navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Universal Reconciliation
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Universal Reconciliation Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648


0 posted 2003-12-28 10:00 PM


Has anyone here ever investigated Christian Trinitarian Universalism or Universal Reconciliation as it is also known? I believe that it is a belief (not a denomination) held cross-denominationally,(Mother Teresa, Hannah Whitehall Smith, among others) that holds that somehow, in someway, God, because of the sacrifice of Christ, will ultimately reconcile all creation, inluding all mankind, to himself, and that the faith that saves believers in the here and now is a blessing in the here and now as well as in eternity, but that those who do not come to faith in this lifetime are not lost forever, but after the resurrection and a time of corrective chastisement of some sort (the reason for the urgency for faith in this lifetime being to avoid this time of chastisement), all mankind will eventually come to saving faith..."every knee will bow and every tongue confess..."

Orthodox Christianity considers this heresy. But Orthodox Christianity once considered "By Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone to the Glory of God Alone" heresy as well (some denominations still do.)

I've read that UR was a common understanding of the early church. I'd like to believe it's true. It seems to me to ring more true to God's character of love than does His allowing anybody to be tormented for eternity, even considering that man makes his own choices regarding faith in God (or does he?) Would the God who says to me to turn the other cheek and not to render evil for evil and to love others with the same kind of love that I have for myself do any less? Would He allow people to be born that He knew would end up in hell, tormented eternally? Is it not possible that God's justice was fully met in Christ for all men and that some will just not experience the blessing of it in the here and now?

Your thoughts?  

© Copyright 2003 Denise - All Rights Reserved
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
1 posted 2003-12-29 04:15 AM


Denise,

Though I sympathize with your desires to see every person saved, I am afraid that scripture doesn't present us with such a picture. Though the Bible does not seem to support this as a certain outcome, it does seem to support a hope toward universal reconciliation.  Anything beyond a hope and desire (on our part), is to go too far I think.  One thing is certain, the Bible does not teach that unbelievers will be saved.  And unbelief, biblically speaking, is not just intellectual doubt ... it is a choice, a non-reliance upon Christ for redemption and forgiveness of sins.  So, though everyone will finally be "believers" in the sense of acknowledging God, it doesn't follow that everyone will trust him or love him in the end.  

As to God being unjust for creating someone he knew would reject him ... I don't think this shows anything contrary to God's love or good character.  The only alternative is to believe God created us without any choice in the matter ... forced to love him.  This is antithetical to the nature of love.  


Anyway ... I have more to say.  I will give you some scriptures later (I'm actually at work now, on my break) which show pretty clearly that universal salvation ... though theoretically available and possible through Christ, will not be attained, due to the choice of many who have preferred darkness to light.


A good chapter for you to read is the chapter entitled "hell" in C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain".  He does a great job of answering some of the objections to everlasting punishment, by an omnibenevolent God.  


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-29-2003 04:16 AM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
2 posted 2003-12-29 08:19 AM


It is without a doubt in my mind that the Bible teaches that most all will be saved and only a few incorrigbly wicked will be ultimately annihilated in the lake of fire.  

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
3 posted 2003-12-29 05:11 PM


Denise,

The parable of the sheep and goats, as told by Jesus, seems to rule out universal pardon on the day of judgement.  You can read the whole passage for context, but below I have included the scriptures of interest ...


quote:
When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom, prepared for you since the creation of the world...

I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me...

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels ...

I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.  

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

(selected from Matthew 25:31-46)



Saying this is only a parable does not take away the sharpness, for parables were always meant to describe realities.

Also, in the parable of The rich man and Lazarus, when the rich man, who had died, wanted to pass from torment to "Abraham's bosom", Abraham replied:

quote:
...between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.

(v.26 selected from Luke 16:19-31)



Also consider this passage in Revelation:

quote:
If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he too will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath.  He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.  And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever ...

(Revelation 14:9-11)



These are just a few, there are actually many more passages which seem to deny universal pardon ... but only in the sense that many refuse to recieve what has been provided for.  If nothing else, this serves to show us the gravity of the whole question of personal salvation and forgiveness of sins.  The consequences are eternal.  If everyone will be saved in the end, unconditionally, then we have no persuasive thrust from scripture to urge them to live for God.  As a Van Halen song once expressed, there are many who want "The Best of Both Worlds", wanting the pleasures of sin and at the same time the guarantee of escaping eternal punishment in the hereafter.  Even Jesus said that for Judas, it would have been better for him if he had never been born.  That saying is hard to reconcile with an unconditional pardon of everyone.  


I've rambled long enough against universalism.  But on the other side of things, my heart is with men like William Barclay when he wrote that he would "pay any price to be able to say truthfully 'All will be saved'".  He also wrote that "Ever and again there shines in Scripture the glint of the larger hope.  We are not forbidden to believe that somehow and some time the God who loves the world will bring the whole world to himself.".  Though I see clearly where his heart was on the matter, Barclay did seem to stop short of a dogmatic univeralism.  But my heart is with his, and yours, all the same.

After all consideration, I still have to land where C.S. Lewis did in his thinking.  He found the doctrine of Hell abhorrent, yet to some degree necessary.

quote:
I am not going to try to prove the doctrine tolerable. Let us make no mistake; it is not tolerable ...


The problem is not simply that of a God who consigns some of His creatures to final ruin. That would be the problem if we were Mahometans. Christianity, true, as always, to the complexity of the real, presents us with something knottier and more ambiguous—a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures, and who yet, where that heroic remedy fails, seems unwilling, or even unable, to arrest the ruin by an act of mere power. I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay "any price" to remove this doctrine. I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the fact. And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell.

(From "The Problem of Pain")



Not at all an easy topic to discuss.


And, by the way, I think it is dangerous to imagine that Hell is only for the "incorrigibly  wicked", if for no other reason than that we too quickly dismiss the possiblility of our own depravity ... We wouldn't, after all, do the things that Hitler or Judas did, so that makes us okay.  


Stephen.




[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-29-2003 05:29 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

4 posted 2003-12-29 10:25 PM


Stephen,

Having been indoctrinated in Catholicism as a child, and then finding the same teaching in the Protestant sphere, minus Purgatory, I guess I've always heavy-heartedly accepted the teaching. I don't see it as a necessary teaching, though, in the sense that without it people wouldn't live for God, for are people really truly living for God anyway (from a heart of love because He first loved us), if they are doing it, even in part, to avoid a future eternal torment? Isn't that really just basically self-interest, self-preservation? What glory is given to God when people live for Him, or serve Him, in order to avoid hell. Isn't it our faith working through love that gives Him glory, and not service out of fear?

I can see punishment or discipline that has corrective value, that shows us the folly of our ways, as we have to do with our own children when we are raising them, and as God does with us in our day to day lives, but I don't see the idea of eternal torment as having any corrective value. It just comes across as purely punitive, something that I would not have the heart to do to even the most heinous criminal society has to offer, let alone my child. I can't imagine such a doctrine coming from the heart of God, who is infinitely more loving and compassionate that I could ever hope to be.

I don't know, I can't even begin to comprehend all that there is about God, but I've always tended to mentally suppress this doctrine because it doesn't seem to sit well in my heart, but at the same time I don't want to be involved with something if it is heresy. I just know that this teaching of hell has always been a wedge between me and God and not a teaching that draws me nearer to Him.

Perhaps it is possible that we read too much into the parables and make them say more than Christ intended? For instance, with the Rich Man and Lazarus, wasn't the point of the parable to contrast the original "wealth" of the Jews due to their godly heritage with the "poverty" of the Gentiles and the latter's subsequently better position of blessing due to their faith in the Messiah, rather than being a treatise on the doctrine of hell? Must it be that, even secondarily? Is it possible that He related that story to them because it was one that was very familiar to them in their culture (hell was a prevalent teaching among the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians and I understand that versions of this story were popular in those cultures as well and may have even crept into Jewish lore through the influences of those cultures) and lent itself well to the lesson He was trying to teach without it being a "thus sayeth the Lord" in its particulars?

Perhaps some of our translations are not all that they could be in terms of the meanings and nuances of the original languages? For instance, the word that we have as "eternal" does not exist in the Greek. I believe the word is aion, which could be translated eon, or age, which could allow us to understand that any punishment could be for a limited time, to bring people to eventual faith and not unending torment, and thus be corrective in nature and not punitive? Could it be that the believers from this lifetime enter the Kingdom for an age while unbelievers enter an age of punishment of some sort (it would do away with the idea of having your cake and eating it too, since it is some sort of punishment, definitely best to be avoided) until a time when Christ reconciles all to Himself, when He destroys the Lake of Fire and the Second Death, creates the new Heaven and new Earth and He becomes all and in all? (I don't remember the exact verse, somewhere in Revelation.)

I don't know, maybe I'm grasping at straws here. But I too would give all that I have for it to be true.

I'm going to buy a literal translation of the Bible and see how that helps my understanding. In the meantime, I'll keep an open mind and continue to consider other understandings that others may have. Thanks for sharing yours with me, Stephen and Opeth.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
5 posted 2003-12-30 02:49 AM


quote:
if they are doing it, even in part, to avoid a future eternal torment? Isn't that really just basically self-interest, self-preservation? What glory is given to God when people live for Him, or serve Him, in order to avoid hell. Isn't it our faith working through love that gives Him glory, and not service out of fear?



Denise, I agree.  But what of those who will turn to God for no other reason but self-preservation?  To me this glorifies God in his humility.  Most would not recieve such groveling ingrates who just want to escape punishment ... But God has, and does.  In my own experience, I know God recieved me on such miserable terms.  I guess the best way I can describe it is that I had nothing really worthy of meriting salvation in myself ... only a desire for life, at whatever the cost.  He paid that price on the cross.  When I saw this, then my self-interest changed into gratitude.  He has worked within me the kind of returning love and thankfulness you are describing... but it did not come first.  Isn't there a scripture that says "Not that we loved him, but that he first loved us"?  I think ultimately it glorifies God that he recieves sinners for no other reason that he loves them ... and then his love is shed abroad in their hearts.  With time they are able to return some of this love back to him.  


As far as the doctrine of Hell is concerned,  I would encourage you not to embrace a belief out of  human sentiment alone.  Find out if it is true from the testimony of scripture.  I personally found that universalism did not match what is communicated.  But let the love of Christ for the world be your guard against distrusting God concerning Hell.  Personally I have found that all of my misgivings about the doctrine, have a lack of trust behind them ... that God might send people there unjustly, or that he might take delight in torment.  But these mistrusting and suspicious thoughts are not warranted ... especially, as C.S. Lewis said, in sight of the cross of Jesus.  Can anyone rightly imagine that all is not done, painstakingly by God for every soul who finally perishes?  I think if sentiment or sense will not suffice us here, then let our knowledge of God's character do so.  That he is just, should quell our anxious hearts.


Stephen.


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-30-2003 02:51 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
6 posted 2003-12-31 03:54 PM


Denise,

I found a link to chapter 8 of Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" ... "hell"

This is very good writing on a much misunderstood subject.


http://www.merelewis.org/CSLpp08.html


Happy New Year!

Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-31-2003 03:55 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

7 posted 2003-12-31 07:45 PM


Thanks again for your input, guys. I appreciate the feedback, and thanks for the link, Stephen. I've read through it, and while I respect C.S. Lewis' literary contributions, I don't think I'm in sync with him theologically. He seems to place more emphasis on man's will than on God's sovereignty and grace to undeserving sinners. I am not of the persuasion that a self-surrender of some sort is what brings people into a saving relationship with God.(how much would be enough and when would we know we have achieved it, and then is it lost and regained with each failing and repentence, and then isn't our salvation more dependent on our actions, than on Christ's?) I believe that it is a trust in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ alone, irrespective of the desire or will of sinful man, that brings about the new birth. But not just a historical belief in Christ's existence, but a trusting of one's salvation to Him on the basis of what He has performed on our behalf, and nothing of ourselves. I guess I don't really prescribe to free will, per se, but more to man's will being subjected ultimately to God's sovereign purposes, i.e., "some as vessels of honor, and some as vessels for common use."

The struggle is, in our understanding of things, to seek truth, without our tainting the search with our feelings or desires or human wisdom, preconceived ideas, indoctrinations, with how we would do things if we were God, with what makes sense to us, to our sense of right and wrong and justice, etc. It is a struggle indeed.

The search continues...



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
8 posted 2003-12-31 08:50 PM


Denise,

It seems that such extreme Calvinism would render some unable to believe, rather than merely unwilling ... thus making the punishment of hell for something like having a brown hair instead of red.  While I cannot reconcile God's sovereignty to our free will in my mind ... they both seem to exist, regardless of what we think.  The problem we run into when we try to uphold one, without the other, is that we always end up sweeping significant portions of scripture "under the rug".  For God to not provide what is needed for some to believe, then condemn them for not believing, doesn't seem to me to paint a picture of justice.  I guess you have dealt with that by questioning hell as a valid doctrine.  One thing I do see is the sovereignty of God and the will of man working together.  The scripture does say that God "hardened Pharoah's heart", but interestingly enough it says that Pharoah hardened his own heart first.  There is no doubt our will is involved in salvation ... I will never say it is sufficient by itself.  But to say that God's choice is completely arbitrary, causing some to be saved, and others to perish, does not fit exactly with scripture either ... nor with my "heart", as you are wont to say.

One thing, though this is my opinion ... the doctrine of Hell is more difficult to dismiss scripturally, than the free will of man.    


Stephen      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-31-2003 08:54 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
9 posted 2003-12-31 08:56 PM


quote:
I believe that it is a trust in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ alone, irrespective of the desire or will of sinful man, that brings about the new birth.


I was just wondering if you consider "trust" to be an act of the will.

Stephen

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

10 posted 2004-01-01 09:58 AM


Stephen,

I guess I tend to believe (at the moment, anyway ) that man does have a will that he can exercise, but not really 'free' in the purest understanding of the word, as I believe that it is influenced ultimately by God's sovereign purposes.

Trusting Christ, I believe, depends on whether an individual, after having been presented with the evidences in Scripture about Him and His work on the sinner's behalf, finds that evidence credible. If they find it credible, they trust Him for their salvation, if they don't find it credible, they don't. I suppose man's will is involved in the sense that one can decide to even consider the evidences presented or can decide to dismiss them out of hand, preferring darkness to light, blindness to sight, despite the constant drawing of the Spirit.

I can't reconcile God's sovereignty with man's will either, but also see both in Scripture. Maybe we aren't meant to understand it?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

11 posted 2004-01-02 09:42 PM


Here's an article on the concept of free will that makes sense to me, and a touch humorous to boot.
http://martinzender.com/free_will_and_the_oh_well_creed.htm

Here's a link to some other of his writings.
http://martinzender.com/zenderature.htm

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
12 posted 2004-01-06 09:18 PM


Denise,

From what I've read, Zender has a lot of wit, and compassion for mankind.  But he also points out his opinion that the doctrine of "hell" is the cause of the apparant paradox between Calvinist thinking, and Arminian thinking.  And he does a good job of poking fun at honest men who described the truths they saw (from both quarters).  The only problem is that he doesn't defend his own view very well scripturally, apart from attacking "literalism".  A problem that occurs when he spiritualizes "Gehenna", is that he doesn't recognize that the reality may be worse than the symbol.  And if descriptions of hell in Jesus' parables are not symbolic of a deeper reality, then why did he say them ... for what purpose?  They were terribly misleading to warn us from a harmless spectre.  This is where I would like to probe Zender more ... if hellish descriptions are metaphorical, then what is the reality?  And why would not the reality be worse?  Why would Jesus tell us that we should prefer to pluck out an eye, or cut off a hand, rather than to enter that state?  That's pretty drastic language to just describe a nonentity isn't it?


I wouldn't hesitate to call this man a "brother" in the faith, but I think he's misled.  I would give his material much more consideration, and prayer, before swallowing it whole.


And I'm not saying he doesn't communicate some valid truth.  After all, Hell is not our gospel ... Christ is.

thanks,

Stephen.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

13 posted 2004-01-07 09:18 PM


Perhaps it has been the interpretations that have been misleading us, Stephen. We have to differentiate between the infallible Word and man's interpretations of the Word. They aren't necessarily the same, as you know. I think correct, literal translation of His Word is the key to our gaining the understanding that God intended. Men's interpretations may help us or hurt us in our quest for the truth. We have to retain a teachable spirit, seek God for proper interpretation, whatever the cost, whether we like the answers or not, whether it goes along with the mainstream, or takes us outside the gate. We won't be mislead if we are relying on God alone for the answers.
  
I don't see that Gehenna is being 'spiritualized' in Martin's writings, just the opposite. I think he is interpreting it as literally as possible, i.e., the burning trash heap in Jerusalem, also spoken of in Isaiah. In context Jesus and Isaiah are speaking of the fate of the transgressors during the Thousand Year Reign. Below are a couple more links for illustration.

http://martinzender.com/the_rich_man_and_lazarus.htm
http://martinzender.com/huck_finn_explains_hell.htm


Here's what I think is a good article that I came upon regarding The Rich Man and Lazarus. Very long but worth the study. I think it will bless you.
http://www.godfire.net/eby/abrahams.html

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

14 posted 2004-01-08 06:52 PM


Just a note -

By literal interpretation I was referring in this instance to literal renderings from the languages of the original texts, actual word for actual word. I think this provides the surest way to arrive at God's intended communication to us.

