkness (outside of His cloud of glory). As StG has correctly captured in his research paper on the subject (found in this thread) this is not a judgment concerning eternal life, that matter has already been settled and if you find yourself at the Judgment Seat of Christ in the air you have eternal life else you would not be there! That judgment is for the believers alone. The nations, still alive at the end of the great tribulation, are judged on the earth after the judgment in the air of the believers (born again regenerated Christians)

So the good news is if you are at the Judgment Seat of Christ in the air you have eternal life and that will not be taken away ever. The really good news is that if your works, your deeds, your words, your behavior, are found worthy then Christ will make you a co-king in His millennial reign. The bad news is that if they are not found worthy then that believer/servant will suffer outer darkness for some or all of the 1000 years millennial reign. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking all will be well at His judgment in the air just because we have eternal life when we believed in the Lord. No. Judgment begins at the house of God and the examples of the unworthy servants in Matthew and the non-overcomers in Revelation 2 & 3 serve as fair warning to us about the type of works, deeds, and words that will be judged.

That brings us, or should bring us, to a very clear understanding that even the words spoken in this forum will be included at that judgment. Sometimes I fear brothers, that as we sit behind our computers typing away we do not sense the reality of that day in our hearts. For if we did, would we say the things that are often said in this forum against other believers? I think not. Do not misinterpret my meaning to suggest that you cannot challenge or disagree with any man's teaching. No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that there is a line that is crossed all too frequently and ends up in mocking, derision, slander, exaggeration, willful misunderstanding and an argumentative spirit, against His servants and His children. This, I believe, will not only be judged at His coming, but can affect our spiritual progress in this life.

Jessie Penn Lewis spoke of this latter point of hindrance to spiritual progress when she wrote: " When you are in the spiritual plane and know the Holy Spirit in your spirit, you recognize there are grave consequences attached to all you do.You cannot go back from the spirit life without stepping into a pathway of failure. The moment you drop from the plane that you have reached you begin to lose spirit strength, and if you do not recover your place quickly you will ultimately sink into a deeper failure. The loss not only affects yourself but everyone with whom you have to deal. You may wrongly interpret or reject the words of a servant of the God and that would cause you to go back without knowing it. This hindrance to your spirit life will maintained while that wrong thought or attitude is held." Walking in the Will of God. JPL

So, look, to the brothers and sisters in this forum I caution and advise each of you to consider this matter carefully knowing that there are grave consequences in this life in our christian walk and spiritual progress.... and at His judgment seat when He returns. If you read this, you, and I, are without excuse. This is not a threat, not a scare tactic, but a call to each of you to examine your heart and your words and the content of your posts in truthfulness and attitude before the Lord. If He judges your works, deeds, and words as worthy, you will receive a reward and if not you will spend time in outer darkness. The Lord's reward or punishment applies just as much to me as it does to you.

Drake

[Ohio]

That brings us, or should bring us, to a very clear understanding that even the words spoken in this forum will be included at that judgment. Sometimes I fear brothers, that as we sit behind our computers typing away we do not sense the reality of that day in our hearts. For if we did, would we say the things that are often said in this forum against other believers? I think not. Do not misinterpret my meaning to suggest that you cannot challenge or disagree with any man's teaching. No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that there is a line that is crossed all too frequently and ends up in mocking, derision, slander, exaggeration, willful misunderstanding and an argumentative spirit, against His servants and His children. This, I believe, will not only be judged at His coming, but can affect our spiritual progress in this life.

Drake
I do carefully consider what I say in the light of His word, often deleting or modifying posts which He is not pleased with.

My first response is to ask why does Drake never speak up when listening to Witness Lee or the Blendeds mock and condemn the entire body of Christ outside the LC's? Where does LSM get the license to do what Drake warns us about?

Drake, weren't you there at the Whistler, BC ITERO Kangaroo Court condemning Titus Chu? Did you stand up and warn them all about the Judgment Seat of Christ? I watched that nonsense and you were no where to be found.

Secondly, does not the scripture teach us to "test all things" including the teachings and actions of LSM's leaders? Did not the Apostle Paul call certain false workers "dogs?" When Paul told the Philippians, "Beware of dogs!" was that mocking, derision, slander, exaggeration, or willful misunderstanding?

