The judgment seat of Christ: Dividing wheat from tares by works.

Dave F. said:

I like the term "Make-believers". There are those, who, profess to be Christian but their attitudes and deeds say otherwise.

Click to expand...

This is certainly true by Scripture, however, with the subject at hand, it begs the question: Who makes this judgment between believers and make-believers, that confess Jesus Christ? Do we make that judgment, or the Lord?

Jas 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

It's only the Lord that judges people naming His name by deeds. And so, where and when does He do that? If not at His Judgment seat, where we must all stand to give account of our deeds, then where?

Is there some Scripture, that plainly says the make-believers are not judged at His seat, when everyone else naming His name are?

And why are both good and bad deeds mentioned at His judgment seat?

Major said:

Bob.........You said.---
"why haven't we reached a common ground in this discussion?"

Because we are all sinners.
Because we are all stubborn.
Because we like what we know even if what we know is wrong = Bias.
Because some of us have personal opinions that are ingrained = Agenda.

Now, consider that you are in a church meeting and one person says.....I think the Holy Spirit is telling us to use drums.
Another church member says.....I think the Holy Spirit is telling us to use organs and pianos.
Who is right? Is one person more in tuned with God that the other one?

Of course you are going to say that we must consider the Scriptures and see what they say to us. I agree that the church is a creature that feeds upon and finds life in God’s Word. And we should hold fast to this truth.

Cordial discussions uselly lead to productive insights where there is growth and learning that takes place.

However, there’s often dead ends that happen in discussions about differences in biblical interpretation, which is what we see on forums all the time. That is always what happens particularly around contentious issues. You reach an impasse on a particular point simply because the litigators are.....
All are Sinners.
All are stubborn.
All of us like what we know.
All of us have personal opinions.

So then, sometimes that’s where the conversation ends. There comes a point in time when the conversation turns to "contentious" and that is where the moderators earn their high salary by deciding to shut down a topic of discussion.

Just a personal opinion that I am sharing and there is no need to send me a love offering on this.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, because Scripture exhorts us not to endlessly debate things. To me the rule is simple. When we begin just repeating ourselves, then we're talking to walls, not open ears. Unless something new is brought in, then I simply move on.

In rare cases, if a charge of false doctrine and gospel is made, then I shut down immediately. Since the door is not only closed, but shut in the face. Scripture teaches us that if we really believe someone is giving false doctrine, then we ought just say goodbye:

2Jo 1:9 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

cocoa said:

Water baptism is an act of faith (work) and is a necessary step in the salvation process.

Click to expand...

A step? There are more? Like flesh circumcision?

Act 15:1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

cocoa said:

Early Christian history teaches baptism. For the remission of sins.

Click to expand...

It's never full proof to rely solely upon a word translation. The word can be translated by remission of sins. And so, by being forgiven, we can now be baptized with water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the nature of Phillip baptizing the Ethiopian, where his confession of whole-hearted faith in Jesus Christ, allows him to be baptized:

Act 8:36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Water baptism is a privilege of saving faith, not a saving work. Context of all Scripture is the only way to rightly teach it. There are also examples of some confessing Jesus Christ, who only had John's water baptism, and so Paul gave them Jesus Christ's baptism. The Scripture says nothing about becoming forgiven and saved by the baptism.

Then there's Pauls' curious declaration that he purposely did not baptize new believers in Corinth, nor was he sent by the Lord to do so, but only to preach the gospel of faith in Jesus Christ. Was he going to leave them unforgiven and unsaved on purpose? He did not say that he had someone else do the baptizing. No doubt they were baptized by someone at some time, but not immediately by Paul who first preached the gospel to them.

If water baptism is necessary to be saved, sort of like flesh circumcision, then any delay is dangerous to the soul. And so it is with all works preached to be saved by, faith and confession from the heart in Jesus Christ becomes useless to save the soul, during the 'interim' of works. There's becomes a dangerous 'time lapse' after believing and receiving Christ, which is by hearing, not by working:

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

cocoa said:

J
It can't be that the people who knew the people who knew Jesus got it wrong for a 1000+ years. They also have instruction for infant baptism in the Didache (70AD), less than 40yrs after Christ's death.