There are many things in the Bible that were never meant to be taken in a literal way, but that's another matter altogether than what I was trying to convey. Sorry for not making myself more clear.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

15 posted 2004-09-05 11:24 PM


As a new member, I wish to reply concerning this subject of UR. The wonderful thing is it is true and the Scriptures affirm it. But,an accurate, literal translation is surely most important.  One I recommend is Young's Literal Translation which is available for a reasonable cost. There are many verses which affirm that Christ died for the sins of the world.  When Christ died for all, we read in 2 Cor.5:14, all died.  I understand this to mean that God reckoned all humanity dieing with Christ. And in verse 19, "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them." NIV.  While there is still sin in the universe, and all humans will be judged for their deeds, what Christ  accomplished means that at the end of the ages death and sin will be done away with, 1 Cor.15:26 and Heb.9:26. There's more. Arnold
Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

16 posted 2004-09-06 01:17 AM


Denise and Stephanos:
Let us look carefully at the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  There are a number of reasons why this account is a parable, figurative, not literal: 1)The Lord represents Abraham as being alive in Hades(Gk), yet in Luke 20:37-40 the Lord Jesus makes it plain to the Sadducees (who did not believe in resurrection), that Abraham is dead but will be resurrected. Quoting from the NIV, "but in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."  God sees the future as if it were now.  Since Abraham is dead at the time of this story, this must be taken as figurative, not literal. 2)The Lord states that both the rich man and Lazarus died, then describes them with bodies that can see, feel, hear, talk etc, after death, apart from resurrection, which contradicts the rest of the bible.  Therefore, the story is figurative. 3)Elsewhere the Lord himself taught that the dead do not live until resurrection. See: John 5:28,29; 11:23-25; 12:17; Rev 20:4-6.  To take this story literally is to deny the need for resurrec-
tion. John writes in John 3:13 "and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in heaven." YLT.  4)For the words of the Lord Jesus to be taken literally, concerning the rich man and Lazarus in Hades, is to make Him contradict all that is revealed in the Scriptures concerning the state of the dead. Many scriptures tell us that in the grave (sheol, Heb; Hades, Gk) there is no remembrance, wisdom, knowledge, etc. There is silence. See:Psa 6:5, 31:17, 115:17; Ecc 9:19, 12:10; Isa 38:18, etc.
5)Our Lord addressed this parable to the Pharisees and the multitudes just as we read in Matt 13:34, "all these things spoke Jesus in parables to the multitudes; and without a parable spoke he nothing unto them."  Since our Lord spoke only parables to the multitudes, then surely in this case His words must be figurative, not literal.
I'm sure there are any number of applica-
tions that could be seen in this account. To me the chief one is Luke 16:31, where Father Abraham tells the rich man, "if they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

17 posted 2004-09-06 01:12 PM


Hi Arnold. Welcome to Passions, and thank you for sharing your views.

I have also come to believe that UR is true. Its views, in my opinion, are supported by the literal word for word rendering from the original languages of the Scriptures, most importantly. It also does not violate the concepts of an all-loving, all-merciful, and yet at the same time, an all-just God, who, because of the sacrifice of Christ on mankind's behalf, has saved mankind from eternal separation from Himself. Yet this does not rule out future gains and losses in this lifetime and at the Judgment for deeds done through faith, or deeds done through a lack of faith. I believe that any punishment, though far from desirable (what punishment ever is), is remedial, it has a forward-looking and corrective purpose, and is not an eternal torturing in fire (a concept that would violate all the attributes of God, in my opinion). It also harmonizes the concepts found in the Scriptures, such as election, predestination, vessels made for honor and vessels made for common use, the potter and the clay, man's will, God's sovereignty, etc. I believe He blesses some in this lifetime with faith, and that He blinds some in this lifetime, and that we each fulfill our God-given role in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with your views on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus as well. The best study on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus that I have come across to date is found at the link below, which I referenced earlier. I found it particularly enlightening that the Rich Man was identified as Judah (the son of Jacob who had five brothers [Leah bore six sons by Jacob]), as the Rich Man stated that he had, i.e., the Southern Kingdom of the Jews, who had developed an exclusive and pharisaeical spirit toward those (Lazarus) not similarly blessed.
http://www.godfire.net/eby/abrahams.html

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
18 posted 2004-09-06 01:34 PM


Denise,
Only those who are saved will live forever. So those who are not saved cannot be tormented forever as they do not have eternal life.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

19 posted 2004-09-06 02:41 PM


Hi Larry! It's always good to see you! I'm glad you have a computer at home again too! I know you're happy too!

Annihilationism is one school of thought that I have looked into. In studying with a literal word for word, though, the word rendered "eternal" (only God is eternal, which means without beginning or end, man can only hope for "everlasting") is actually "aionian" which means "ages", pertaining to the various ages that God created (as in God of the Ages) and that the actual verses that have "eternal" in them in most of the transliterations that we commonly use today should say "aionian" or "for the eons", or "eon" or "age" or "ages", etc., depending on the context of the particular verse. In this school of thought then, those in this lifetime with faith (the saved) are promised the blessings of "aionian" life (one or two future ages of blessing (various thoughts on the number of future ages as well), while those without faith (the unsaved) remain in the grave during that time) and that after the Resurrection and Judgment and a time of chatisement, all will finally come to the knowledge of Christ, who He is, and what He has done on their behalf, and "every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord", the last "Age" ends, the overall period of the "Ages" concludes and Christ will then submit all to the Father and God will then become all and in all, forever.

So that's where I'm at in my present understanding. At least for now!


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
20 posted 2004-09-06 10:25 PM


Arnold,

There's no use just saying that "the rich man and lazarus" is a parable and not literal.  Why?  Because that's obvious enough, but it doesn't solve the problem.  Because parables always point to a greater reality that is spiritual.  Parables are essentially elaborate metaphor and simile.  


So, if these parables are figurative only and metaphorical (which I've granted), then what spiritual reality does the "fixed gulf" between Abraham's bosom and Sheol, and the impossiblity of the rich man's crossing alude to?  Why does the parable seem to suggest a graciouly given time to repent and turn to God, that does not extend indefinitely?


Also if the parable of the wheat and the tares is figurative (which I grant) then what reality does the gathering of the tares and burning with unquenchable fire refer to?


All I've got to say, is that if these parables do not refer to damnation, then they are very poor parables, because they are misleading.  (and these are only two, out of many many scriptures that describe eternal punishment ... most of which are NOT parabolic, but doctrinal in nature.)


I also believe in Universal reconciliation ... it was provided for all of humanity.  But something so universally offered can be particularly rejected by individuals.  


Stephen.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

21 posted 2004-09-06 10:44 PM


Hi Denise. Your last reply was right on, as far as my knowledge of the Scriptures.  The key to really understanding the Bible and God's plan and purpose for the ages is to understand the doctrine of "the eons". We are shown there are at least seven distinct divisions: pre-eonian, post-eonian, and the five eons themselves.
In Titus 1:2 we are told that God promised us life BEFORE eonian times.  In 2 Tim 1:9 we are told of God's purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus BEFORE eonian times.  In 1 Cor 2:7 we are told of God's wisdom in a secret, which has been concealed, which God designates BEFORE the eons for our glory.  Now, since there was a time when there were no eons, they must have been made, and they were.  We are told in Heb 1:2 "God...in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages." YLT. The next question might be, "how many eons (ages) are there?  Here is how we can arrive at the number of the eons.  Gal 1:4 tells us that "Christ...did give himself for our, sins that he might deliver us out of the present evil age..." YLT.  So, we know there must be at least one eon.  In Col 1:26 we read of a secret which has been concealed from the ages.  Since that is plural, there cannot be less than three eons, two in the past and the present one in which we live.  Then in Eph 2:7 we find that God will be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus, and this display will take place in the on-coming ages.  So there are at least two eons in the future, making a total of five.
Each eon begins, and each eon ends including the last eon.  This is clearly stated in Heb 9:26, "yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, has He been manifested. CLNT
While there are many objections to this doctrine by traditional, "orthodox"  theology, when the truth is known, their objections disappear.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

22 posted 2004-09-06 11:14 PM


Hi Stephen,

I think perhaps the fixed gulf between Abraham and the Pharisees might be one of their own making, their own pride and arrogance regarding their standing before God? They had come to despise all those not like themselves, all those not similarly blessed as they had been, and were not exemplifying the humble spirit of their father Abraham. I believe that Christ was trying to make them see the reality of their situation through the parable, that they were not the spiritual giants that they thought they were simply because they were physically descended from Abraham, and that an outcast of society, like Lazarus, who was humble, was closer to Abraham (so much so that he was resting in his bosom). The gulf would remain as long as the pride and arrogance remained because it blinded them to the very existence of their self-created gulf.

To my understanding, unquenchable fire in Scripture usually refers to punishment that will continue for as long as it is required. It can't or won't be quenched, it has to run its course and burns itself out of its own accord when there is nothing left to burn.

I think the understanding that we bring to the Scriptures determines how we read them. If we believe in damnation, we see damnation. If we don't, we see other applications, such as a loss of blessing, forfeiture of rewards, temporal punishment, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

23 posted 2004-09-06 11:36 PM


Hi Arnold. Yes, I agree. I have come to a greater awareness of the awesomeness of God after reading a literal translation of the Word and discovering the wealth of treasure that is easily missed, read over, not understood, when reading other translations. I leant my Concordant Literal New Testament to my sister. I have to get it back. I may also get a YLT to check out that version as well.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
24 posted 2004-09-07 04:26 PM


Denise:
quote:
I think perhaps the fixed gulf between Abraham and the Pharisees might be one of their own making, their own pride and arrogance regarding their standing before God?


And yet it's the "fixed" part that is hard to explain if we believe in uncondtional universal salvation.  In what sense was their self righteousness and hardness irreversible and fixed, if they too were simply bound to be changed in the eschatological "by and by"?  

quote:
To my understanding, unquenchable fire in Scripture usually refers to punishment that will continue for as long as it is required. It can't or won't be quenched, it has to run its course and burns itself out of its own accord when there is nothing left to burn.

Seeing that Jesus already told his disciples the interpretation of this parable (see Matthew 13:37-43), you have to ask yourself whether the punishment referred to is temporal or eschatological.


If it is eschatological, then you are claiming, like the Roman Catholic Church to believe in something like Purgatory.  However, there's nothing redemptive even hinted at in this parable for those "tares".  If it's a parable describing the salvation of all ... including the wicked by a purging kind of punishment, then it is a poor parable to that end.  


Consider Jesus' own explanation of the parable ...


"He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.  The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.  The enemy who sowed them is the devil.  The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.  Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.  The Son of Man will send out his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire.  There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father."


"Burned in the Fire" ... "Out of his kingdom" ... "Cast them into the furnace of fire" ...

In their context, these phrases are very poor, if meant to describe a redemptive process.  There is nothing in the parable, or in Jesus' explanation that would indicate the purification of the wicked.  

I would ask you:  What in the parable itself or Jesus' interpretation, do you see that would even hint at such a thing as the salvation of the tares as well as the wheat?


Or if you want to say that the parable is about temporal punishment, spoken in a highly imaginative way ... Then Jesus' words about the harvest being "the end of the age" and "angels gathering" don't make much sense.  Exegetically, this parable most naturally speaks of the final judgement, and great escatological events, not merely of present sufferings which may help even the wicked to repent.  (There are indeed other scriptures that DO speak of that, but it's not this one).


So secondly, I would ask you:  If this parable speaks of temporal punishment, how do you explain Jesus' references to the end of the age, and angels reaping the souls of men, etc ...?  


quote:
I think the understanding that we bring to the Scriptures determines how we read them. If we believe in damnation, we see damnation. If we don't, we see other applications, such as a loss of blessing, forfeiture of rewards, temporal punishment, etc.



I agree that our preconceptions can shape our views of scripture.  But surely you're not saying that scripture itself may not be the primary shaper of a person's belief in damnation?  My belief that hell is an eternal state, to be dreadfully avoided, has been determined by what I consider to be proper exegesis of scripture.  Any other interpretation of it is lacking, since questions go unanswered, too much extra-textually gets added for support, and too much bending occurs.  But if you can answer my two above questions on these scriptures, I may still be persuaded.


And BTW, I still believe in the temporal suffering, loss of rewards, etc ... for the sanctification of the believer.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-07-2004 06:29 PM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

25 posted 2004-09-07 07:27 PM


Hi Stephanos, concerning the rich man and Lazarus parable, as to what the "great gulf fixed" means figuratively, is any one's interpretation.  And I guess there might be some other views.  Personally, like I pointed out before, the key is verse is 31,
"If Moses and the prophets they do not hear, neither if one may rise out of the dead will they be persuaded" YLT.  Perhaps speaking prophetically of Christ's death and resurrection.

Stephanos, concerning the parable of the wheat and tares, may I comment: I see this account in Matt 13:36-43 parallel to Matt 25:31-46, and there is nothing to indicate those cast into the fire will later become believers.  The concilliation, justification, and vivification of all is revealed in other scriptures, primarily the epistles of Paul.  In both passages Christ has returned to earth in power and glory with His angels (messengers) at the end of the age (our present age). The angels are involved when all those who offend and do iniquity will be cast into the furnace of fire. In the second account it is the "goat"
nations (peoples) who treated Christ's brethren (the remnant of Jewish belivers) shamefully, during the 7 years tribulation, I believe, who will be cast into the furnace of fire, the lake of fire, to punishment age-during. YLT.
Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

26 posted 2004-09-09 01:16 AM


Hi Denise, Stephanos and others.  Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that The judgements of God could be investigated.  I will be pulling out a lot from a marvelous book: God's Eonian Purpose by Adlai Loudy, which can be purchased from Concordant Publishing Concern. 1. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CROSS, where all mankind are involved, and on the basis of Christ's death (and resurrection),
the results are Justification and Conciliation.  2. THE JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST, for the ecclesia, the body of Christ, where we will be gain award or loss (not loss of salvation) on the basis of our deeds as Christians.  3. THE GLORY THRONE JUDGEMENT, when Christ returns to the earth in power and great glory.  The subjects are:
the living nations ("sheep and goat")who will be judged on their treatment of Christ's brethren during the tribulation. Some nations wil be "saved", others chastened in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Nothing is said that they stay alive after being cast into the fire.
I also believe that the "tares" and the "bad fish" spoken of in the parables in Matt 13:37-50, will be judged by Christ at this time.  It doesn't say in the scriptures, but all humans will be rightly judged.  4.THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT, where "the rest of the dead" are resurrected and stand before Christ, seated on the great white throne with all his angels around him.  It is this that I believe Paul in Rom 2:2-16 is describing how these will be judged according to truth, according to their deeds
and according to the Paul's evangel.  There will be "indignation and fury, affliction and distress, on every human soul which is effecting evil, both of the Jew first and of the Greek, yet glory and honor and peace to every worker of good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek." CLNT  Now, since all these will be judged fairly and completely, it follows, as we read in Rev 20:14,15, "if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."
CLNT.  The lake of fire is the second death.
These people had lived once, died, and resurrected to be judged.  There is no continuing torment forever, or even eonian.
They are DEAD.  However, we do read in Rev 14:9-12 that those worshipping the beast and its image, and is receiving its mark, will be tormented in fire and sulfur, and the fumes of their torment are ascending for the eons of the eons.  Perhaps they are thrown alive into the lake of fire, just as described for the beast and the false prophet
(both humans) in Rev 19:20,21
Well, enough food for thought. Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

27 posted 2004-09-09 12:20 PM


Hello again. Some further thoughts on the adjudication at the Great White Throne.  It is my belief that all those being judged will
be converted right there, seeing Christ with all His angels, just as the apostle Paul,
"the chief of sinners" was on the road to Damascus.   As to the verse "the smoke of their torment ascends for the eons of the eons", there are at least two views: one: even though thrown alive into the lake of fire, they will still die, it is the smoke of their dieing torment that ascends.  The other view is that God will change their bodies into bodies that do not die during the time of their torment.  A verse to ponder on is Rom 6:23: "for the wages of sin is death.." YLT, not firey torment for ever, or for the eons.    Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
28 posted 2004-09-09 02:52 PM


quote:
As to the verse "the smoke of their torment ascends for the eons of the eons", there are at least two views: one: even though thrown alive into the lake of fire, they will still die, it is the smoke of their dieing torment that ascends.  The other view is that God will change their bodies into bodies that do not die during the time of their torment.  A verse to ponder on is Rom 6:23: "for the wages of sin is death.." YLT, not firey torment for ever, or for the eons.



One of the basic principles of Biblical interpretation (or any literary interpretation for that matter) is keep interpretations as simple as possible, yet comprehensive enough to satisfy the demands of the text.  To avoid over-simplification, and yet stay away from the bolstering of a particular interpretation by elaborate extra-textual gymnastics.  When I read your possible interpretations, other than eternal punishment, "That's a stretch" is the phrase that comes to mind.


Parsing poetic terms such as "the smoke of their torment" into meanings more acceptable than what is obviously implied, is a real danger in Biblical interpretation.  I know what the passage obviously implies.  But if I were to try and grasp your explanations of it, I would have to ask what the writer could possibly mean by "smoke of their torment ascending", if they were really dead, or really delivered from torment?  Then if you could come up with an understandable answer, I would still have to ask myself if the text and context warrants me believing that the author likely intended that meaning.


Stephen

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
29 posted 2004-09-09 06:36 PM


quote:
Parsing poetic terms such as "the smoke of their torment" into meanings more acceptable than what is obviously implied, is a real danger in Biblical interpretation.

If an implication is obvious, Stephen, doesn't it stop being an implication?

If the writer wanted to avoid ambiguity and make everything obvious, why use poetic terms at all?

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

30 posted 2004-09-10 07:30 PM


Thank you, Stephen and Ron for your comments. How would each of you interpret "the smoke of their torments ascended for the eons of the eons"?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
31 posted 2004-09-10 10:26 PM


quote:
If an implication is obvious, Stephen, doesn't it stop being an implication?



imply:  v.  1) to involve or suggest by logical necessity; entail.  2) To say or express indirectly; to hint; suggest;

implication n.  ... 3) That which is implied, especially a) An indirect indication.  b) an inference.  


Maybe sometimes, but most of the time I'd have to honestly say no.  The term "indirect indication" sums it up really nicely for me.  Indirect doesn't mean obscure, it just means indirect.  A kiss is an indirect way of saying "I love you", but not at all unclear (unless there's a less-than-sterling motive behind it).


quote:
If the writer wanted to avoid ambiguity and make everything obvious, why use poetic terms at all?


We're free to disagree on this, but I think the vehicle of poetry has been used at least as often for vivification and clarity, as it has for obscurity ... actually far more often in my opinion.  