Thirdly, I do my best to address the teachings and actions of individual leaders, rather than judge their person or their motives, or judge every LC member. I admit that sometimes sarcasm is the best way to communicate, exposing the rampant hypocrisy at LSM. The bottom line for me is simple -- people got hurt, and LSM could care less. That's why this forum exists.

[Drake]

Govett pastored at the Surrey Chapel until his death. M.E. Barber fellowshiped there and she strongly influenced Nee. This may be where WL got this view -- that believers will spend 1,000 years in outer darkness (or Hades).

Hi StG,

Sorry for the delay on your questions.... That is a misunderstanding for neither Watchman Nee or Witness Lee taught that the outer darkness = Hades.

"The outer darkness outside of the Lord’s glory is neither the lake of fire nor the section of torment in Hades where all the perished sinners are (Luke 16:26, 23a, 28). It is a place of dispensational punishment for the defeated believers." Basic Lessons on Service, Witness Lee

As to Govett you will have to provide a reference with a quote or a scripture and then I can explore my library and its resources. I believe I have all of Govett's works but do not recall him making that remark.

Drake

[Cal]

What I am saying is that there is a line that is crossed all too frequently and ends up in mocking, derision, slander, exaggeration, willful misunderstanding and an argumentative spirit, against His servants and His children. This, I believe, will not only be judged at His coming, but can affect our spiritual progress in this life.

You may wrongly interpret or reject the words of a servant of the God and that would cause you to go back without knowing it. This hindrance to your spirit life will maintained while that wrong thought or attitude is held.

This, of course, can apply to you, if and when you reject the words of the servants of God on this forum.

The Lord isn't bothered by crudeness. (He ran around with fishermen for gosh sakes.) He's bothered by insincerity.

[aron]

I'm bringing this forward because I believe this should be front and center in every Christian's understanding and to guide and remind each of us of this most solemn event that awaits our future.

I need this reminder and so do we all.

Yet humour has its uses, as well. It's especially useful to skewer the pretensions of those who think they've laid hold in this age, while they're yet in the flesh of sin, and try to convince others of this. One person's delusion then becomes mass delusion. We don't skewer the person but the spirit of pretension behind them.

Of course disrespect is disrespect, and should be avoided. But humour is good, too. I like, for instance, Paul writing, "Since you bear so well with those who beat you about the head and face, you ought also bear with me for a bit." Sarcasm. Very effective as an attention-getter.

Jesus saying, "Behold! An Israelite without guile!" A zinger, not only a double but a triple entendre, probably. A very funny inside joke if you can catch it. But truly affectionate as well, I bet. Same with calling Cephas as 'Peter'. Another inside joke. Then, the more obvious "Sons of Thunder". This was a man who loved to stare straight-faced while you gasped in horror and stammered a reply. "You give them something to eat", is one of my favorites. Luke 9:13. Look at the disciples' response. But of course he was holy. "You are the Holy One of God!" Mark 1:24, passim. Yet, he hung out with sinners, and drank wine, and he laughed.

We'd have done better had we laughed at Lee's pretensions of grandeur. But we were naively drawn into his "most solemn" nonsense. His solemnity was a farce. I don't feel remiss to point it out. And there were some who were clearly drawn to his airs as a vehicle for their own. That one who constantly looked out for "ambition" in his flock, himself held such a reservoir as to presume be God's sole mouthpiece on earth today. And the sycophants crowded round, genuflecting and amenning. I don't know if it's funny or sad. But I guess I just like to laugh.

[Ohio]

We'd have done better had we laughed at Lee's pretensions of grandeur. But we were naively drawn into his "most solemn" nonsense. His solemnity was a farce. I don't feel remiss to point it out. And there were some who were clearly drawn to his airs as a vehicle for their own. That one who constantly looked out for "ambition" in his flock, himself held such a reservoir as to presume be God's sole mouthpiece on earth today. And the sycophants crowded round, genuflecting and amenning. I don't know if it's funny or sad. But I guess I just like to laugh.
So well said about that "devil" AMBITION. Lee could see "ambition" in everyone else, but not himself. Neither in his sons, Timothy and Phillip.