Click to expand...

Didache? You've lost me there.

cocoa said:

50yrs after the death of John the Apostle 》》ca. 150 A.D., Hermas, brother of Pope Saint Pius I, The Shepherd
— Remission of sins; born again through Baptism —

Click to expand...

The Pope the Shepherd, I have not heard of, but Jesus Christ the Bishop and Shepherd of my soul, I have:

1Pe 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Jesus is the only one that's worthy of the capital Shepherd.

1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

cocoa said:

Mandate 4:3:1 “I have heard, sir,” said I, “from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “You have heard rightly, for so it is. …“They had need,” [the shepherd] said, “to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God.

21 Centuries — Behold The Truth

www.beholdthetruth.com

Click to expand...

Mandate 4:3:1? Lost me again.

I'm aware of many efforts by would be prophets and apostles trying to sound like Scripture, in order to give their stuff some theological heft, as though that's supposed to help make it true.

Joseph Smith was reasonably good at it, with a little help from his angel friend Moroni...

Gal 1:8But 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.

Dave F. said:

Since this is the end of the world, it seems to me that this is speaking of the great white throne judgement.

Click to expand...

This is a reasonable conclusion; however, not the only one. The world is translated from age aionos, not cosmos. They are interchangeable in many cases, such as in Heb 1, where the God makes the ages/worlds by His Son. There is now only one world that will end, but there are more than one ages, that have and will end in this world.

The only time the end of this physical world is prophesied, is not in Matthew 24, which is the end of this age with the Lord's return. But rather in 2 Peter 3, when this heaven and earth will be burned away with fire. The judgment at that time can only be at the GWT.

Therefore, the separation between wheat and tares can well be made by God twice: First at the Lord's return with the first resurrection, and then at the GWT, when the rest of the dead live again.

Dave F. said:

The tares being burned in the fire seems to be a reference to the lake of fire which is the second death.

Click to expand...

Once again, it can be first at the end of this age by the Lord's return, and again at the end of this world by fire and melting heat. However, Jesus informs us that specifically now in this age, there are both wheat and tares awaiting separation. That separation certainly is with His second coming, where He severs His good and faithful servants from the evil and unfaithful.

Unless there is Scripture specifically saying, that those bad believers and servants remain on earth, then the severing of tares from wheat can only be at the GWT. In that case, I would be corrected in part, and acknowledge the wheat and tares are not at the Bema judgment.

However, there is a problem with 'tares' in Matthew 13 during the Millennium:

Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

The devil will not be sowing anything on earth during the Millennium, because he will be shut up in the bottomless pit. Therefore, the those tares must be at this time, and severed at the Lord's return, when the angels will gather the wheat to meet with the Lord in the air, and the tares will be gathered and burned with fire in hell.

Dave F. said:

Everyone that goes into the millenium gets the same treatment, a forced righteousness (sort of), but not everyone responds by accepting Jesus. There are those that will still reject Him and rise up against Him at the end and will be consumed with fire from Heaven.

Click to expand...

Very true. The Lord's millennium will be His greatest harvest of souls to Himself, in more abundance than all the thousands of years going before.

And when His reign expires, the devil will be loosed with liberty to round up the enemies of the Lord for one last battle on this earth. It will take however long to gather against the Lord, but in in day it will be quickly destroyed by fire of the Lord from heaven. A much larger repeat of Sodom and Gomorrah.

cocoa said:

This is why the thief of the cross example fails for me... he wasn't baptized because he literally could not be. The exception can't also be the rule. This view of baptism is always under extreme circumstances. I'm talking about the person who just doesn't want to or is putting it off for years and years. Someone who can't be baptized is different from someone who won't be baptized.

Click to expand...

Now, I agree with this, and it ought be taught this way, with obedience to any commandment of God. It's not about becoming saved, but about keeping the commandments of the Lord, of which water baptism is one.

Mat 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.