And don't forget that the Bible speaks to prosaic minds as well as poetic hearts.  There's a plethora of verses which read more like doctrinal treatises (maybe ... because they are?     ) than imaginative poetics, which speak on the very same issues.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-11-2004 12:55 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

32 posted 2004-09-11 09:41 PM


There are probably almost as many interpretations of bibilical passages as there are people. And I'm sure that most believe that they are using proper interpretive techniques.

If I believed that 'eternal' punishment was the only way to understand those passages in question, then I would accept that interpretation. But I find that the view of limited punishment, time-qualified, age-lasting, or age-enduring punishment is more plausible (and more readily seen in the literal translations) and true to my understanding of the whole of scripture and the nature of God.

When words like 'eternal', 'forever and ever', etc., are replaced with the actual words from the original languages, such as 'aionian', 'ages', 'eon', 'eons of the eons', etc., the same verses take on entirely different meanings, and even those verses that mention punishment without specifically stating duration are seen in a new light.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
33 posted 2004-09-12 12:11 PM


quote:
There are probably almost as many interpretations of bibilical passages as there are people. And I'm sure that most believe that they are using proper interpretive techniques.

Denise,

First of all I'm not so sure that most even know what those techniques are.  And whether or not they believe they are using proper interpretive techniques, doesn't determine if they are acutally doing so.  Surely you're not arguing that just because there is disagreement and varying conclusions, that no one can be correct?


quote:
If I believed that 'eternal' punishment was the only way to understand those passages in question, then I would accept that interpretation. But I find that the view of limited punishment, time-qualified, age-lasting, or age-enduring punishment is more plausible (and more readily seen in the literal translations) and true to my understanding of the whole of scripture and the nature of God.
When words like 'eternal', 'forever and ever', etc., are replaced with the actual words from the original languages, such as 'aionian', 'ages', 'eon', 'eons of the eons', etc., the same verses take on entirely different meanings, and even those verses that mention punishment without specifically stating duration are seen in a new light.



But you seem to be basing your interpretation on the fact that the original language says "eon of the eons" etc ... rather than the "forever and ever" of modern English.  But where you're stopping short in your process, is in failing to ask what "eon of the eons" meant to those who used that language rather than our own.  Can you answer that?  If it wasn't referring to an eternal state, or an everlasting age transcending time, then what did it refer to exactly?


According to Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the NewTestament (which is insanely meticulous in the usage of the original Greek, citing numerous examples of usage in Ancient Literature for support)  the phrase "ages of the ages" means:  the (whole) age embracing the (shorter) ages..  It also says that the plurality of age(s) denotes the individual ages whose sum is eternity.


So there's a reason that ALL modern Bible translations (even the one you probably use and respect the most) use words akin to "forever" and "everlasting" in the translation of these passages.  You're opposing a great deal of scholarly weight in the rendering of languages.  If you're going to appeal to a more literal rendition of the language ... you still have to determine what it meant to the author and to the original audience in that original form.  


Stephen.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

34 posted 2004-09-12 02:34 PM


No, of course not, Stephen, I'm not saying that no one can be correct. I guess what I am suggesting is that perhaps none of us has "all of it" correct even when we think we do. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, or even to have my theology nailed down. My search and studies are ongoing and my beliefs tomorrow can be very different than my beliefs today.

Here is a link that discusses in detail the history and usages of the word aionian and its derivitives.
http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/hanson/Aion-Aionios.htm

And if I were at all concerned about going against a great deal of scholary weight in things linguistic or theological I'd probably still be a Roman Catholic.

Seriously though, check out the article. I think it's very well done and informative.


Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

35 posted 2004-09-13 10:15 PM


Hi Denise and Stephan:  Interpreting scripture can certainly vary from person to person.  But I've seen too often that certain views that individuals have come up with  is because a text is taken out of its context, and because they didn't "rightly divide" the scripture, as we are encouraged to do in 2 Tim 2:15,16. The great scholar, John Wiclif put it this way: "It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
36 posted 2004-09-13 10:36 PM


Denise:
quote:
if I were at all concerned about going against a great deal of scholary weight in things linguistic or theological I'd probably still be a Roman Catholic.

But Denise, surely you would have to say (as a good protestant) that where you part ways with Roman Catholicism is precisely where they have ceased being scholarly and biblically theological.  I'm sure that you realize most of the doctrines rejected by the movement that Luther kicked off, involve only areas where the RCs departed from the principle of "sola scriptura" and made tradition and Papal authority of equal weight to scripture.  The assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc ..., only have sketchy (at best) basis in the Bible.  Actually the first two have no scriptural basis whatsoever, other than Papal decree and later Church tradition.  


My point is, that the Reformation wasn't so much about bucking scholarship and the majority, (many of it's leaders were exemplary scholars) as it was about bucking tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it was unscriptural or supported only by the teachings of men.


You could argue that the doctrine of eternal punishment falls under the category of tradition, with little scriptural basis.  But that's exactly where I believe it stands the most prominently and surely, in the scriptures themselves as a whole.


Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil of Caesarea, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitfield, and Wesley all endorsed the doctrine of eternal punishment.


And I doubt that Luther simply aquiesced to the doctrine of eternal punishment just because the Roman Catholic church held it to be true.  Luther (Though I don't agree with him on everything) did not seem to take much at all for granted.  Nor was he afraid of being different, or of going against the grain.


I'll come back later and address that article and other aspects of this interesting debate soon ...

Arnold,

I absolutely agree.


Later,

Stephen.  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

37 posted 2004-09-14 12:09 PM


Stephen, It's true that lexicons, bible commentaries, etc, will interpret those phrases in a similar way.  And practically all of them define the adjective AIONIOS, as eternal.  From Thayer's Lexicon, I'm not sure what is meant by "the (whole) age embracing the (shorter) ages."  But "ages" cannot denote "the individual ages whose sum is eternity" for a number of reasons, quoting from the Concordant Version: "..and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons.  And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation." Luke 1:33;  "..and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen!" If "ages (eons)" means "eternity", then we should interpret these verses as "He shall be reigning for eternity."  But, we know this isn't true because 1 Cor 15:24-27 tells us that at the consummation (of the eons) Christ will be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father.  He reigns untill all enemies are placed under His feet, His reign being for the last two eons of all the eons in God's great plan.  There are many verses that use the phrase "ages of the ages", and if "ages" means eternity, should we read this "eternity of eternity"?  No, of course not.  In my opinion, the concept of "eternal" or "eternity" were unknown concepts for those living during bible times, for there are no words that mean "unending".   Arnold
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
38 posted 2004-09-14 01:38 AM


Arnold,

You are right.  Alone, the Greek term for "age" or "aeon" does not typically mean eternity.  I didn't say that it did, nor do the Linguistic scholars.  But when the particular phrase "ages of the ages" was used, it referred to an "age" which contained all other ages, something transcendent of time, or eternity.  It's almost like a description of an exponentially crazed multiplication, hence the almost unnatural usage of plurals.  Sort of like "days without number" or other similar phrases that we sometimes use, to describe infinite or indeterminate amounts of time, using the repitition of familiar finite measurements of time.  


Also, to use the scripture about Christ handing the Kingdom to his Father, as a proof text to support what you are saying has a significant problem.  Regardless of the apparant differences in these scriptures, there is only one Kingdom that will reign forever and ever ... The Kingdom of God.  Think Trinitarian for a moment here.  Regardless of whether it is the Son's or The Father's administration of this Kingdom, The Father and Son and Holy Spirit are ultimately one.  So using this as a proof text against ancient scriptures which indicate the everlasting nature of the Messiah's rule, fails to take into account the trinitarian revelation we now have.  It also fails to see that this revelation (of the distinction within the Godhead) is the very reason for the difference in descriptions.  These differences do not arise from any true difference between the respective durations of time.  


Stephen  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
39 posted 2004-09-14 02:20 PM


quote:
But when the particular phrase "ages of the ages" was used, it referred to an "age" which contained all other ages, something transcendent of time, or eternity.

That's only true, Stephen, if there are an infinite number of ages. Something that contains a finite quantity is, itself, finite. I would also quibble that transcendent of time and eternity aren't necessarily interchangeable and, indeed, may be incompatible.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

40 posted 2004-09-14 04:59 PM


What would the scholars do with "age of the age" Heb 1:8; or "age of the ages" Eph 3:21; or "from the ages" Eph 3:9 & Col 1:26; or "the on-coming ages" Eph 2:7?  As far as lumping Father, Son and Holy Spirit together in 1 Cor 15, to be consistent, when Christ died, then all three died;  when He prayed "our Father Who art in heaven" He was fooling everyone because He was the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. If we continue on this vain, words don't mean anything.

In Luke 1:32,33 in the CV we read "And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation."  It is the God and Father who is over all, who gives Christ as Messiah, the throne of David, His father (according to flesh). And, therefore, it is Christ, the son, who abdicates the throne given Him, and becomes subject to God the Father that God may be all in all, or everything to everyone.

If the ages continued for eternity, how could we read that they come to an end in Heb 9:26, "..yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest." CV.  At the end of the ages, all enemies will be "put under Christ's feet", including death and sin. And God's purpose of the ages will come to pass, "Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaining that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father." CV. What a wonderful day tis will be.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
41 posted 2004-09-14 08:09 PM


quote:
That's only true, Stephen, if there are an infinite number of ages. Something that contains a finite quantity is, itself, finite. I would also quibble that transcendent of time and eternity aren't necessarily interchangeable and, indeed, may be incompatible.

But remember Ron,  this phrase was not at all a technical term of metaphysical philosophers who might try to distinguish between transcendence of time, and eternity, and clarify other such philosophical intricacies.  It appeared to be one of the common man's terms for "forever and a day" (Gee there's another phrase which connects a finite time period, to the idea of infinity- and one that philosophers wouldn't even care to argue over, I might add).


My argument is much less ambitious than trying to prove anything particularly metaphysical from this one scripture ... rather it is to say that when the ancient Jew heard "ages of the ages", it was synonomous with our nontechnical english word "forever".  And this is supported by the fact that the same phraseology was used to describe Eternal Life in other scriptures.  But nobody's arguing for a finite, limited, or temporal salvation experience, are they?  


More later,

Stephen.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
42 posted 2004-09-14 08:25 PM


Arnold:
quote:
 As far as lumping Father, Son and Holy Spirit together in 1 Cor 15, to be consistent, when Christ died, then all three died;  when He prayed "our Father Who art in heaven" He was fooling everyone because He was the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. If we continue on this vain, words don't mean anything.



So which do you reject, a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the deity of Christ?  Is this your way of saying you are Unitarian also?  In addition to Universalism, the Arian heresy is another one we could discuss.  But my point was that the Trinitarian theme in scripture explains why the Kingdom is said to be given back to the Father, without making the Kingdom reign finite in duration.  The Rule of God doesn't change.  And when the Old Testament described the eternal rule of the Messiah, (just ask an orthodox Jew), they understood this to be the very reign of God.  That makes much more sense than foisting your view that the time period referred to must have been finite, since the Messiah is a man.  The Jew, far from being Trinitarian in his view of God, still didn't have a problem understanding that the rule of Messiah was forever.


Your case is weak, if you are trying to prove that the messiah's reign was actually described in limited terms in those particular passages.  Why do ALL Bible translations get this so wrong?  Are the philologists, and liguistic scholars, and theologians all wrong about this?


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
43 posted 2004-09-14 08:51 PM


BTW,

I just wanted to say that in re-reading this thread, I noticed that upon every reply, Arnold begins with "Hello", and says multiple "thankyou"s.  I just wanted to commend him for his common courtesy even to those who disagree, which I think is easily forgotten (by me, as well) in such a debate-style forum as this.

where ruthless thinking and tireless chivalry can kiss each other ... (sigh.  I love this forum)


Stephen.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

44 posted 2004-09-15 01:49 AM


Hi, Stephen. No, of course I'm not a Unitarian.  They ridicule the bible.  I don't reject the distinction between God, the Father, God, the Son, or God, the Holy Spirit, or the deity of Christ.  I was merely trying to understand your point that since the kingdom will continue under God, the Father, the phrase "ages of the ages" can mean eternity.  I thought your were lumping them, doing away with any distinction.  As for all the references in the O.T. to the everlasting rule of Messiah, please check Young's Concordance, or equivalent, and you'll find that everlasting has mostly been translated from olam, which means age-lasting.  In fact, if "forever" means eternity, how could there be "forever and ever", one eternity after another eternity?  My understanding of the Messianic hope for Israel, is it was to be for the age to come, the golden age as described in their prophetic writings.  Christ, during His earthly ministry preached that the kingdom was at hand.  He spoke of the age to come and to have age-lasting life.  I believe he was speaking of His millennial reign on earth.  He will also be reigning during the New Heavens and New Earth age, not as "the Lion fo the tribe of Judah", but as a "Lamb".  These are the two ages He will be reigning.  These are the two special ages of the five ages revealed in scripture.
Thank you, Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

45 posted 2004-09-16 06:27 PM


Hi Denise. I went to the link you recommended, and, boy, what a lot of reading to do.  Actually, I skimmed a lot of it. But it certainly was educational. Stephen, Ron, it will be worth reading.

Stephen, salvation for God's elect will be for the eons. while those He determined to be vessels of wrath will suffer chastening and death for the ages. Why? Paul tells us in Rom 9:23,24 "that He should also be making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy," CV. But at the end of the ages, ater all the enemies of Christ are put uder His feet and all, including Christ. are subject to God, the Father, the last enemy being destroyed is death, all who are dead will be made alive with believing hearts, and God will be All in all, unending. Reading this in 1 Cor 15:20-28.  Arnold  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
46 posted 2004-09-17 12:15 PM


Arnold,

  My present opinion is that both annihilationism (the belief that the damned will be destroyed rather than tormented) and universalism (the belief that the damned will ultimately be converted) are not scripturally tenable.  

You're saying a lot without us having the benefit of going into the scriptures themselves.


I would actually like to give an apologetic defense of the traditional view that both Heaven and Hell are forever.  But it would be extensive in it's examination of scripture, and it would be very time consuming for me to organize my thoughts on the matter, and put them in writing.


Maybe in the next couple of weeks, I'll make sure this thread doesn't slip too far down in the archives before I kick it back up to the top.  


Feel free to post all you want.


But I'll probably not comment much more until I am able to give a fuller defense.  Without that (from you or me or Denise) it's just tit for tat.




Later,

Stephen.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
47 posted 2004-09-17 09:50 AM


Arnold:

If this is so, then what is the point of evangelism?

Jim

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
48 posted 2004-09-17 10:49 AM


quote:
If this is so, then what is the point of evangelism?

If we know our children are going to die some day, what is the point in feeding them today?

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
49 posted 2004-09-17 11:44 AM


Ron:

Am I misunderstanding universal reconciliation or does it not argue that faith is not necessary for ultimate salvation?  If we are all going to be saved anyway, again, what is the point of evangelization?

If we are to stick with the feeding analogy, the question would more correctly be whether to feed your child waffles or pancakes.  Either way, the child gets fed.

Jim


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
50 posted 2004-09-17 12:59 PM


Ron:
quote:
If we know our children are going to die some day, what is the point in feeding them today?


(I said I wouldn't reply yet ... but easier said than done)

Consider your analogy Ron. It's the universalist position that would seem to deny that Children really die.  And hence the question "Why feed them" is more relevant to their (your?) position, not to the position of those who believe in irreversible death by starvation.


Stephen

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
51 posted 2004-09-17 03:10 PM


Okay, it was a poor analogy, perhaps because it was a reversal of the situation.

Let's try another tact, then. :

If there was no such thing as salvation and eternal life, if you absolutely knew your relationship with God would end with your death, would you just throw out the Bible and Christ's teachings as useless trivia?

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

52 posted 2004-09-17 07:56 PM


Hi Jim and Ron; I don't know how strongly you believe in the sovereignty of God, but I believe that God's will is not going to be thwarted by man's will.  As for "why evangelize?", because believers love their fellow man and want to share the truth of salvation.  If you had a loved one who becomes deathly ill, wouldn't you be in much prayer for his/her recovery, even though you knew God's will would be done, whether you prayed or not?  Look at the apostle Paul.  Even after it was revealed to him that the church, Christ's body chosen, predestined, etc, before time began, yet he was ever zealous to preach the message of salvation.  We know that God has chosen to use us to witness for Him.
Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

53 posted 2004-09-17 08:00 PM


Stephen, as for scriptures, I've been posting many of them.  I was hoping they would be read.  Also, no one gave me their interpretation of "the smoke of their torment ascends for ever and ever.

Thanks,  Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
54 posted 2004-09-17 08:28 PM


Arnold,

Though you've posted scriptures here and there, you have presented no comprehensive exegetical defense of your view, and why those particular scriptures should be taken to mean what you say.  Of course I'm not insulting you for that, I've done little more than that myself.  But I hope to put something more complete down soon if time permits.


quote:
no one gave me their interpretation of "the smoke of their torment ascends for ever and ever."

My intepretation is:  The Smoke of their torment ascends for ever and ever.  


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
55 posted 2004-09-17 10:07 PM


Ron:
quote:
If there was no such thing as salvation and eternal life, if you absolutely knew your relationship with God would end with your death, would you just throw out the Bible and Christ's teachings as useless trivia?

That's not such an easy question to answer, because I think there may be some problems with the question.  


Since the primary teaching of scripture centers upon eternal life and salvation through God, then your sentence reads as such to me:

"If there was no such thing as salvation and eternal life, if you absolutely knew your relationship with God would end with your death, would you just throw out the Bible and Christ's teachings about salvation and eternal life as useless trivia?"


What else do you leave me with?  Wouldn't that make God out to be a liar, since his word gives promise of eternal life?  Or are you hypothesizing the Bible to be something other than it is, maybe a mere book of platitudes and ethics, or a book of irrational hope?  