And where's that verse that condemns "ambition?" Apostle Paul told us that he was always "ambitious" to please the Lord. Yet Poor Paul would have been quarantined by Lee, along with John Ingalls and John So and so many others, and sent into "outer darkness" for the "unforgiveable" sin of ambition.

[Nell]

...So, look, to the brothers and sisters in this forum I caution and advise each of you to consider this matter carefully knowing that there are grave consequences in this life in our christian walk and spiritual progress.... and at His judgment seat when He returns. If you read this, you, and I, are without excuse. This is not a threat, not a scare tactic, but a call to each of you to examine your heart and your words and the content of your posts in truthfulness and attitude before the Lord. If He judges your works, deeds, and words as worthy, you will receive a reward and if not you will spend time in outer darkness. The Lord's reward or punishment applies just as much to me as it does to you.
Drake

Drake,

This is not a response to your post, but a critique. Posts like this one could better be received if they began with "I repent..." or "I'm sorry...".

That is, it would be more meaningful if you told us you had examined your own heart and your own posts on this forum before the Lord...if you had actually done that, of course...and that He shined his light on you, and He judged your posts as to truthfulness and attitude. The results were that your truthfulness and attitude came up short of the standard for believers. Specifically, you saw your own need to repent to those forum members you have offended. That you saw your own attitude and prayed that the Lord would change your heart.

Then, in the coming days, and future posts, we forum members would hopefully be able to see, as you begin to bear the fruit of your repentance, that you had a change of heart and attitude toward us.

This would go a long way in removing any logs which may exist in your own eye/s and perhaps would encourage and inspire each of us to go to the Lord, in like manner, as you did. It also would eliminate any noise of sounding brass and/or tinkling cymbals that may drown out your message.

Please accept this critique of your post as my response to the door you opened. To be honest and truthful, and perhaps blunt, this post came across to me as unnecessary. Your posts often throw the first tomato (as this one did), then comes the food fight.

So, having said that, in your call for us to examine ourselves, your call for us to change, you first, we will follow your lead.

I apologize, in advance, if my critique of your post is offensive to you. My message is actually the same as yours, just from a different perspective.

Nell

[Drake]

I apologize, in advance, if my critique of your post is offensive to you. My message is actually the same as yours, just from a different perspective.

Nell

No offense taken Nell.

Appreciate your critique and the sincerity in which it was delivered.

Drake

[Cal]

I do not believe outer darkness is for eternally saved believers. I believe outer darkness is another metaphor for perdition.

aron said that outer darkness is separation from the Lord. I agree with that. But Romans 8:38 says nothing can separate us from God's love. And 1 John 4:8 says God is love. So we cannot be separated from God's love, therefore we cannot be separated from God, therefore we cannot be in outer darkness.

The Bible approaches its warnings to us in many ways. Jesus said don't fear those who can kill the body, but fear him who can throw you into hell. This was a general warning to everyone. But does that mean that God will throw believers into hell? No, but it does mean we should still fear the one who can, because he means business. So when approaching these types of warnings, we have to see there is some crossover. We are given a general word, but which can be taken differently by believers and unbelievers. Believers should fear the one that can cast people into hell, but they should not fear that they themselves will be cast into hell. But unbelievers should fear both.

I believe there are going to be rewards or lack thereof for each of God's people based on their faithfulness. But I do not believe there is going to be any separation from God. The Bible talks about being "beaten with stripes." But I think the stripes will be the regret felt from missing opportunities, not from some kind of severe deprivation in the kingdom age. And I certainly don't believe believers can be "touched by the second death." That word is to Smyrna, the suffering church, which was facing death everyday. Jesus was saying to them, "Don't worry about the first death, because you can't suffer the second death." He wasn't saying be fearful of facing the second death. That just doesn't fit in with the characteristic and example of that particular church. It doesn't make sense that Jesus would warn a faithful church about being in danger of the second death.

Do I think faithfulness is important? Absolutely. But Paul put it in terms of seeking a prize, not of avoiding a punishment.

Let's be perfectly frank here. Witness Lee abused these biblical warnings to control people. Even Drake's "warning" in post #349, for whatever else it he might hope it is, is this kind of tactic, learned from Lee. We should never invoke God's warnings about faithfulness to exert control over people. That's abuse, and one Lee regularly engaged in.