I think Ron you have to at least ask yourself what the apostle Paul was getting at when he wrote in 1 Corinthians ch. 15, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is empty, and your faith also is empty. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men"


About the closest I can come to what you're saying is perhaps what A.B. Bruce described about certain experiences where Christ converys to the doubter's heart that whether or not true, the beauty and grandeur of the Christian Faith is at least worthy of being true.  A boost in hope given, until eclipsed faith shines again.  In this context, a thing may be valuable and beautiful even though doubted.  But biblically, doubt describes the state of mind of the believer, not the truth of the thing believed.  He who believes in spite of doubt is a loyalist.  He who believes in spite of truth is a fool.  


But if you're merely asking whether or not the teachings of the Bible and of Christ are valuable in the here and now, and shine with their own beauty, the answer is yes, of course.  

Stephen.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
56 posted 2004-09-17 11:26 PM


quote:
Wouldn't that make God out to be a liar …

I thought my question clearly posited a change in existing reality, but apparently not. Rather than make God out to be a liar, I'm asking what if God had never made you any promises.

quote:
But if you're merely asking whether or not the teachings of the Bible and of Christ are valuable in the here and now, and shine with their own beauty, the answer is yes, of course.

That is, indeed, the question. And the answer to my question should, I would think, also answer Jim's question. One would hope that evangelism isn't "only" about what happens in the final moments of Time. What happens twixt now and then is important, too. To us and, apparently, to God. Else, there would be no need for a twixt.

Evangelism, of course, doesn't prove Universal Reconciliation. But neither do I see a reason why it should bring it into question.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
57 posted 2004-09-18 09:47 AM


quote:
Rather than make God out to be a liar, I'm asking what if God had never made you any promises.



Your question still holds a large stumbling block that I can't quite get around, and it is this: If God had never made us any promises, he would not be the God that he is.  Therefore "loving and valuing his teachings" cannot be assumed as obligatory or even desirable on our part.  For when you subtract eternal life and salvation from the Bible, you remove the foundation from the house.  Nice curtains and ceiling fans can be appreciated, but only in the context of a house with a foundation.  Why else would Paul say what he did about Christians minus the resurrection from the dead?


I think you might have taken the wrong route in asking what you're trying to ask.  But I know what you're getting at, and it's a valid point.  You're essentially saying that even if everyone is saved in the end, it would be better sooner than later.  And evangelism would make sense if for no other reason than to save someone from unnecessary pain.  If you're going to inevitably get to China by raft, boat, or plane, it still makes sense to rescue people from their rafts.  


However, my argument is not that evangelism would make NO sense in that scenario.  Rather it is that evangelism would not be in the sense that the Bible seems to present it. The universalist position makes the relationship of evangelism and salvation tenuous.  The scriptural position seems to ask "How will they believe without a preacher?" and presents us with some urgency and necessity.  The universalist position would claim that evangelized or not, people will be saved, and really made better from their pains of wandering.  A sort of nonchalant attitude can more easily be derived from that whole view.  (though I'm not saying that the correct view automatically guarantees a proper response or attitude- just that it makes it harder to be comfortable without it).


So all in all, my argument is not that evangelism would make no sense if universalism were true, but that it wouldn't make good sense of the way evangelism is portrayed in the Bible.  The apostles would have all over reacted and (in my opinion) presented evangelism as something other than what it really is ... as only a helping hand to a person who is on the way to glory no matter what, rather than salvation from ultimate destruction and pain.


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-20-2004 08:19 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

58 posted 2004-09-18 10:42 AM


quote:
But Denise, surely you would have to say (as a good protestant) that where you part ways with Roman Catholicism is precisely where they have ceased being scholarly and biblically theological. I'm sure that you realize most of the doctrines rejected by the movement that Luther kicked off, involve only areas where the RCs departed from the principle of "sola scriptura" and made tradition and Papal authority of equal weight to scripture. The assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc ..., only have sketchy (at best) basis in the Bible. Actually the first two have no scriptural basis whatsoever, other than Papal decree and later Church tradition.


Yes, Stephen, sola scriptura was why I finally came to accept the Protestant view. I don't think it follows though that I viewed the RC position as lacking in scholarship and a tenable theology. Both views have tons of that. It just depends on the basic underlying question as to whether the scholarship and theology should be based on sola scriptura or scripture plus papal authority. I was convinced that scripture alone should be the basis. Others disagree. And just as you presented a list of those theologians who embraced the doctrine of everlasting torment, there is also a list of theologians who embraced a doctrine of Universal Reconciliation/Restoration and those who embraced a doctrine of Annhilation (see the link I earlier provided).

Jim and Stephen, speaking to the question of evangelism, I see it as simply cooperating with God in the spreading of His message that Jesus is the Christ. We don't know who is chosen as a vessel of honor (let's say a goblet for fine wine) and who is blinded/chosen as a vessel for common use (let's say a Tupperware cup for a soft drink...and the goblet has no basis to boast against the cup, nor does the cup have a basis to despise the goblet, as each were made for their own specific purposes and did not have any say in how and for what purpose they were each made) in this lifetime. Only God knows. We are simply called to walk in Him and be Ambassadors for Christ, as I see it. Those who are chosen as vessels of honor will hear the message and believe, and God works through us to fulfill His purposes that they should hear and believe, and those chosen as vessels for common use will not hear and believe, despite our evangelism, again, God working through us to fulfill His purposes for those folks. And I don't see a nonchalant attitude in those who bow before the Sovereignty of God and are glad servants for the fulfilling of His purposes, whatever they may be.

I believe that believers are saved by faith and will enjoy 'life aionian', a blessed existence in future ages while those who don't have faith remain in the grave during those ages, and of course can't be saved by faith, but will be saved 'by sight' when they see God face to face..."Every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God...". They miss out on the blessings of aionian life due to their unbelief in this lifetime, but I don't believe that they are separated from God forever because of Christ's atonement for the sins of the world and because the original languages indicate that punishment has an end and death has an end, and so I believe that all will ultimately be reconciled with/restored to God to live forever with Him.

Arnold, yes, the article is rather lengthy, but worth the read, I believe. I also found your excerpts on the Judgments helpful. I think the tendency to lump them all into merely one, or even two events, leads to erroneous conclusions when interpreting scripture.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
59 posted 2004-09-18 10:07 PM


Denise:
quote:
Yes, Stephen, sola scriptura was why I finally came to accept the Protestant view. I don't think it follows though that I viewed the RC position as lacking in scholarship and a tenable theology. Both views have tons of that. It just depends on the basic underlying question as to whether the scholarship and theology should be based on sola scriptura or scripture plus papal authority. I was convinced that scripture alone should be the basis. Others disagree.


But even the "basic underlying question" is a point of theology, and biblical scholarship.  Sola Scriptura was never a free-floating abitrary rule of strictly protestant origin.  I don't want to turn this into a debate about RC doctrine.  I just want to point out that your rejection of it (if it is like mine) is not without good reasons, and that if such theology is really "tenable" as you say, then you had no solid reason to reject it.  It does come down to either a breakdown in confirmed facts, or in good doctrine ... ie scholarship or theology.

quote:
And just as you presented a list of those theologians who embraced the doctrine of everlasting torment, there is also a list of theologians who embraced a doctrine of Universal Reconciliation/Restoration and those who embraced a doctrine of Annhilation


Yes, but those lists are much smaller (my list was only partial).  I know that majority doesn't prove authenticity, and that was your point I think.  My point was simply that you rejected only that which you believed to be faulty and indefensible.  I only included my list for you because I saw some irony in Luther and Calvin (pretty much the fathers of the Reformation) rejecting universalism.  This was not at all intended as a proof.  We still have to discuss the issues, and not always refer each other to "experts" unless we can quote them and talk about why or why not we should accept their teaching.


quote:
because the original languages indicate that punishment has an end and death has an end, and so I believe that all will ultimately be reconciled with/restored to God to live forever with Him.



I don't believe that the original languages indicate this.  I believe "ages of the ages" was a term that painted "forever" in the minds of it's ancient hearers.  Just because a term for a finite "age" is imbedded in the phrase doesn't rule out the possibility of eternity being conveyed.  For example did you know that even our word "eternal" (which defines a limitless length of time) is derived from such limited and finite terms?


eternal - c.1366 (in variant form eterne), from O.Fr. eternal, from L.L. æternalis, from L. æternus contraction of æviternus "of great age," from ævum "age." Eternity first attested c.1374.


And the word "ever" in "forever" is also derived from a word that meant "life force or long life".  Long life is quite a bit different from eternity, but we have to use such terms because they're all we have and the closest thing by way of comparison.


But even if I did grant you some ambiguity in language here ... (in other words, if it could go either way) I still think that we'd have to choose the interpretation which fit contextually with other scriptures regarding eternal life and the punishment of the wicked and unbelievers.  


I believe the language usage has strength enough to support eternal punishment, but there is more support elsewhere if that's not enough for some.  I'll be posting more on that soon.

Interesting discussion indeed,

Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-19-2004 09:12 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

60 posted 2004-09-19 10:42 AM


quote:
But even the "basic underlying question" is a point of theology, and biblical scholarship. Sola Scriptura was never a free-floating abitrary rule of strictly protestant origin. I don't want to turn this into a debate about RC doctrine. I just want to point out that your rejection of it (if it is like mine) is not without good reasons, and that if such theology is really "tenable" as you say, then you had no solid reason to reject it. It does come down to either a breakdown in confirmed facts, or in good doctrine ... ie scholarship or theology.


Of course, Stephen. But to the Roman Catholic mind, for the most part, sola scriptura is heresy. They have been conditioned for thousands of years to believe that papal authority is God-ordained and holds as much authority as the scriptures. In that mindset their theology is tenable. That was my mindset. And I guess my point was that if I was able to question that and come out from under that mindset and investigate other views, despite their volumes of scholarship, I'm not concerned about going against 'accepted scholarship' in other areas of theology as well.

To me the term "ages of the ages" means the greatest ages of all the ages combined.

To me, eternal means outside of time altogether (without beginning or end) and can only be applied to God, the qualities of God, or to the things of God. For instance, to me eternal life conveys the meaning of a life that possesses the qualities of God...quality, not quantity of time, synonomous with the Christ-life within us.

And I agree, I find this a very interesting discussion.


Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

61 posted 2004-09-20 01:07 AM


Denise, I thought your remarks were well said. Stephen, I like your sense of humor, and you really have a way with words.

The basis for "eternal", you show, is certainly true.  But, "eonian" and "eternal" cannot be equivalent because "eonian" is the adjective based upon "eon".  And since "eon" is generally translated "age", "eonian" would be "age-lasting" or "age-during", but cannot be "unending".  It is true that most translators, translate it "eternal" when it is describing the attributes of God

If "eons of the eons" means "eternal", it should mean that in ever verse of scripture.  But at least in two of them it cannot mean "eternal":  Rev 11:15 says, "The kingdom of this world became our Lord's and His Christ's, and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen!"  But 1 Cor 15:24,25 Paul tells us that Christ reigns UNTIL all enemies are put under His feet.  The kingdom then has no end under the control of God the Father.   Rev 19:3, speaking of the destruction of Babylon, "and her smoke is ascending for the eons of the eons."  It doesn't make sense to say "her smoke is ascending for ever", especially since their will be a New Heaven and a New Earth.

So, as I see it, when translators use "eternal" in all other places but these two I mention, then it is not a true translation but their interpretation.  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
62 posted 2004-09-20 05:45 PM


Denise:
quote:
To me, eternal means outside of time altogether (without beginning or end) and can only be applied to God, the qualities of God, or to the things of God. For instance, to me eternal life conveys the meaning of a life that possesses the qualities of God...quality, not quantity of time, synonomous with the Christ-life within us.

But why should we limit God to the qualitative only?  The God of supreme quality is also the God of supreme quantity.  Surely the Bible's view of eternal life must be described in such terms, and your own salvation in such terms ... or else the resurrection from the dead means nothing.  


Do you believe that you will have a future bodily life with God?  Do you believe that you will maintain individuality in the "eternity" that you describe?  Or do you believe that YOU yourself will end?  


It seems we're forced (as the Church always has been) to describe and understand eternal life and immortality in terms of unending quantity as well as sublime quality.  Because the alternative is annihilation for the believer.


And since, in scripture, the EXACT same language is often used to describe both the post-mortem state of the wicked and the righteous, it seems we must treat them both the same.  And as I've pointed out before, no one is arguing for a finite, limited, or merely temporal salvation.  Unless by emphasizing quality over quantity, you are saying that?


Matthew 25:46 states "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."


The same words are used to describe punishment and everlasting life in this verse.  Attempts to explain this in terms of temporality are not convincing to me.  You can't cogently say that the punishment of the wicked is temporal while holding that the reward of the righteous is without end.  Even the universalist A.T. Robinson wrote the following:


"The genuine universalist will base nothing on the fact (which is a fact) that the New Testament word for eternal (aionios) does not necessarily mean everlasting, but enduring only for an indefinitely long period. For he can apply this signification to "eternal punishment" in Matt 25:46 only if he is willing to give exactly the same sense to "eternal life" in the same verse . As F. D. Maurice said many years ago now, writing to F. J. A. Hort: "I did not see how aionios could mean one thing when it was joined with kolasis and another when it was joined with zoe" (quoted, J. O. F. Murray, The Goodness and Severity of God, p. 195). To admit that the two phrases are not parallel is at once to treat them with unequal seriousness. And that a true universalism must refuse to do. (from "In the End, God")


Of course you can avoid this dilemma of violating the natural parallelism of this verse by saying that it is referring to a limited or finite reward of the righteous too.  


But If this is attempted, I think we run into another serious exegetical problem ...  Eternal life in the Bible is only referred to using the same words.  But why would the writers of the Bible only mention a temporal state of reward, rather than the final state of union with God?  You might reply that the bible does refer to that final state also.  But the universalist position makes an awkward distinction between temporal "eternal life" and final reconciliation with God.  So some verses are said to refer to one thing, while other verses are said to refer to the other.


And it's not that such a distinction is ruled out a priori.  It's just that it cannot be derived from the texts themselves.  It is much more natural to accept these as references to the same thing...   ie, that final reconciliation with God = eternal life = the reward of the saints.  For example, there is absolutely nothing in the passage about the Sheep and the Goats that would indicate a temporal state of punishment or reward.  You might reply, "Sure there is.  There's the original language which does not refer to unlimited time, but to limited time".  But it's been shown over and over that the language CAN go both ways.  That much is really not seriously disputed.  Even the universalist Robinson acknowledged that in the above quote.  


So it's context that must win the day in this disagreement, for whichever position one may take.  And it's contextually that I think the universalist (and annihilationist) arguments fail.  


Here's another contextual example ...


Jesus mentioned Judas in John 17 verse 12:


"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."


He also said of him in Mark 14:21:


"The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born."


Now which would make more sense of these verses, universalism or the traditional view?  Why would Jesus say it was better for Judas if he had never been born?  What strong language!  Some might reply that the Lord was using hyperbole, like he did when he described the Camel going through the eye of the needle.  But context makes that highly doubtful.  He wasn't speaking in parables at this point, but plainly about real persons and situations.  If he were only exaggerating, this would violate one of two things, 1) The somber and serious nature of the discussion, or 2) the fact that Jesus wasn't flippant or careless with his words.  Such a thing would have never been said of a disobedient but repentant Jonah, or a denying but humbled Peter.  Nor could such a thing really be said about a man who would ultimately be made right with God.  Jesus wasn't going for some kind of emotional effect here.  And if he were, it would have been a careless, flippant, or erroneous statement in the mouth of our Lord.


So if universalism makes such a passage an enigma ... the traditional view makes it understandable, as terrible as it may be.


More later,


Stephen.
  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
63 posted 2004-09-20 06:34 PM


Arnold:
quote:
If "eons of the eons" means "eternal", it should mean that in ever verse of scripture.  But at least in two of them it cannot mean "eternal":  Rev 11:15 says, "The kingdom of this world became our Lord's and His Christ's, and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen!"  But 1 Cor 15:24,25 Paul tells us that Christ reigns UNTIL all enemies are put under His feet.

Even if the second verse limits the administration of the Son, the first verse you mention refers to "our Lord AND his Christ's" making no distinction at all by referring to both the Father and the Son.  It is describing the Kingdom of God, which is forever.  


Seeing it says "our Lord AND his Christ" how can you justify an interpretation that makes this temporary?  Does God's rule end?


This scripture supports the tradtional view, not universalism.


Stephen.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

64 posted 2004-09-21 02:20 AM


Stephen, you didn't finish quoting me. I said that Christ reigns UNTIL all enemines are put uncer His feet. And then the Kingdom has no end under the control of God the Father.  

As to the doctrine of eternal torment, have you asked yourself, how could an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God rub his hands with glee, in a sense, to see the great majority of His created beings, suffer on and on and on through eternity?  That is not the God I believe is revealed in the scriptures.  It is true there will be a time of vengeance, a time of His wrath, poured out on most of mankind and the earth, during the tribulation period, also known as "Daniel's seventieth week".  And those woes take place primarily in the last three and a half weeks.  

But, what about these verses: using RSV:
Exod 34:6 "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness"
Psa 86:15 "But thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness"

The verses generally quoted to "prove" everlasting torment are primarily in Matthew, some in Mark and Luke.  The warning was if they did or said something bad they could be judged and if found deserving they would be stoned to death and their body thrown into the fire of Gehenna, the place where the rubbish of Jerusalem was kept burning. This will be true when Christ rules in the restored Jerusalem in His millennial reign. To enter "life" was to enjoy and be a part of the millennial kingdom.

Verses which do not mention Gehenna are the parables of the wheat and tares, and the good and bad fish, where the tares and bad fish are thrown into the furnace of fire, which may be the lake of fire. Mat 13:39-43, and 47-50.

In the oft quoted Matt 25"46 the sheep nations are sent to the "eternal" fire prepared for the devil and his angels, thus, the lake of fire.  Looking carefully at this account, we read these are the nations (peoples) still alive after all the woes and plagues through which they have suffered.  They are being judged, not on believing in Christ as savior, but how they treated His brethren, righteous Jews,(during the trib. period, I believe).  Those who treated His brethren with love and kindness will be granted life in the glorious Kingdom on earth.  And the others (the goat nations) will end up in the lake of fire.  Now, comes my question. What makes you think they don't die?  Just because the fire is said to be "eternal" doesn't mean they survive fire and brimstone.

The traditional view is "the wages of sin is eternal punishment in hell".  Yet, it is found nowhere in scripture.  But this is:
"the wages of sin is death.." Rom 6:23

In Rev the lake of fire is called "the second death".  After being judged, those unworthy of life will die after being judged by Christ, the righteous judge, and be cast in the lake of fire.  Why do I say they will be dead first?  Because in Rev 19:20 it says, speaking of the beast and the false prophet (both humans) "These two were thrown ALIVE into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone."  

Bye for now, Arnold




Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

65 posted 2004-09-21 07:07 PM


Hello: Boy, there are so many verses and points being discussed, It's hard to know where to start. After rereading all the inputs, it seems to me that the key understanding is, what do the scriptures teach about DEATH.  

For someone to be tormented "forever" he would have to have a body that would never die, thus he would have "everlasting life."  But, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right , does it?  Many verses tell of the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ Jesus,  yet the popular doctrine says the unsaved will suffer conscious everlasting torment.  Which means, they have all their senses and suffer the terrible woes being inflicted on them by a "just" God, with all the saved happily looking on.  They are alive forever.  They have eternal life, even in hell!!  Ludicrous, isn't it?

From Genesis to Revelation we find that apart from resurrection all humanity who die go to the grave (the unseen: the literal definition of sheol, Heb, and hades, Gk) where there is silence, no knowledge, no remembrance, no wisdom, etc.  But, someone will say, after death the believers go directly to heaven and are able to praise God, while the unbelivers go bodily to hell and are in torment.  Well, John says in John 3:13 "..no one has ascended into heaven except He who descends out of heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven."CV. This was written after Christ's ascension from the mount of olives.  Also, Peter, preaching on the Day of Pentecost tells us in Acts 2:34, "For David did not ascend into the heavens.." RSV.  The bible is clear. Those judged unworthy would be stoned to death and their bodies cast into Gehenna.  The "tares" and the "bad fish" would die when cast into the furnace of fire.  The "goat" nations would die, or be dead, when cast into the lake of fire.  After being judged at the Great White Throne, the "rest of the dead" who have been resurrected, will be cast into the lake of fire, which is THE SECOND DEATH.  They have all died once, thus, this is called the second death.  

I realize now that I am repeating some things. Well, so be it for now.  Arnold

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

66 posted 2004-09-21 09:12 PM


Yes, Stephen, I do believe that I will one day be bodily, individually, and forever with the Lord.

I don't see that understanding the word eternal as belonging only to God, i.e., his attributes, etc. as limiting God. God is unending as well. It speaks of His quality and His unique existence...without beginning and end, outside of our conception of time. God isn't limited, but man is.

Below are some quotes and associated links that you might find useful. Also, in all my studies I’ve never heard of A.T.  Robinson and can’t seem to find anything he has written other than what you have already shared here. Do you have a link of his work?

quote:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."  Young’s Literal Translation(1898)


quote:
and these shall go away into age-abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life." Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible(1959)


quote:
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."  Concordant New Testament (1930)


quote:
"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life.  The Holy Bible in Modern English (1903)


http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter10.html


quote:
When I was with them in the world, I kept those whom Thou hast given Me in Thy name, and I guard them, and not one of them perished, except the son of destruction, that the scripture may be fulfilled. Concordant New Testament

http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/ConcordantVersion/NT/HTML/004John.htm


quote:
  Another common argument against Universal Reconciliation is the case of Judas. Advocates of everlasting punishment quote the KJV, Mark 14:21, "The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of him : but woe to that man by whom the son of Man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had never been born." The first question which must be settled is whether Jesus uttered these words as translated in the KJV. As the last clause in this verse is used in opposition to Universal Reconciliation, let us look carefully at the Greek text: kalon ĂŞn auto eiouk egennĂŞthĂŞ ho anthropos ekeinos, "Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born" or "It were ideal for Him if that man was not born." The question is asked, Who is the Him? The answer is in the preceding clause. There we have the pronoun autou, "Him," and anthropo ekeino, "that man," both referred to in such a way that we cannot mistake them. "The Son of Man indeed goeth as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!" "Him" is the Son of Man, "that man" is Judas. The Him cannot refer to Judas, therefore the text can be paraphrased as, "Ideal were it for Him (the Son of Man) if that man (Judas) were not born." Notice how the following versions translates this clause: The ASV, 1901 margin, "Good were it for him if that man had not been born;" Rotherham's version, "Well for him if that man had not been born;" Murphy's edition of the Douay Version and the New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate, 1898, "It were better for him, if that man had not been born;" (the following three versions are quoted in the original spelling) Wiclif, 1380, "It were good to hym if thilke man hadde not been borun;" Tyndale, 1534, "Good were it for him if that man had never bene borne;" Rheims, 1582, "it vvere good for him, if that man had not been borne." Therefore, Mark 14:21 does not contradict Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim. 4:9-11; Rom. 5:18, 19; etc., all teaching the ultimate salvation of Judas. John Albert Bengel in his New Testament Word Studies, vol. 1, p. 290, says about this clause, "This phrase does not necessarily imply the interminable eternal of perdition." Dr. Bengal was a German Lutheran theologian.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter16.html


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

67 posted 2004-09-21 09:30 PM


Thanks, Arnold, I'm finding your input very instructive.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
68 posted 2004-09-23 10:16 AM


Hello everyone, sorry it took me so long ... been busy.
Sorry if this gets long  


Arnold:
quote:
Hello: Boy, there are so many verses and points being discussed, It's hard to know where to start.


Arnold you're right.  That's why I'm only going to address a couple of things at a time.  I'm not avoiding your comments.  (I do plan on commenting on the meaning of "death")  I just don't think we've adequately dealt with what has already been discussed.  


quote:
Stephen, you didn't finish quoting me. I said that Christ reigns UNTIL all enemines are put uncer His feet. And then the Kingdom has no end under the control of God the Father.



Okay, I'll finish quoting you this time:


quote:
But at least in two of them it cannot mean "eternal":  Rev 11:15 says, "The kingdom of this world became our Lord's and His Christ's, and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen!"  But 1 Cor 15:24,25 Paul tells us that Christ reigns UNTIL all enemies are put under His feet.



I was simply refuting what you said concerning Revelation 11:15 (that it cannot refer to an eternal reign).  It really doesn't matter that 1 Corinthians 15:25 expresses a limit to the authority of the Son.  Rev 11:15 refers to both the Father AND the Son.  Therefore, the limitation of "ages of the ages" to a temporary state would make no sense.  Unless the verse is telling us that God's Kingdom is temporary.  


I'm not disputing what 1 Corinthians 15:24.25 says, at all.  I'm just pointing out that it doesn't affect Rev:11:15 in the least.


quote:
As to the doctrine of eternal torment, have you asked yourself, how could an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God rub his hands with glee, in a sense, to see the great majority of His created beings, suffer on and on and on through eternity?  That is not the God I believe is revealed in the scriptures.



That's not the God I believe is revealed in the scriptures either.  Let me explain.


You're making the mistake of equating God's punitive justice, with some kind of human delight in inflicting pain.  But one doesn't necessarily imply the other.  You're imagining the "glee" part, I think.  There are many verses of scripture which describe judgement and punishment as God's "strange work", as something he does almost reluctantly because justice demands it, certainly not because he takes delight in doing so.  




Denise:
quote:
I don't see that understanding the word eternal as belonging only to God, i.e., his attributes, etc. as limiting God. God is unending as well. It speaks of His quality and His unique existence...without beginning and end, outside of our conception of time. God isn't limited, but man is.



Let me try to explain myself.  I think you might be misunderstanding me.  I know that God is "unending".  But so are we when redeemed.  Our existence with God is not a temporal one, and is described using the very same words which describe the punishment of the damned.  So my question remains:  How do you so easily deny the eternal qualities of one (damnation) based upon an assessment of the language, when the description of eternal life uses the exact same words?  You can't  convincingly argue temporality, using the nature of the language, unless this applies to BOTH examples.  You would never speak of a limited, temporal, or finite salvation ... yet it is described with the same terms?


quote:
in all my studies I’ve never heard of A.T.  Robinson and can’t seem to find anything he has written other than what you have already shared here. Do you have a link of his work?



You might find more under "John A.T. Robinson".  He was an Anglican Bishop, and a noted Biblical scholar.  He wrote the infamous "Honest to God" which sets forth his very liberal theology, influenced mostly by 19th century humanist philosophy.  He's also written many other books.  


The only reason I quoted him, was that he is a noted universalist, and yet knew that it was textual maltreatment to ignore the parallelism of Matthew 25:46.  

quote:
Below are some quotes and associated links that you might find useful.


We both know that translations can have doctrinal slants.  I think it would be more profitable to discuss why a certain rendering has more weight than another.  The Greek word "aionon" can indeed be used to describe both unending duration and limited duration depending upon context ... and also depending upon whether the word is used alone or in a phrase like "to the ages of the ages".  Context is what needs to be discussed.  The Language issue keeps coming up.  But it can't settle the issue by itself.  Let's move on to context.  


And quotes are good for support of one's view.  But I would like to hear more of why you see it the way you do, rather than read someone else.  For example, I would like to hear you articulate why you believe we should consider Jesus' words as applying to himself rather than Judas:  "It had been better for him had that man never been born".  Why does "him" being Jesus make more sense in this passage?

  
quote:
Who is the Him? The answer is in the preceding clause.


The quote you gave, points out rightly that in the Greek, the statement of Mark 14:21 is literally "It were ideal for Him if that man was not born."  That much is true.  

quote:
The question is asked, Who is the Him? The answer is in the preceding clause. There we have the pronoun autou, "Him," and anthropo ekeino, "that man," both referred to in such a way that we cannot mistake them.


I absolutely agree.  
  
quote:
"Him" is the Son of Man, "that man" is Judas. The Him cannot refer to Judas,


Really?  Why can't it refer to Judas? Contextually it makes little sense any other way except Judas.  Let me quote the whole verse and try to explain:


"And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me."  And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?  And he answered and said unto them, "It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!  It were good for him if that man never been born.""


The writer of the quote which you gave, stated that we are to understand who "Him" refers to by considering the preceding verse.  But what does the preceding verse say?  It says "Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed".  So the flow of thought is about the state of the betrayer.  "Woe unto that man" and "Not good for him" are parallel thoughts.  And it is most naturally to be understood that they refer to the same thing.    


A second point to consider is this:  This is a discourse from a man who was resolutely sure of his altruistic destiny on the cross, knew it was the will of God, and tended to rebuke any attempt at human sympathy or sentimentality concerning what must be done.  (Remember how Peter was rebuked for trying to pull Jesus away from his talk about his death on the cross?).  So a reference to his own good, his own merely human concern about well being, would be highly uncharacteristic of Jesus.  Actually it would be highly uncharacteristic for him to say such a thing at any time.  But it would have been especially incongruous for him to say it on the eve of the cross.  


Thirdly, from a theological standpoint, would it even be true that "it were better for Jesus, if that man had never been born"?  Elsewhere I remember Jesus telling the women of Jerusalem not to weep for him, but for themselves and their children, "for if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry"?  Elsewhere Jesus told his disciples, "I have chosen you, and one of you is a devil".  He understood that it was the will of God that he should go to the cross.  And thoughts of ultimate good would not be expressed in such self-sorrowful laments as "it would be better for me, had Judas never been born".


The closest we can come to a merely human expression of concern about himself is the brief groan in Gethsemane where Jesus prayed "Let this cup pass from me.  Yet not my will, but thine be done".  


As characteristic of Jesus, any self concern was directed to his Father in semi-private prayer,  (for fear that it would be misunderstood, and elicit attempts of fleshly defense on the part of his disciples) and was immediately followed by a modifying statement... "YET, not my will".  "let this cup pass from me" & "I would be better off if Judas hadn't been born" are miles apart in their sentiments.  One is proper to human grief, the other is extreme, even foreign, in the mouth of our Lord.  


But if you want to say that this passage in Mark is the same kind of statement as the one in Gethsemane, I would also say it just doesn't fit ... like a puzzle piece stuck in the wrong place.  


In summary:



1) It breaks the contextual flow of the passage, and makes for a highly awkward and forced reading.  

2) It is highly uncharacteristic of Jesus

3) It is theologically and actually untrue, except in the mood of self pity, which is the mood Jesus was attempting to deny the most on the eve of his capture and crucifixion.




More later,

Stephen.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

69 posted 2004-09-23 06:33 PM


Yes, Stephen, I did go a little overboard to say that "God looked with glee" and the saved "watched happily" seeing the unsaved in torment. But, what was in my mind was some quotes from some illustrious preachers of eternal damnation of the wicked, namely:  Jonathon Edwards, Isaac Ambrose, Samuel Hopkins, John Whitaker, Spurgeon, Ebenezer Erskine, and others:

"Those wicked men who died many years ago, their souls went to hell....those who went to hell in former ages of the world have been kept in hell ever since, all the while suffering torment....they are kept in being for no other purpose."

"The damned shall be packed like brick in a kiln, and be so bound that they cannot move a limb, nor even an eyelid; and while thus fixed, the Almighty shall blow the fires of hell through them forever."

"Only conceive the poor wretch in the flames.  See how his tongue hangs from between his blistered lips!  How it excoriates and burns the roof of his mouth, as if it were a firebrand!  Behold him crying for a drop of water.  I will not picture the scene....When the damned jingle the irons of their torments, they shall say 'Forever'."

"The bodies of the damned will be salted with fire, so tempered and prepared to burn the more fiercely, and yet never consume."

The smoke of their torment shall ascend in the sight of the blessed forever and serve as a most clear glass always before their eyes to give them a constant, bright and most affecting view....This display of the divine character and glory will be in favor of the redeemed, and most entertaining, and give the highest pleasure to those who love God, and raise their happiness to ineffable heights....Should this eternal punishment and this fire be extinguished, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed."

Well, I could quote more.  And these are the words of noted theologians and preachers.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

70 posted 2004-09-24 01:39 AM


I don't understand why what Jesus said about Judas "being better if he had never been born" etc, is an argument against the reconcilliation of all.

Just for argument sake, lets say "eonian" does equal "eternal".  Then, in Matt 25:46 and others, those being chastened, or tormented eternally would have new bodies which would live forever, after their life on the earth.  But, this goes against all of scripture.  As I pointed out earlier, the dead are not alive apart from resurrection.

Bye for now.  Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
71 posted 2004-09-24 10:14 AM


Arnold:
quote:
Well, I could quote more.  And these are the words of noted theologians and preachers.


Giving references would help too.  Who said each of those quotes, and in what sermon or book?  


But please remember, there's bad preaching on hell I suppose, just as there's bad preaching on Heaven, salvation, sanctification or any thing else.   And those ill examples should not be used as any type of argument against any particular doctrine itself.  They are easy targets to shoot at, and create a common disdain for their unbalanced elements.  But such disdain is particularly derived, and therefore shouldn't be universally applied.


Have you ever read the Chapter called "Hell" in C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain"?  It paints an equally terrible (maybe moreso) picture of that state, but avoids the shock of medieval style imagery.  Here is a philosopher's description of Hell.  It's not that I think the imagery of the past is of no value (if it at all helped anyone to turn).  It's just that I recognize all descriptions are symbolic in nature, describing something indescribable, but terrible beyond imagination ... something that connects with humanity's coarsest fears, as well as more refined descriptions of hopelessness and shame.  


quote:
I don't understand why what Jesus said about Judas "being better if he had never been born" etc, is an argument against the reconcilliation of all.



I've already explained (above) why I think this scripture creates a serious problem for universalism.

So I would ask you to explain how Judas in actuality would be "better off had he never been born" if he were destined for reconciliation with God and ultimate glory?


Is this statement truth from Jesus or a lie?

Is it exaggeration, hyperbole, an attempt to merely play on our emotions?  And if so to what end?


You've claimed to tend toward "literalism" in reading the bible.  Well here's a scripture you can apply that to.  Jesus said Judas would be better off had he never been born.  That Cannot be literally true, while universalism stands.






Arnold, I'm stretched for time.  I'll reply to the "ressurrection" issue soon.


Peace,

Stephen.
    

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

72 posted 2004-09-24 08:05 PM


Stephen, after reading and rereading this passge (concerning Judas I.) I am of the opinion that he "him" is refering back to "the Son of Man."  Starting in verse 21 in the CV: "..the Son of Man is indeed going away according as it is written concerning Him, yet woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is being given up!  Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born!"

I see it as the second "Him" relates to the first "Him".

In the last sentence, if it said: "Ideal were it for that man if he were not born," then I would say it refers to Judas.

More to come. Gotta go. Arnold

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

73 posted 2004-09-25 10:15 AM


I'm still researching this, Stephen, but so far have not found a different understanding among UR proponents than what Arnold and I have already shared here.

No, of course, Jesus can't lie. That's not even a part of the equation. I'm not a Greek scholar and can only go by the opinions of those who are, and of those who are, they disagree on the meaning of this verse. So I'm back to square one.

Nonetheless, even if the correct interpretation is the one that you have given, Jesus saying that it would have been better for Judas never to have been born, couldn't that be understood as one of those idioms to express the manner in which Judas was about to die, and not necessarily as implying an eternal torment?

Every understanding of the gospel has its unanswered questions and verses that don't seem to back it up. And I guess each person has to decide for themselves the understanding that the majority of the verses tends to support.


Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

74 posted 2004-09-25 06:05 PM


Stephen, even if "it would have been better if that man had not been born" speaks of Judas, the fact is he  was born and did betray the Son of Man.  If it hadn't been Judas, it would have been someone else as it was foretold in scripture.