[HERn]

Hey Male Duck, I've got a warning for you, and it's from a genuine, verified, self-sacrificing Apostle that never ran a recreational vehicle manufacturing scheme or allowed his sons to run roughshod over the churches he established.

Galatians 1:8–9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[Cal]

Only being traumatized by fear can explain the severe denial some LCers have about the failures and abuses of Lee and his movement. A person with genuine positive confidence about his beliefs would not need to stonewall about such things. In fact, he would welcome criticism as an opportunity to clear the air. But LCers don't do that. That's fear-based, not love-based, behavior.

This fear has been engineered by the LC misusing the Lord's warnings about such things as "outer darkness."

[Ohio]

Only being traumatized by fear can explain the severe denial some LCers have about the failures and abuses of Lee and his movement. A person with genuine positive confidence about his beliefs would not need to stonewall about such things. In fact, he would welcome criticism as an opportunity to clear the air. But LCers don't do that. That's fear-based, not love-based, behavior.

Glad to see you post again, Igzy.

Brother Drake has long since decided never to respond to my posts because I also address "the failures and abuses of Lee and his movement."

My personal feeling is that those senior LC'ers like Drake who have long witnessed the "the failures and abuses of Lee and his movement," have shipwrecked their conscience. (I Timothy 1.19)

[Cal]

Glad to see you post again, Igzy.

Brother Drake has long since decided never to respond to my posts because I also address "the failures and abuses of Lee and his movement."

My personal feeling is that those senior LC'ers like Drake who have long witnessed the "the failures and abuses of Lee and his movement," have shipwrecked their conscience. (I Timothy 1.19)


With all due respect to Drake, he reminds me of Vladimir Pozner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Posner), the Western-educated Soviet spokesman who, during the Cold War, was the voice of the Soviet Union in American. Pozner was erudite, telegenic and likable. He spoke with a perfect American accent. He seemed, superficially at least, moderate and reasonable. But in fact, he was a hard-nosed apologist for the Evil Empire.

Once the Soviet Union fell, Pozner was free from his former dominators, and he soon confessed that what he did was wrong. "What I was doing was propaganda" he admitted openly. And that's what Drake is doing.

Pozner finally made peace with the truth. Like LCers, he was driven by fear of reprisal. We can only hope the same freedom awaits the LC propagandists, for their sakes, and everyone else's.

[awareness]

With all due respect to Drake, he reminds me of Vladimir Pozner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Posner), the Western-educated Soviet spokesman who, during the Cold War, was the voice of the Soviet Union in American. Pozner was erudite, telegenic and likable. He spoke with a perfect American accent. He seemed, superficially at least, moderate and reasonable. But in fact, he was a hard-nosed apologist for the Evil Empire.

Once the Soviet Union fell, Pozner was free from his former dominators, and he soon confessed that what he did was wrong. "What I was doing was propaganda" he admitted openly. And that's what Drake is doing.

Pozner finally made peace with the truth. Like LCers, he was driven by fear of reprisal. We can only hope the same freedom awaits the LC propagandists, for their sakes, and everyone else's.
Brother Drake is just fine with me. It's no different than relating with Southern Baptist's - my family.

And I gather news from the web, so seeing past propaganda is an unfortunate daily practice.

The only problem I have with bro Drake is that he can't open up and tell us what his thing is out here. Hanging with exLCer's might be entertaining to him ... or he could be paid for doing it.

We don't know, and he ain't telling. But lots of members find a need to hide behind anonymity.

And I think it's healthy to see from his perspective. But if I remember correctly, Lee called that being open like a trash can. So being out here bro Drake is perchance being open like a trash can.

So kudos to bro Drake.

[Cal]

So kudos to bro Drake.

I have no problem personally with Drake, and I don't think I'm "better" than him. I'm just telling it like I see it. I can do no more, and should do no less.

Pozner wasn't a bad person. He was just surviving. That's how I see things here.

[Ohio]

With all due respect to Drake, he reminds me of Vladimir Pozner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Posner), the Western-educated Soviet spokesman who, during the Cold War, was the voice of the Soviet Union in American.