As we understand "reconcile" to mean "to restore peace or friendship between" etc, What does Col.1:18-20 mean: And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on earth or those in the heavens"?  Even Judas, as well as the Pharoah of Moses time, or the evil spirit beings in the heavenlies, etc, will finally give homage to Christ Jesus, and peace will prevail throughout the universe.  Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

75 posted 2004-09-26 02:19 AM


Stephen, the quotes above from preachers of eternal damnation were from another book, God's Eonian Purpose by Adlai Loudy, p.339.  I'm assuming they are correct.

You say they are words of bad preaching; medieval style imagery.  My question is how do you know it is bad preaching?  Please tell me what the eternal punishment in a lake of fire and sulfur will be like.  You seem to side with C.S.Lewis. But how does he know?  If it is torment, why couldn't it be like some of those preachers say?

Of course, I'm being factitious. Because to  believe that is true of God is unthinkable.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

76 posted 2004-09-26 02:41 AM


Stephen, I do believe in the natural parallism of Matt 25:46. "And these shall go away into age-lasting punishment and the righteous into life age-lasting."  Let us remember, these are those "the sheep and the goats" being judged for how they treated Christ' brethren (righteous Jews). They are not all the wicked who have ever lived. They are those who survived the awful woes and plagues of the last three and a half years of "the tribulation".  The righteous will be granted life for the Millennial Age and the unrighteous will be chastened until they are resurrected at the Great White Throne to be judged for their deeds during their whole life.  Bye for now, Arnold
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
77 posted 2004-09-26 02:57 PM


Arnold:  
quote:
In the last sentence, if it said: "Ideal were it for that man if he were not born," then I would say it refers to Judas.



You're presuming that the order of "Him" and "That man" in the sentence really suggests your particular interpretation in the Greek.  But there's nothing inherent in the sentence structure in the original language that would dictate Jesus himself as the subject.  "But" you may say, "There's also nothing that would necessitate Judas either".  You're right.  That's why context will be the deciding factor here.  And I've already explained in some detail why Jesus referring to himself would be a very unnatural and unlikely choice.  I don't really want to repeat myself on that matter.  You can refer to it above if you want to respond to those points.



quote:
You say they are words of bad preaching; medieval style imagery.  My question is how do you know it is bad preaching?
  


I'm not necessarily saying these are examples of bad preaching.  I'm rather conceding the point, that even if they WERE, by quoting such men you're presenting an aesthetic disapproval of certain descriptions rather than presenting arguments against the doctrine itself.  Like criticizing someone's particular painting of a war scene, rather than giving reasons against painting of war in general.  



quote:
Stephen, the quotes above from preachers of eternal damnation were from another book, God's Eonian Purpose by Adlai Loudy, p.339.  I'm assuming they are correct.



I was talking about referencing the quotes themselves:  who said what, in what sermon or book, page number, year, etc ... That way, I could go and look at the surrounding context of those quotes.  There might be some qualifying or mitigating statements surrounding them.  And I think it's just courtesy to cite such quotations, especially if they are intended to critique or chide someone, or a particular viewpoint.  But If you can't find them, or don't want to trouble yourself, that's fine.  


quote:
Please tell me what the eternal punishment in a lake of fire and sulfur will be like.  You seem to side with C.S.Lewis. But how does he know?  If it is torment, why couldn't it be like some of those preachers say?



I don't know what it would be like, apart from scriptural descriptions, and my own imagination.  But I didn't say I "sided" with C.S. Lewis.  Personally I think his descriptions of hell are more terrible than even that of the Medieval artists, or puritanical preachers, because he moves toward a description that is beyond the metaphorical.  However I'm not convinced that one particular description is really more accurate than another.  And I don't think Lewis is setting his description over and against anyone else's.  He's just describing what he sees.


quote:
Of course, I'm being factitious. Because to  believe that is true of God is unthinkable.



But Hell is only a desciption of what God's providence will do with those who ultimately reject himself ... not a description of God himself.  It's not so much a portrait of his face, but of his face turned away.


quote:
Let us remember, these are those "the sheep and the goats" being judged for how they treated Christ' brethren (righteous Jews). They are not all the wicked who have ever lived. They are those who survived the awful woes and plagues of the last three and a half years of "the tribulation".  The righteous will be granted life for the Millennial Age and the unrighteous will be chastened until they are resurrected at the Great White Throne to be judged for their deeds during their whole life.



But Arnold, all this doctrinal detail you give (and are dependent upon for your view) is not at all derived from the text.  Not even hinted.  Again, the Occam's razor of interpretation would suggest that it's much more sensical to take this as reference to the final Judgement of Men according to how they lived their temporal lives, rather than a limited, specific, and unique eschatological circumstance in the far distant future.  Your interpretation requires us to stretch this passage on a procrustean bed, to make it fit.  But there's a lot you're saying that's just absent from the text, and I find no compelling reason to provide it an absentee ballot, because I don't think it's native   .  


Another thing, if the parable meant what you say, it would be irrelevant to those present who actually heard Jesus.   THEY will NEVER be judged as to how they treat the Jews during the millenium, for they were predominately Jews themselves, and died long before the millenial reign of Christ.




Stephen.          

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
78 posted 2004-09-26 03:24 PM


Denise:
quote:
Nonetheless, even if the correct interpretation is the one that you have given, Jesus saying that it would have been better for Judas never to have been born, couldn't that be understood as one of those idioms to express the manner in which Judas was about to die, and not necessarily as implying an eternal torment?

Beyond that Denise, I think Jesus was, in the most matter-of-fact tone, speaking truth.  Would it even be a true statement if Judas were to be unconditionally reconciled to God, and gain Heaven?


How could it refer to only his death, and remain in any sense true?


It seems to me the "manner of his death" (suicide) flowed from this terrible truth that Jesus spoke.  Not vice versa.


Stephen  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

79 posted 2004-09-26 10:12 PM


Stephen, you are right.  Each of the quotes, to be fair, should be shown in their contexts. Unfortunately, I don't have them.

I don't agree that the account of Christ, the king, sitting upon the throne of his glory, and judging the nations as a shepherd separates sheep from goats, is a parable. The term, "as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" is a figure of speech. Christ doesn't use "sheep" or "goats" again, but refers to "those" on his left or right, which, from the context are humans.  

The Jews, Christ's brethren, are never called the nations.  It's true, His righteous brethren have been gathered from the ends of the earth, but they are not "the nations."

Perhaps I added my interpretation as to those going into "eternal" chastening, but what else can it mean?  They are living humans who when cast into the fire and brimstone will die.  The alternate is, they don't die, or, as the popular view is, their immortal soul will be tormented, neither of which is scriptual.

So much for now, Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
80 posted 2004-09-28 12:26 PM


quote:
I don't agree that the account of Christ, the king, sitting upon the throne of his glory, and judging the nations as a shepherd separates sheep from goats, is a parable. The term, "as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" is a figure of speech.


Purely parabolic versus metaphorically descriptive ...

There's really not much difference.  Whether this can be called a "parable" or not, my point remains the same.

quote:
The Jews, Christ's brethren, are never called the nations.  It's true, His righteous brethren have been gathered from the ends of the earth, but they are not "the nations."


Elsewhere Jesus asks the question "Who is my mother, my brother ...?"  The answer had little to do with national/ ethnic descent.  Also the book of Hebrews tells us that he had to be made "like unto his bretheren in every way".

It also makes much more sense, even only looking at the context of this particular scripture to take a more universal definition of "brother".  


Why would Jesus be speaking to Jews, a warning to the non-Jewish "nations"?  What relevance would this hold for his very Jewish audience at the time?  You still haven't answered that.


Also, how do you explain the narrow exclusivity of Jesus' concern for the Jews in the end-times (if this passage refers to treatment of the Jews only), seeing that some of Jesus' most amazing and benevolent acts were to Gentiles?


quote:
The alternate is, they don't die, or, as the popular view is, their immortal soul will be tormented, neither of which is scriptual.



Arnold, "neither of which is scriptural" isn't an argument.  I already know you believe that.  Now is the time to try and explain why.  Because, of course, my assertion is that it IS scriptural.  I will comment on the whole death/ ressurrection issues you brought up soon.  


Stephen  



Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

81 posted 2004-09-30 01:00 AM


Stephen, we've discussed different verses and words, and you requested scriptures showing the reconciliation of all.  There are so many. Here are a number, using YLT:

1 Tim. 2:4 "..God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth."

1 Tim. 4:10 "..because we hope on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men--especially of those believing."  NOTE: it reads "especially" not "exclusively."

John 3:17 "For God did not send His Son to the world that He may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through Him."

John 1:29 "Lo, the Lamb of God, who is taking away the sin of the world."

1 John 2:2 "..he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for
the whole world."

Rom. 5:18,19 "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."
Adam plus many equals all who are sinners.
Through Christ's obedience the same many will be made righteous.

Rom. 5:20 "Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
God's grace is greater than all the sins of all mankind.

2 Cor.5:14 "For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all died."
God sees all humanity dying with Christ.

2 Cor.5:18,19 "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them.."
Imagine, the sin question is settled! As ambassadors for Christ we need to beseech unbelievers to be reconciled to God.

Col.1:19,20 "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

Isa.53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Psa.22:27 "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee."

Isa.45:22,23 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!  For I am God, and there is no other.  By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear.'"
Swear means confess. To affirm this it is repeated twice in the NT:

Rom.14:11 "..for it is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.'"

Phil.2:9-11 "Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God the Father." Concordant Literal N.T.
This confession to the glory of God could not come from the majority of mankind writhing in some place of torment.
And we read in 1 Cor.12:3 "..no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit."

And when is this time when all (those in the heavens and those on the earth) will be reconciled, and bow the knee and confess that Jesus is Lord? It must be when all enemies are "made a footstool" for Christ, as we read in 1 Cor.15:25-28 "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 'For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.'"

And this takes place at the consummation (of the eons). Reading 1 Cor.15:20-24 from CLNT: "Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing.  For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead.  For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.  Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His prescence; thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power."

There can be much more, but I'm tired now.


jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
82 posted 2004-09-30 01:23 PM


I've been hesitant to involve myself in this thread, chiefly because of the shooting of biblical verses from the hip.  In my experience, being involved in a productive dialogue about salvation requires a mutual willingness to engage in a more mature hermeneutic than finding isolated verses to support one's position.

For example, Arnold, at least half of your citations are from Pauline letters, and many of them from his Epistle to the Romans.  The problem I have with your position is that, if you give Paul a fair reading ... not just in isolated verses, but reading his letters as they were intended to be read - as a complete work ... there really is no way you can claim that Paul shared your opinion regarding Universal Reconciliation.

For example, you cite:

quote:
Rom. 5:18,19 "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."

Rom. 5:20 "Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."


If you go back and read chapters 1-4, I think it is abundantly clear that Paul, here, is setting forth the sufficiency of Christ's atoning death to cover all sins by taking on himself the punishment for all sins - past, present, and future.  Christ was actually righteous, but forensically judged guilty and punished.

We, on the other hand, are actually guilty.  So the question then arises as to how we are made forensically righteous (that is, how is Christ's actual righteousness imputed to us, the actual sinners?).

Paul answers this question for us - by faith.  Without faith, there is no forensic imputation of Christ's righteousness to us and no forensic imputation of our sin to Him on the cross.  Not that Christ's atonement is not sufficient (Paul covers that in the verses you cite), but without faith there is no justification (i.e., being declared just, again in the legal sense), and with no justification, there is no salvation.

I think it is worth noting that by "salvation," we are being saved from something ... is so, what?  We are being saved from God - from his just punishment of us for our transgressing his perfect standard.

You are right to look to Romans for answers on salvation because it, above all the New Testament books and letters, was written with the purpose of instructing Christians in what salvation is and what it isn't.  What it isn't is license to continue sinning with no consequences.  I think your position cheapens salvation, makes faith a virtuous option and nothing more, and dismantles all else Paul has taught us about sin, justification, and judgment.

If you're willing to discuss scripture contextually, I'll be happy to continue to participate.  If not, then I see no point to continued discourse.

Jim

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

83 posted 2004-09-30 09:48 PM


Jim, the reasons I have listed many scriptures is sort of at the request of Stephen, who asked for scriptures rather than discussing short verses or words.
I will be happy to discuss this subject, or others, using all of scripture.  I certainly believe that "A text taken out of context can be a pretext."
It seems that the idea of God reconciling, thus making peace, with all created beings in the universe, means to some that the faithful few who live devoted lives for the Lord, will someday enjoy the blessings of heaven with Christ, but all the unjust do nothing to change but in the end enjoy the same blessings.  Am I right?

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

84 posted 2004-09-30 11:56 PM


Back again. That idea of UR is not what the scriptures teach.  God's Word is, to me, a story of redemption; the redemption of Adam and all the children of Adam, in the proper place and time. I understand that, as I've stated before, that God through Christ makes the ages, Heb.1:2 YLT, which are finite in time, and in this present age is calling out the church which is His body.  We are saved by grace and through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Eph.2:8. And I understand this to mean that both grace and faith come from God. In Rom.10:17
we read "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  

And Israel, God's chosen people for the earth.  Will they be "God's People" again?  Of course they will. Paul tells us in Rom.11:25, among others, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.  But, it will be because God causes it to happen!  From Heb.8:8-13, quoting Jer.31:31-34, it is God who makes a new covenant with Israel and Judah (both houses from the divided kingdom), putting His laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts.  They then will believe, and their blessings will be in the kingdom on earth during the coming ages.

In Rom.9 Paul reveals a marvelous truth.  God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. He creates vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour.  It is His plan that the vessels of dishonour (wrath) are fitted for destruction, to show His power and indignation, after patient longsuffering, to make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy.

Is God a God of justice?  Of course. A God of vengeance?  Certainly.  And, the times of the judgements, the time of His wrath is set forth and can be studied and discussed.

To conclude: will the God of infinite love, mercy, power, etc, condemn those, whose hearts are hardened so they don't believe, to an unending, conscious torment?

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

85 posted 2004-10-01 06:40 PM


Hi everyone. Looking at my last two replies, I see I ended them with a question, so I'll stay off for awhile.  Arnold


Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

86 posted 2004-10-08 07:45 PM


Stephen: quote

Why would Jesus be speaking to Jews, a warning to the non-Jewish "nations"?  What relevance would this hold for his very Jewish audience at the time?  You still haven't answered that.

The relevance is He is prophesying of His coming again to establish the millennial kingdom where the righteous Israelites, who suffered so much at the hands of the Anti-Christ and the Gentiles during the great tribulation, will be the head of the nations.
In our passage in question, I see it that Christ is assuring His Jewish brethren that their suffering is not forgotten, not in vain.

Concerning the places where "the Son of man" is coming again, I counted about 17 places.  They have to be taken literally.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

87 posted 2004-10-14 08:46 PM


Jim, what you pointed out in the early chapters of Romans, that all mankind are sinners, coming short of the glory of God; and that Christ's atoning death is sufficient for all the sins for all mankind, and only through faith are we declared righteous, is certainly true.
And Paul writes that "all men are under the power of sin, none is righteous, no not one, no one understands, no one seeks for God."  Rom.3:9-11 RSV. So, don't the Scriptures teach faith is a gift of God, as I understand Eph. 2:8,9 to mean?
Let us look at the words of Christ prior to His crucifiction in John 12:32 "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."  

I sincerely believe that apart from faith, it is impossible to please God, but honestly, there are some verses that I don't quite understand.  Maybe you could help.
Rom.2:6-10 says God will give eternal life to those who by patience in well doing, that is, according to their works, seek for immortality.  Faith is not mentioned.

Also, in Matt.25, the account of the Son of Man coming in power with all the angels, at the end of the age, which, as I understand it, would be the beginning of the millenial kingdom on earth. There He separates the nations and those who treated His brethren with compassion, inherit the kingdom, etc. My question is, is their millenial life based only on their deeds?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
88 posted 2004-10-15 10:30 PM


Arnold,

Don't you think that the answer is in the book of James?


It's not faith or works,

but a faith that works which saves.


And if we take that to be true, then the verse you mentioned in Romans is not really at odds with faith.  


Stephen.    

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

89 posted 2004-10-16 12:43 PM


Stephen:
Yes, James says show me your good deeds and I'll see your faith, or words to that effect.
That surely is the answer to such scriptures,
for the good deeds described are not for their own self righteousness.

Thanks,  Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

90 posted 2004-12-09 01:44 AM


It seems to me that from the Bible perspective, two subjects are so vital to our understanding:  The ages or eons; and death.  The meaning of eon and eonian have been discussed somewhat, so using as accurate
or literal translations as possible, let us proceed with the subject of "death". There are so many verses on this subject that for sake of brevity only certain ones will be fully quoted.

Starting in Genesis 2:16,17, using Young's Literal Translation: "And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die'".  As we know Adam and Eve didn't die that day, but the dying process started and Adam died at 930 years.  The serpent, or Satan, the devil,
"is a liar...and the father of lies" John 8:44 RSV, said to Eve, "dying ye do not die",
and that lie is believed by much of the world today.
Death is said to be a return:
After the fall, God said to Adam "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust and to dust you shall return". Gen.3:19, RSV.  Other passages
which speak of death as a return are:"Remem-
ber I pray you that as clay you did make me, and unto dust you will cause me to return" Job 10:9.  See also Job 1:20-22; 30:22,23; 34:12-15. "you cause man to return unto dust,
and have said--return you sons of Adam" Psa.
90:3, and others.
God forms the spirit of man in him, "The Lord
who streched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him", Zech.12:1. And in Eccl.12:7 speaking of man's dying, we read "..and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
The soul, man's being is said to go to the unseen: Psa.16:10 "For Thou dost not leave my
soul to Sheol.." and Acts 2:27 "Thou will not abandon my soul to Hades.."  
This doesn't mean the "soul" is separate and alive somewhere. There are many scriptures that say the soul can die or be destroyed:
Lev.19:28; 21:1; 24:17,18; Num.23:10; 31:19;
Josh.2:13; Judg.16:30; Job 36:14; Psa.22:30; 33:18; 78:50; 116:8; Ezek.13:19; 22:27; Lev.
23:30; Acts 3:23 and others. This can be true for "man" and "soul" are practically synonymous in the scriptures and many times man is called a soul: Gen.12:5 "Abram took his wife...and the souls they had gotten in Haran". See also Gen.14:21; 46:26; Exod.12:4,
15,16; Acts 2:41 "and there were added that
day, as it were, three thousand souls"; 2:43
"And fear came upon every soul...". See also
Acts 3:23; 7:14; 27:37 etc.