Continuing with your Soviet-LC themes, I consider myself somewhat like Whitaker Chambers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers). As a young man he was completely disenchanted with western capitalism, with all the excesses of the 20's becoming the depression of the 30's. The idealisms of Marx and Lenin captured his heart, viewing them to be the future of the world, solving man's every problem, and providing a glorious future to replace "poor, poor, capitalism."

Then the news of Stalin's purges at headquarters, forced WC into a serious period of soul searching. The apparent beauty of the communist ideals were merely fronts for totalitarian despots. WC's journey led him to Christ, and to risk his own life exposing other top level spies in FDR's socialist administration, notably Alger Hiss. WC's autobiography Witness became one of the most influential books Ronald Reagan ever read, and crucial insight for his battle to take down the Evil Empire.

[aron]

I do not believe outer darkness is for eternally saved believers. I believe outer darkness is another metaphor for perdition.

aron said that outer darkness is separation from the Lord. I agree with that. But Romans 8:38 says nothing can separate us from God's love. And 1 John 4:8 says God is love. So we cannot be separated from God's love, therefore we cannot be separated from God, therefore we cannot be in outer darkness.

The Bible approaches its warnings to us in many ways. Jesus said don't fear those who can kill the body, but fear him who can throw you into hell. This was a general warning to everyone. But does that mean that God will throw believers into hell? No, but it does mean we should still fear the one who can, because he means business. So when approaching these types of warnings, we have to see there is some crossover. We are given a general word, but which can be taken differently by believers and unbelievers. Believers should fear the one that can cast people into hell, but they should not fear that they themselves will be cast into hell. But unbelievers should fear both.

I believe there are going to be rewards or lack thereof for each of God's people based on their faithfulness. But I do not believe there is going to be any separation from God. The Bible talks about being "beaten with stripes." But I think the stripes will be the regret felt from missing opportunities, not from some kind of severe deprivation in the kingdom age. And I certainly don't believe believers can be "touched by the second death." That word is to Smyrna, the suffering church, which was facing death everyday. Jesus was saying to them, "Don't worry about the first death, because you can't suffer the second death." He wasn't saying be fearful of facing the second death. That just doesn't fit in with the characteristic and example of that particular church. It doesn't make sense that Jesus would warn a faithful church about being in danger of the second death.

Do I think faithfulness is important? Absolutely. But Paul put it in terms of seeking a prize, not of avoiding a punishment.

Let's be perfectly frank here. Witness Lee abused these biblical warnings to control people. Even Drake's "warning" in post #349, for whatever else it he might hope it is, is this kind of tactic, learned from Lee. We should never invoke God's warnings about faithfulness to exert control over people. That's abuse, and one Lee regularly engaged in.

When I said "separation from God" I was thinking of Peter, out there alone in the dark, weeping bitterly. But Jesus told Peter that he had prayed for him, and the Father had heard, and Peter would turn back to the light. So encouraging. God's love and Christ's intercession are stronger than our failures. "What can separate us from the love of God?"

I'll repeat a point I made earlier, because it's so worth repeating: I see Peter as Everyman. He's so well-documented in the NT because he's representative of the twelve, and us all. Blunder after blunder. But God overcomes. How can we not be encouraged, and hopeful?

And yes, we need to remind ourselves to be respectful. But we also need to call out ideas that deserve no respect, ideas that cause believers to lord over one another, to judge and threaten one another. If Lee was so concerned about "that solemn moment", then why did he borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars of church-goers' $$ to line his children's pockets? And then when it all went south, trying to railroad the investors by telling them, "consider it a donation"? Who are Lee & crew to threaten others with God's judgment?

[ChristMyLife]

The Bible is the Word of God and we must take heed to it. Even IF supposed leaders and teachers misuse the Word of God for their own selfish purposes, or simply do not know how to interpret Scripture, we must not then throw away the Bible’s sound doctrine, especially when it contains solemn warnings. We risk great loss if we disregard our Lord’s words of warning about “outer darkness” simply because others have abused the teaching.

One of the places this term—“outer darkness”—is used is in the parable of Matt. 22:1-14, a parable using the scene of the “wedding breakfast.” Below I provide a link to a sound exposition of this parable by the able and godly teacher, G. H. Lang. All threats of “outer darkness” aimed at keeping saints loyal to the “LR” are to be rejected as misuse of Scripture. The “outer darkness” in this parable can only apply to disciples who are disobedient to CHRIST, not disobedient to certain leaders or movements. The gaining of the 1,000 year kingdom reward, or the loss thereof, hinges upon our loyalty to Christ Himself, His Word, and His genuine working in our lives.

I beg you to forget any threats from those who want you to follow them. Remember the words of Paul concerning our sole loyalty: And the context of these verses is directly related to false apostles who were trying to lead the believers astray after themselves.

(2Co 11:2) For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
(2Co 11:3) But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

HERE it the link to the parable in Matt. 22:1-14.
http://www.seekersofchrist.org/LANG/wedding.html

[Raptor]

The Bible is the Word of God and we must take heed to it. Even IF supposed leaders and teachers misuse the Word of God for their own selfish purposes, or simply do not know how to interpret Scripture, we must not then throw away the Bible’s sound doctrine, especially when it contains solemn warnings. We risk great loss if we disregard our Lord’s words of warning about “outer darkness” simply because others have abused the teaching.

Yes, amen. Another 2 very clear parables are in Matthew 25:1-30 concerning the 10 virgins meeting the Bridegroom and the slaves entrusted by the Master. Clearly they are believers, but the 5 foolish virgins miss the wedding feast, and the slothful slave is called evil and is punished. Yet the prudent virgins and the faithful slaves receive a reward.

He who has an ear let him hear .....

[Sons to Glory!]

Yes, amen. Another 2 very clear parables are in Matthew 25:1-30 concerning the 10 virgins meeting the Bridegroom and the slaves entrusted by the Master. Clearly they are believers, but the 5 foolish virgins miss the wedding feast, and the slothful slave is called evil and is punished. Yet the prudent virgins and the faithful slaves receive a reward.

He who has an ear let him hear .....And the Lord tells the faithful servants, "Well done good and faithful servant! You were faithful in a few things . . . enter into the joy of your Lord!" It's like in Hebrews chapter 11, the so-called "Hall of Faith." Those ones were just like us and blew it a lot, but what is recorded are the few times they showed faith and trusted Him - that's what's important to God and that's what the Holy Spirit records there!

[Raptor]

And the Lord tells the faithful servants, "Well done good and faithful servant! You were faithful in a few things . . . enter into the joy of your Lord!" It's like in Hebrews chapter 11, the so-called "Hall of Faith." Those ones were just like us and blew it a lot, but what is recorded are the few times they showed faith and trusted Him - that's what's important to God and that's what the Holy Spirit records there!

Yes and we need that extra oil in our vessel. The more oil, the more faithful.

[Sons to Glory!]

Yes and we need that extra oil in our vessel. The more oil, the more faithful.Well, there are many views as to who the 10 virgins actually are. If you read my post from awhile back, I point out that I think they are believers, because they are all virgins (pure) and have oil (Spirit) in their lamps. However, I'm not as dogmatic about their exact identity as I used to be . . . (a few think, with some merit, that they are actually Jewish believers)

The main point, irrregardless [sic], is BE READY!

[Raptor]

Well, there are many views as to who the 10 virgins actually are. If you read my post from awhile back, I point out that I think they are believers, because they are all virgins (pure) and have oil (Spirit) in their lamps. However, I'm not as dogmatic about their exact identity as I used to be . . . (a few think, with some merit, that they are actually Jewish believers)

The main point, irrregardless [sic], is BE READY!

There is no difference between a Jewish believer and a Gentile believer.

[OBW]

It is hard to make everything in this parable tie together. We tend to insist on either a kind of purgatory for the foolish virgins, or an Arminian understanding of salvation (salvation can be lost).

And I will be the first to say that the Calvinist position can only be arrived at through ignoring contrary passages (or pulling a "Lee" and arguing some overriding principle means that the contrary passages must mean something else). But the Arminian position also has problems with passages, therefore is not simply the correct answer.

I have been on both sides of this issue during my years as a Christian and am now convinced that the only value in arguing it is to argue who is in and who is out (in terms of alleged heresy). But the line is drawn in a muddy bog and is therefore unimportant. (I will say that I have a significant problem with Calvinism, per se, but not necessarily to the extent of buying into Arminianism. Suffice it to say that even John 3:16 says "whosoever believeS," not "whosoever believeD." But this is another discussion to have somewhere else.)