Will continue later,  Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

91 posted 2004-12-10 08:04 PM


Looking at my last post, it might be too confusing or too many verses to look up, but
only through God's Word can we know the truth, and I'm not pretending to know all the truth on this subject, only using the scriptures as the final word.

Next question: Is there consciousness in sheol, or the grave?  Psa.6:5 in the NIV reads, "no one remembers you when he is dead.  Who praises you from the grave?" See
also Psa.31:17; 94:7; 115:17; Eccl.9:5,6,10.

Has anyone, or any conscious part of him gone to heaven?  The answer must be no. Let us read John 3:13 "And no one hath gone up to heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down--the Son of Man who is in the heaven." YLT. This was written by John after the Lord's ascension.
Also, Peter declares in Acts 2:34 on the day of pentecost: "..David did not go up to the heavens..."

Since death is the absence of life, the cure is resurrection, making alive: Jno.5:21 "For as the Father raises the dead  and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will"; 5:28 "..the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth.." and many others.

More to come.  Arnold  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
92 posted 2004-12-10 08:09 PM


Mark, Mathew, Luke, John, Paul etc.
You’re quoting guys who lived thousands
of years ago, not God.

Sometimes they got it wrong:

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom.”

Mathew 16:28

And perhaps had doubts:

“If after the manner of men I have fought
with beasts of Ephesus, what avantageth it me,
if the dead rise not?  Let us eat and drink;
for to morrow we die.”

Corihthians 15:32


Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

93 posted 2004-12-11 11:52 PM


Hi Huan. It's true, all of the writers of the Bible lived thousands of years ago, and I believe there is a living God who inspired these scribes to write exactly what He wanted.  The Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, written over a span of more than 1500 years, with at lesast 40 different writers from different countries, social strata, and occupations.  Yet this book has a unity and cohesiveness that leaves an open-
minded, discerning person with only one logical explanation: God is the true author of this book.

Huan, if you do not believe this, then I suppose our discussion is over, for nothing that man can conjecture, or dream up, knows the answers to life and death.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
94 posted 2004-12-12 12:02 PM


Arnold,

Muslims, (in the hundreds of millions), claim the very same thing and more
for the Koran, indeed Salman Rushdie through “The Satanic Verses”
earned himself a death sentence for suggesting otherwise.
What gives the Bible more authority?

“Yet this book has a unity and cohesiveness that leaves an open-
minded, discerning person with only one logical explanation: God is the true author of this book.”

Oh I can think of a number of others.



Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

95 posted 2004-12-12 12:45 PM


Huan, I do want to clarify the verses you quoted.
Starting with Matt.16:28(RSV)"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And after six days Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart.  And he was transfigured before them, and his face shown like the sun, and his garments became white as light."
Skipping to verse 17:9 ".as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them,
'Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead'".

Peter tells us in 2Peter 1:16-18 that the power and glory demonstrated on the mountain
was like his second coming: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty.  For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory,
'This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased' we heard this voice borne from heaven for we were with him on the holy mountain".
So Peter, James and John didn't see death because they got a glimpse ahead of time of the power and majesty of his coming.

In 1 Cor.15:12 for the rest of the chapter, the apostle Paul is arguing that Christ has been raised from the dead, and if Christ, so all who are his.  In verse 32 Paul argues that he has fought beasts at Ephesus and why would he do that if there was no resurrection of the dead.  

Please read all of chapter 15.

More to come.  Arnold  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

96 posted 2004-12-12 05:29 PM


Huan, my understanding of muslim teaching that upon death all "good" muslims would go to their heaven alive in some other body or form.  Is that correct?

I'm not familiar with "Satanic Verses", but am aware that the muslim theologians were outraged at what was written and plan on killing Salman Rushdie.

Since all humanity, if they live long enough will die, are there other religions, writings, which state that death is the cessation of life, and in the grave man knows nothing util resurrected?

Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

97 posted 2004-12-20 09:20 PM


Huan, please give some more verses that you feel are contradictory so that they can be discussed.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
98 posted 2005-01-07 11:37 PM


[quote]Chicken Fajitas
Serves 4

  4                     boneless skinless chicken breast halves -- cut
into strips
  1         tablespoon  vegetable oil
  2             cloves  garlic -- minced
     1/4           cup  lime juice
     1/4      teaspoon  chili powder
     1/2      teaspoon  oregano
     1/4      teaspoon  thyme
     1/2      teaspoon  cumin
     1/4      teaspoon  pepper
     3/4           cup  red onion -- sliced
  1                     red bell pepper -- cut in strips
  8                     romaine lettuce leaves -- large


                       SUGGESTED GARNISHES (optional)
                        Salsa
                        Sour cream
                        Avocado
                        Chopped Cilantro
                        Grated cheddar cheese


In a large skillet, heat oil over high heat. Add garlic and chicken.
Sauté for 2-3 minutes till chicken is browned. Add lime juice, spices,
onion and red pepper. Cook for 2-3 minutes on medium heat stirring
constantly. Remove from heat and cover to keep warm.

Use Romaine leaves in lieu of tortillas and enjoy--this really is
delicious!

Per Serving: 345 Calories; 14g Fat (36.2% calories from fat); 47g
Protein; 7g Carbohydrate; 2g Dietary Fiber; 156mg Cholesterol; 180mg
Sodium.  Exchanges: 0 Grain(Starch); 6 1/2 Lean Meat; 1 Vegetable; 0
Fruit; 1/2 Fat.

LC SERVING SUGGESTIONS: Spread 1 tablespoon sour cream, avocado and
salsa on a large Romaine lettuce leaf**. Add a layer of cilantro and
cheese, then add chicken mixture to the middle. Roll lettuce leaf up
from one side folding over one edge to hold mixture in place.  Serve a
big spinach salad as well.

**If you prefer tortillas, Tortilla Factory makes a low carb tortilla!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
99 posted 2005-01-07 11:39 PM


LOL.


I went to paste a quote, to respond to something said above and out came this recipe! ... must've been something my wife copied and pasted elsewhere.  Anyway, it struck me as funny enough to leave it.  And you might want to add it to your own personal menus.  


Best wishes,

Stephen.


I'll reply in a minute, as to my original intent of posting.  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
100 posted 2005-01-07 11:52 PM


quote:
Muslims, (in the hundreds of millions), claim the very same thing and more
for the Koran, indeed Salman Rushdie through “The Satanic Verses”
earned himself a death sentence for suggesting otherwise.
What gives the Bible more authority?

From a theological standpoint, Divine inspiration gives the Bible more authority.  The claims of various religious texts are mutually exclusive.  I agree with Ravi Zacharias when he says that while most people consider religions to be superficially different and fundamentally the same, that they are really fundamentally different and only superficially similar.  (That's just a long way of saying that several disputing claims of divine authorship cannot all be right, only one can, if any.)


Moving from dogma to history ... The New Testament is (in addition to being a religious text) a historical narrative, as observed and written by several or many.  In contrast, the Koran, though claiming to be a revealed Text given verbatim from Angelic beings, is cheifly a book of aphorisms, and religious instruction.  Therefore the literal life of Jesus ... his death and resurrection, and the subsequent history of the early Christian Church, sets the Christian texts apart historically.  


If you believe the historical claims of the New Testament are dubious, I would recommend "The Ressurrection of the Son of God" by historian N.T. Wright.  Though difficult to read for a lay person (like myself), I've found his writings to be quite intriguing and immensely informative.  
I'll stop there for now.


Stephen.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
101 posted 2005-01-08 10:18 AM


quote:
From a theological standpoint, Divine inspiration gives the Bible more authority.

Isn't that a little circular, Stephen? It's right because, well, it's right?

quote:
(That's just a long way of saying that several disputing claims of divine authorship cannot all be right, only one can, if any.)

Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift, Stephen?

While I'm certainly in no position to claim all major religions are right, neither am I in a position to say it's beyond God's power to show us different and even conflicting faces for reasons of His own. You cannot accept omnipotence as the foundation for your faith, Stephen, and then bind it with your own limitations.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

102 posted 2005-01-08 07:44 PM


Ron, God is not, and will not do something that's illogical or nonsensical, in my opinion. But,there are a number of things that God cannot do.  For instance, He cannot lie; He cannot stop loving, when that is His nature.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
103 posted 2005-01-08 09:25 PM


That's fine, Arnold, as long as you don't believe God is omnipotent.

FWIW, I would agree that God will not do anything illogical or nonsensical, but I suspect my reasons would differ from yours. However, I certainly wouldn't rule out the perception of absurdity by us mere mortals. Any god we could fully understand wouldn't be God.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
104 posted 2005-01-08 10:33 PM


quote:
Isn't that a little circular, Stephen? It's right because, well, it's right?


In a sense, that's exactly right.

It's right because it is true.  Yes, this is circular in a sense.  We've talked about presuppositions before, how everyone uses them and has them, regardless of the chosen worldview.  If it so happens that Divine revelation resembles something axiomatic, or truistic, then so be it.  A circle, like one who claims to be the "Alpha and Omega", starts and ends in the same place.


So how are the Divine teachings of scripture different from any other first principle, or presupposed belief?  How is Christianity any different than a form of philosophical dualism (as Brad is wont to ask)?  That's where the evidential things come in.  Our faith is historical, based in the world of facts and literal happenings.  Christ rose from the dead, and other explanations fall way short in their attempts to "reconstruct" the history of the gospels and the Church itself.  It is also vindicated or "proved" in our personal lives as Christians ... where the experience of God should be vibrant, manifesting in a more contemporary kind of "history" too.  


In short, I wasn't offering the mere claim of divine authorship as proof of itself.  And yet the Bible itself makes these sort of claims, the assumed, matter-of-fact statements like, "In the beginning God".  But the Bible itself offers much more in the way of historical persuasion than just some unsupported claim.  It is my (at least partially studied) opinion that other "holy" texts do not possess the same degree of integrity in theology and history.


Stephen.      

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
105 posted 2005-01-09 09:57 AM


It is my (at least partially studied) opinion that other "holy" texts do not possess the same degree of integrity in theology and history.

That is because there are different theologies and histories in this life.  Not just Judaish and Christian.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
106 posted 2005-01-09 06:04 PM


Ess,

That's not what I meant.


The Koran (for example) is a book given from an angel to Mohammed, with the self-authenticating stamp of divinity upon it (according to Muslims).  But Matthew Mark Luke and John, though being religious texts too, are chiefly historical narratives  about what God did in history.  Whenever history comes into play, questions can be asked as to whether or not they really happened.  Alternative explanations of (for example) the crucifixion and ressurrection of Jesus Christ, encounter a legion of difficulties which make them implausible.  The orthodox version of what happened (though having difficulties) does not have them in the same degree.


Hence, that's why I said the holy books of other faiths do not have the same theological historical integrity.

You seem to be saying that there are different "Histories" behind these other texts.  I don't disagree with that.  I was talking about the veracity of historical claims, regardless of which particular story.


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
107 posted 2005-01-09 07:47 PM


I think Christians know best above all others the integrity and veracities of Christianity and their own texts; So do Muslims know best above all others (including Christians) the integrity and veracities of Islam and their texts.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
108 posted 2005-01-09 09:58 PM


Your problem, Stephen, is that the Old Testament faces all of the problems you might cite with the Koran (hardly surprisingly, since they spring from a common well). You going to tell us you don't believe the OT, either?

The historicial distinctions you're making are really a question of how much time has passed. There is substantial secular proof Jesus lived and died. There is somewhat less secular proof Noah survived a world-wide flood. Had that flood occurred a mere 2,000 years ago, however, we can be confident the evidence would be overwhelming. Historical "proof" is all a matter of how much time as passed.

Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard represent even more recent examples of theology, Stephen. Does their historical accuracy thus privilege them over older religions?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
109 posted 2005-01-10 09:19 AM


Essorant:
quote:
I think Christians know best above all others the integrity and veracities of Christianity and their own texts; So do Muslims know best above all others (including Christians) the integrity and veracities of Islam and their texts.



The thing is ... the New Testament claims one thing about Jesus, and the Koran quite another.  It is even written in the Koran that Jesus did not literally die on the cross (no doubt a retained scrap from gnostic heresies a couple of centuries earlier than the Koran).  


The New Testament claims that Jesus is the Messiah, and the very Son of God.  The Koran claims that such teachings about Jesus are blasphemous, and that he never made such claims.  


All of this is diametrically opposite ... incompatible ... unreconcilable.  One must be true, or the other false.  Or else they both may be false.  But they both cannot be true.


Historically, we can compare the roots of the Koran, and those of the New Testament.  The Gospels were written in a relatively short time from the time when Christ walked the land of Palestine (70-150 years).  Fragments of writing and oral traditions were most likely used (Most scholars agree on this).  But the Koran was written some 500 plus years after the time of Christ.  It's comments on the nature of Jesus, are dogmatic in nature.  Andd it does not even attempt historical description for it's claims.  The rightness of the Koran on these historical issues are claimed (by Muslims) not on the basis of historical knowledge, but direct divine revelation from Allah through an angel.  Actually much of the knowledge, and misinformation, about Christianity in the Koran came from various religious traditions which developed long after the actual events of the first century, related by travellers.


So which text is more likely to represent the truth about the events surrounding the life of Jesus of Nazareth ... something collected and written by those of that very community, fairly soon thereafter, or something written centuries later by an Arabic warrior/ priest, whose knowledge of Christianity has been shown to be a mixture of third hand stories and paganism?  


My whole point is to say that opposing claims of history are not compatible.  Neither is their liklihood,  plausibility, or credibility the same.  If you've never looked into the differences I'm attempting to describe, then it might be better for you to suspend your judgement on the matter, than to try to argue for some kind of textual egalitarianism.  All texts, and all claims are not automatically equal.  



Stephen.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
110 posted 2005-01-10 09:58 AM


Ron:
quote:
Your problem, Stephen, is that the Old Testament faces all of the problems you might cite with the Koran



Firstly, do you have an idea what particular problems I might cite with the Koran?  While you are speaking of generalizations, I have particulars in mind.  So I'm not yet sure that you can even know that the Old Testament faces "all of the problems" which I might cite with the Koran.


quote:
You going to tell us you don't believe the OT, either?


No.  What would give you that idea?

quote:
The historicial distinctions you're making are really a question of how much time has passed.


hmmm.  No, the ones concerning the Koran actually have little to do with how much time has passed, if you mean to make a truism out of "older = more obscure /    less old = less obscure".  


The text of the Koran is "newer" than the text of the New Testament, yet makes historical claims about the life of Jesus which are unsupported by what even Secular historians accept about Jesus' life.  


If "time passed" has anything to do with the problems I'm talking about, it is the amount of time passed between the events themselves and the writing about those events.  Mohammed is much farther removed than the apostolic band who were eyewitnesses of Christ.  And he only makes historical claims as dogma with no supporting narrative.   My problem isn't so much that the Koran does that, but that when it does so, it is contradictory to something much sturdier in the vein of historical knowledge.  


Therefore when the Old Testament does something similar (that is to just state something ipso facto), I haven't seen that it does so at the expense of some other firmly established history. The Koran does.


quote:
There is substantial secular proof Jesus lived and died.



Really?  The Koran says he literally didn't die.  Beginning to see my point?


quote:
Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard represent even more recent examples of theology, Stephen. Does their historical accuracy thus privilege them over older religions?


That totally depends upon what you're talking about.  Again, generalizations don't work well in these types of discussions.  


I don't know that Hubbard makes many claims in the area of history (from what I understand it is pretty much westernized, modernized, hinduism which is mainly aphoristic or philosophical in nature rather than historical).  


And I would say that the Book of Mormon is even more dubious than the Koran in it's history.  Especially since Jospeh Smith's mystical translation of ancient Golden plates in the 1800s (which was to become the Book of Mormon) mysteriously turned out to be plagiaristically close to exact phraseology used in the 1611 Authorized Version (KJV) of the Bible, in not a few passages.  And that's just one of many particulars I could discuss with you about the BOM.


Stephen.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
111 posted 2005-01-10 09:33 PM


Stephenos
Perhaps Christianity and Christ are not portrayed accuratly in the Koran; but think about how Heathenism and heathen gods are portrayed in the Bible.  
The same flaw that you say the Koran has about Christianity and Christ, the bible seems to have about hundredfold about heathenism and heathen gods.  It may seem disturbing to see Christ portrayed wrongly, yet the heathen beliefs and gods are basically portrayed as devilworshipping and devils in Christian lore---I don't think there's anything worse a belief or what someone believes in may be called.  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
112 posted 2005-01-12 01:13 PM


Essorant:
quote:
Stephenos
Perhaps Christianity and Christ are not portrayed accuratly in the Koran; but think about how Heathenism and heathen gods are portrayed in the Bible.


Think about how Heathenism and heathen gods are portrayed by mostly everyone today, even those who value them as "culture".  No one really thinks they are really "Gods", but imaginative creations of the human mind.  


I too can value pagan religion in this cultural sort of way ... but how can they be said to be "Divine" in any sort of way?  Only if we redefine divinity, and make it to mean only that which WE deem as sacred.  But you see, WE become the center again.  


I think a good hint lies in the history of the "gods" themselves.  They were seldom if ever potrayed as "God" in the sense of a divine being who is the origin and Lord of all things.  They were born, they were imperfect.  They were finite.  They were also morally beneath "divinity" being more vicious and petty most of the time than the humans who fabricated their existence.  Reading Greek mythology, I have often said, is like watching an ancient soap opera.  The gods' behaviors are scandalous.  They are vigorous players, but are never said to be screen writers.  The astonishing thing about the Jewish religion is that their God was claimed to be the Director, screenwriter, and producer.  The astonishing thing about the Christian religion is that it claimed that he also made a cameo appearance, in one of the characters.  And also astonishing is that the history behind it is not easily dismissed.  