As someone said, the point seems to be to be ready at all times. While the second coming may still be days, years, even Millennia away, the time of reckoning for each of us is, at most, only some years away. I would suggest that the point of the parable is not to support loss of salvation, or cause disputes over unstated doctrines, but to imply that there is a cost —of unspecified nature — to not being ready. Everything else is to over-milk the metaphors/parable.

[Sons to Glory!]

As someone said, the point seems to be to be ready at all times. While the second coming may still be days, years, even Millennia away, the time of reckoning for each of us is, at most, only some years away. I would suggest that the point of the parable is not to support loss of salvation, or cause disputes over unstated doctrines, but to imply that there is a cost —of unspecified nature — to not being ready. Everything else is to over-milk the metaphors/parable.I think there is reason to believe, according to 2 Peter 3:8-10*, that when the last one is saved who can be, then the Father will say to the Son, "It is time."

*"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief."

[Cal]

As someone said, the point seems to be to be ready at all times. While the second coming may still be days, years, even Millennia away, the time of reckoning for each of us is, at most, only some years away. I would suggest that the point of the parable is not to support loss of salvation, or cause disputes over unstated doctrines, but to imply that there is a cost —of unspecified nature — to not being ready. Everything else is to over-milk the metaphors/parable.

I agree with this. Obviously it's in our nature to want to play down any possible punishment. But the opposite error is to overplay those possibilities, to the point of obsession with them. We think if we can nail down the exact consequences, then we can control them. So we try to figure out what missing the marriage feast means. Is it for the whole 1000 years? Is for only part? In a perverse way it can become trying to figure out what we can get away with.

In the end, though, I think any displeasure from the Lord is going to be the worst thing we can experience. So we should seek to please him--not to earn our way into anything, but simply to be faithful. And if we truly love him, we should naturally seek to be faithful.

Suffice to know that he means it when he tells us to be obedient. Take care of that and you'll have no problem, I should think.

[OBW]

We think if we can nail down the exact consequences, then we can control them. So we try to figure out what missing the marriage feast means. Is it for the whole 1000 years? Is for only part? In a perverse way it can become trying to figure out what we can get away with.The next question is whether the 1,000 years is something actual or something metaphorical. When you recognize the nature of the whole writing of Revelation, it is not so clear that there are any of the things as identifiable phenomenon. But there is significant spiritual significance.

Same should be applied to this parable. There is surely a cost for not having the lamps full of oil. But what that means is not stated. The importance is not what goes wrong, but keeping things right.

[Sons to Glory!]

There is surely a cost for not having the lamps full of oil. But what that means is not stated. The importance is not what goes wrong, but keeping things right.And this is pretty much where I have landed as of late. That is, don't get all wrapped around the axle trying to figure out exact details, which can be a monumental distraction, and instead focus on Him! (which, of course, is - to say the least - most scriptural)

[ZNPaaneah]

Many of the toxic waste dumps will take 1,000 years to fully clean up. So the matter of "restoration of all things" will almost certainly be 1,000 years.

[OBW]

Many of the toxic waste dumps will take 1,000 years to fully clean up. So the matter of "restoration of all things" will almost certainly be 1,000 years.And we might be here pre-rapture for 5 times that, therefore the possibility that man can get that one problem right and corrected without a post-rapture 1,000 years.

And we are dealing with a God who is capable of restoring all things right now — including toxic waste dumps — and requires no time.

So the answer is essentially irrelevant.

The point is not to assert that the answer is "here," or "there," but to recognize that there is more to following Christ than salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And that there is a cost to failures at following. And a cost to not following at all. Jesus spoke of the present generation not dying. John said "what must soon take place." Even in metaphorical terms, the typical reader would have presumed that it was probably their lifetime. While that turned out to be untrue (except to note that at each one's death, the day of reckoning has occurred), it is still a warning to us today. Whatever all those metaphors in Revelation and in those particular parables actually means (and even whether each one has a specific event tied to them, or are just alternate ways to catch our attention) should not matter. The warnings are to drive us to consider what we will do about our living now, not how to figure out what is to come then.