Another note:   If Worshipping such ideas or objects (of Pagan gods) really did get in the way of percieving and submitting to the One God, it's no surprise that the ancient Biblical texts called them at best "worthless" and at worst "demonic".  


Of course, not all Christians have seen something thoroughly evil in paganism.  There is at least the thought that their desire to worship "something" other than self ... the tendecy to deify and exalt another being, is indicative of something that the One True God has placed in their hearts.  Though misguided, the desire is right.  Right impulse, wrong target.  I think there are even hints of this sympathy with Paganism in the Bible.  When the Messiah was to be born to the Jews, it was not the religious leaders of that day who were privy to the nativity, but the Magi who were Babylonian astrologers.  If any one loves truth, they will find it, it seems.    


C.S. Lewis has pointed out also, that paganism often painted quite a "shadow" or pre-figuring of the truth of Christianity.  The dying and rising nature gods of mystery religions, in some way resembled Christ ... only they didn't have a real history behind their dying and rising.  


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
113 posted 2005-01-13 12:25 PM


"Think about how Heathenism and heathen gods are portrayed by mostly everyone today, even those who value them as "culture".  No one really thinks they are really "Gods", but imaginative creations of the human mind. "

That seems at least more respectful than how the bible treats them.


"I too can value pagan religion in this cultural sort of way ... but how can they be said to be "Divine" in any sort of way?  Only if we redefine divinity, and make it to mean only that which WE deem as sacred.  But you see, WE become the center again."

"...They were seldom if ever potrayed as "God" in the sense of a divine being"

If you look at the ancestery and relations of the word and meanings of divine, it looks like it has a firmer history and tradition in meanings toward Heathen "god" than Christian "God".
http://www.geocities.com/indoeurop/project/phonetics/word30.html http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE117.html


(regarding the root of Divinity)
"This is believed to have been the name of the principal Indo-European deity"

Look at all the names that it is related to:  Jove, Zeus, Jupiter, Dione, Diana, Tiw

I don't think there's anything in the roots and etymology that tries tries to enforce the sense of "allperfect" "allknowing" etc. that you will seem to try to force upon it.  


Christianity seems to want the "gem" without the "stone"  That's just not going to happen.  Paganism shall always be the ancestral "stone" and Christianity the descendent "gemstone"  Without the "stone" the gemstone had never come about.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-14-2005 11:28 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
114 posted 2005-01-14 12:24 PM


[Moderator please delete this if you may, Thanks]
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
115 posted 2005-01-20 05:52 PM



Essorant, you are assuming that Christianity sprung from previous pagan religious beliefs.  You have not shown that to be true.  You certainly can't show it to be true using etymology of words alone.  For example, can you show that the revealed name of God to the Jews "YHWH", the tetragrammaton, was derived from paganism?


quote:
Without the "stone" the gemstone had never come about.



But even by your analogy, you are conceding a difference of worth and of essence between the rock, and the extracted gem.

Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
116 posted 2005-01-21 02:04 PM


"Essorant, you are assuming that Christianity sprung from previous pagan religious beliefs.  You have not shown that to be true.  You certainly can't show it to be true using etymology of words alone.  For example, can you show that the revealed name of God to the Jews "YHWH", the tetragrammaton, was derived from paganism?"

No; but I believe we needed to see and learn the world before we might learn the Universe.  We need to learn the flat earth under our worldly feet, before we might learn the round earth in respect to the Universe.  It is step from the worldly to the Universal.

Without that first step, you may not make it to the second.  And even if you could you wouldn't know the difference.  

Paganism is the first step: it keeps us in touch with the worldly spirits: Christianity is second step:  in touch with the Universal Spirit.  To me both are two steps; one for each foot.  Both feet need to take those steps in order to swiftly move man, or he trips more often than walks trying to keep both feet only on one foot's side!
  
"But even by your analogy, you are conceding a difference of worth and of essence between the rock, and the extracted gem."

But I am saying that the stone is still in the gem too; the gem is the state of being being the stone, but also being in a more evolved and polished state: the gem.  Without being the stone first, it can't come to be the gem.  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

117 posted 2005-05-01 07:27 PM


Seems to me the topic of this post has sure wandered.
Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

118 posted 2005-05-01 07:46 PM


Maybe this can be interesting.

In many places in the OT, prophecies concerning the coming Messiah and His rule as King, always speak of His rule being forever.  And, Luke 1:32,33 reads, speaking of Jesus, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end."

Yet Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:24-28 that Christ Jesus will not reign forever, but will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father, after all enemies have been made subject to Him, that is, Christ, and then He will be subject to the Father, that God may be all in all.

A seeming controversy.  Which is right, and why?

God bless you

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

119 posted 2005-05-11 02:18 AM


Hi Jim, it's been awhile since I've been on this thread.

The concept that God, who creates all things through Christ, and for Christ, allowed our first parents to disobey, bringing death and sin into the whole human race, is hard to perceive, until we understand that the redemption that follows is because of the sacrifice of God's Son.

And what part does man have in this?  NONE.  All is out of God, simply because of His love and grace.  Can we pat ourselves on the back because we believed?  NO! Even faith is a gift as Eph. 2:8,9 tell us.  Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Paul, in Rom.9, uses the metaphor of the potter and the clay, describing God (the potter) making vessels of beauty and menial use.  Did the menial vessels have any say, being made for destruction? NO! God shows his power and wrath on them that he might, in contrast, reveal the riches of His glory for the vessels of beauty.

All for now.  God bless, Arnold

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

120 posted 2005-05-30 01:40 PM


As in most cases, I think, the seeming contradiction disappears when reading from a literal translation, Arnold.

In the CLNT the verses read: "He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation."

To me it seems that is referring specifically to His reign during the two future eons prior to His submitting the kingdom to God the Father.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

121 posted 2005-05-30 02:57 PM


I agree, Denise.  I said it that way hoping others would see that "ruling for ever and ever" in a literal translation would read "ruling for the eons."  The last two ages in God's plan.

God bless you on this Memorial Day.  Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
122 posted 2005-06-01 09:34 PM


Arnold and Denise,

Though I respect you both, I don't feel that this fact about the language proves that Christ will not be reigning forever.  I've mentioned it before, but even our english word "forever" is rooted in words that refer to finite durations of time.  Yet we still use it to mean "eternity".


The same phrase "age unto the ages" is also used elsewhere of God's reign.  But surely you wouldn't suggest that this refers to a finite duration of God's Kingdom.  And you also didn't address one tiny problem in interpretation ... that last sentence.  "And of his Kingdom there shall be no consummation (or end)".  Does that last sentence support, or tend to contradict your overall rendering of this passage?  


Stephen.  

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
123 posted 2005-06-02 11:22 AM


Geeze, Stephen.  You're starting to sound like an amillennialist.  Welcome to the orthodox fold!

The best thing about pre-millennialism is that it sells fiction.

On UR, God will save whomever He chooses to save and damn whomever He chooses to damn. He, being God, is certainly justified in doing whatever He pleases to do, in accordance with His nature. Looking at it any other way forces God to abide by our own senses of justice rather than being governed by God's supreme justice.  I can't think of a more arrogant attitude toward God than that.

Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
124 posted 2005-06-02 03:36 PM


JIm,

I'm simply stating that I don't think the language of scripture implies a finite lordship for Jesus Christ.  The part about the kingdom being "delivered up to the Father", is more of a dispensational statement to me, which suggests that the time of Christ perfecting sons is over, and complete, thus ready to be presented as a gift to his Father in Heaven.  But Christ will always be God's agent of ruling the creation.  And the primary reason I pointed those things out, was not to get into milleneal issues, but to try and show that it is bad exegesis to use the term "eon of the eons", to prove that Hell is not an enduring conscious reality for the damned.


That view could be held regardless of the millineal dispute.  I am very cautious of ultra-dispensationalism indeed.  I too wince at those popular fictional accounts of the end times that are so popular today.  But I am also very cautious of ultra-amillenialism, especially when it turns into preterism.  I think of all positions, preterism is maybe the most problematic.


But for the present time, I'll just say that I'm a Pan-millenialist, pan-tribulationist.   In other words, I believe such things will all "Pan out in the end".  lol.  


You may consider that to be non-commital, as well as my position with Calvin and Arminius.  When it  comes to the salvation issue, and whether man's will or God's sovereignty should be considered the real agent ... I still say that scripture teaches both sides of the equation.  Both sides of the seeming contradiction are true, and verified in no uncertain terms by scripture itself.  While others feel the need to take a side, I feel only the need to bow and worship a God who is able to reconcile what is impossible for our finite minds to reconcile.  


Oh, and what do you mean by UR?

Unconditional reconciliation.
or Universal reconciliation or something else?

Stephen.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
125 posted 2005-06-02 04:49 PM


UR as it is used in this thread.

The problem with the Arminians is that they essentially argue that our good works compel God to save us.  God is then bound by our law rather than our conscience being bound to God's.

Do we have free will?  To some degree, we do in some matters.  Is our will free in terms of our relationship with God?  Absolutely not.  Our ability to "choose" God is wholely dependent on God making the first move.  Our "choice" is actually a response to God's offer.  We may insist on calling it a "choice" but the key issue is who can and must offer us some alternative to our separation from God.  And that "who" is God.

Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
126 posted 2005-06-02 06:51 PM


JIm,

I know well the arguments of both sides.  And in a sense, I am always accused of being Arminian by Calvinists, and a Calvinist by Arminians.  

But if you're going to be a staunch Calvinist, I would prefer only to set the scriptures before you that would tend to challenge such a position.  "Limited atonement" can indeed be defended to some degree philosophically and logically.  But what about 1 Timothy 2:4 which states that "God desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth".  And 1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world".


I've also heard the explanations which force those verses (kicking and screaming), in procrustean fashion, to lie down on the bed of Calvinism.  But at least for me they've never rested well there.  Such explanations / interpretations seem contrived.  


And I know now that you're probably thoroughly convinced that I'm Arminian to the bone, but I'm not.  I can give them an equally hard time.  Because I don't think either side is the whole.  I can learn from them both, and see where they each go to far in their respective insights.


But if you're only saying that God had to make the first move (which he did), and that we were totally helpless apart from Calvary ... I totally and unreservedly agree.  Quibbling over whether our involvement is a "response" or a "choice" seems like just a matter of semantics to me.  Because I would argue that even a response implies a degree of "respons-ibility".

Stephen.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
127 posted 2005-06-02 07:07 PM


Jim,

I misunderstood what you were saying about UR ... sorry.


On that ...


Your view is that UR is at worst an arrogance against the will of God, perhaps forcing him into our idea of justice.


But I would say that UR is at best, wishful thinking and dishonest with the data that we have in scripture.  Of course, like Barclay, I believe we are permitted to hope beyond hope.  So, a bit more charitibly perhaps (as I feel that Arnold and Denise fit this description), I would say that the mistake of believing in UR, can sometimes flow out of a holy desire to see all saved, rather than out of a base desire to justify sin and evil in oneself and others.  

Even when Nathanael asked "Can anything good come out of Nazareth"?  Jesus referred to him as "an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile".  So I too prefer to think the best of you, Jim, when you disagree with me doctrinally, as well as Denise and Arnold.  That doesn't mean I won't say anyone is wrong.


Stephen.  

  

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
128 posted 2005-06-02 10:10 PM


There are more views than Calvinism and Arminianism, you know.  I am neither.  The Augustian tradition is more Lutheran in its outlook on salvation that either Calvin's or Arminius'.  Some forget that the Calvinistic TULIP was a reaction against Arminianism, and few realize that Calvin was not as staunch a Calvinist as many today who position themselves as "Calvinists."  Tragically, the focus became "eternal security" and the Law and Gospel distinctions lost their rightful place in the limelight.

I don't think your Arminian.  I just think you're moving in the direction of a Lutheran tradition.  Read "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther.  I believe you'll find much in common with his conclusions (he's also rather entertaining to read).

Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
129 posted 2005-06-04 07:50 PM


JIm,

I do have that work on my shelf, along with some others by Luther.  I've read excerpts.  I plan to read it in it's entirety some day ... There are books in line ahead of it.  Unfortunately, as much as I enjoy reading, I am a slow reader, and often miss the forest for the trees.  My wife however has the ability to devour books.


Thanks for the recommendation.  I'm actually more likely to read something that I own, than something else.  


Stephen.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

130 posted 2005-06-06 09:12 PM


Hi Guys.  Stephen you said that "UR is at best, wishful thinking and dishonest with the data that we have in scripture."

I am a seeker of the truth regarding the evangel and the whole of Scripture.  I know the TRUTH is not automatic, and scripture must be compared with scripture, but I resent the statement that I (and I am sure Denise) am "dishonest" with the data of the written word.

Regardless of how many posts, or how long, will you not be willing to lay out the verses that you say we "manipulate" or
"twist" the scriptures.  Please start soon.

God bless you,  Arnold

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

131 posted 2005-06-06 09:17 PM


Stephen,

With your interpretation there is still contradiction between the two portions of scripture. Here is the second from my King James:

Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he (the Father) shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
For he (Jesus) must reign, till he (the Father) hath put all enemies under his (Jesus) feet.
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
For he (the Father) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (the Father) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (the Father) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all. (I hope I properly designated all the he's and him's! Whew, that was a tough one to get through, even harder than reading a literal rendition! )

So one portion of Scripture seems to say that His rule will never end and one portion seems to say it will conclude when He subjects His kingdom, and Himself, unto the Father.

As fallible human beings with finite abilities, I'm sure we will all find out that we have been mistaken in one aspect or another in our various interpretations and understandings when we meet the Lord and all becomes clear. And I'm sure He even has a reason for all the differing understandings that we all have, that they too serve His ultimate design in some way.

And I'm sure that your charity will be richly rewarded!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
132 posted 2005-06-06 11:48 PM


Arnold,

You are right, applying dishonesty to all is not appropriate.  And I didn't mean to do that.  I believe you are an honest seeker of truth.  If you will go back and read what I wrote immediately after the part that offended you (where you probably stopped reading?), you'll find a direct reference to you and Denise.  I wrote that I felt your position to be a mistake, which flows "out of a holy desire to see all saved, rather than out of a base desire to justify sin and evil in oneself and others".  And that is my exact quote.     You may feel that was patronizing, or that it extended charity in a way that mocks you.  But it was the best way that I could say, I believe you have a good heart in this.  


And like Denise, I believe variances in such doctrines (in those with good and pure motives) will not be a problem for our Father in the end.  He will work out such differences.  Though I would add, that that doesn't mean such doctrines don't really matter.    


As to giving a full scriptural refutation of Universalism .... sigh.  Maybe one day.  That would require a lot of time and energy.  I have some other projects going right now, that won't allow me to approach this subject with the thoroughness it deserves.  I couldn't do it justice.  So I'll wait ... and hope Jim does it first.   (laugh).


Peace,

Stephen.  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

133 posted 2005-06-07 07:04 PM


Stephen, I read all you said, but "dishonest"
hit me the wrong way.

My journey to "the salvation of all" came through a study of the scriptures, led by a teacher/minister some years ago. Not by
"wishful thinking" or seeking scriptures to justify a preconceived position.

I've posted this before, but it is so fundamental to the nature of man, to salvation, to God's purpose for humanity:

At death, does man live on in some other form, or is he dead (non-existant) until he is resurrected?

I can show overwhelmingly from the scriptures
that man is dead until resurrected.  And therefore if cast into geenna or the lake of fire, will die, only after being judged and deemed unworthy of life for the given period.
This is not "spiritual" death, but literal death.  Therefore, the traditional teaching of "conscious eternal torment" of the unsaved
cannot be true.

Well, this one subject should open up some discussion.

God bless you,  Arnold


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
134 posted 2005-06-07 11:59 PM


Arnold,

If you want to show that there is no "soulish" existence of man beyond death until the ressurrection, you should consider that there are at least a few prominent scriptures that might give you pause.  I'll start out with just a couple of them.


1) What about Saul summoning, through the arts of the witch of Endor, Samuel from Sheol (or the world of the dead)?  Was Samuel literally ressurrected by the witch? ... by God?  If not, this is nothing more or less than a post-mortem existence without a bodily resurrection.    


2) In the New Testament, what about Moses and Elijah appearing at the Mount of Transfiguration?  If what you are saying is true, you would have to say that they were resurrected.  But scripture elsewhere refers to Christ as "the firstborn from among the dead" in speaking about the ressurrection.


Stephen.    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-08-2005 12:06 AM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

135 posted 2005-06-08 12:06 PM


Stephen, lets look at your quote in more of the context. In Luke 1:30-33, we read that it is the Lord God who gives the kingdom to Jesus, as the son of David.  And if, as we read in 1 Cor.15:22-28, Jesus as the Christ reigns until all enemies have been put under his feet, and there is no need for his rule,
for all have been made subject to him,   except, of course, God his Father, and the kingdom will have no consumation.  Then
God's great goal will be realized, that He may be All in all.

God bless you,  Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

136 posted 2005-06-09 05:15 PM


Stephen, let us look at more details in the witch of Endor account.  First: she had a familiar spirit, as Saul was told.  Familiar spirits, then as now, were possibly demons, who pretended to be a person brought up from the dead.  Second: only she could see the spirit, who supposedly was Samuel. If this was a temporary raising of Samuel, why couldn't Saul see him?  Third: If this was Samuel come from the grave, he would have had grave clothes on rather than  being covered with a mantle.   Fourth: Saul could only communicate with words, and the truth of the Philistine victory and his own death was told him.  So, the spirit didn't lie, because, as I believe, God controlled it.

In conclusion, Saul went to her because she had a familiar spirit which could "bring up" Samuel, through which Saul hoped to hear, no doubt, that Israel would defeat the Philistines.

Another thought: it couldn't have been the spirit of Samuel, for, we are told in Eccl. 12:7 speaking of death, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

137 posted 2005-06-09 05:44 PM


Hi again, Stephen. Concerning point 2):

Matt.17:1-9: We read that The Lord was transfigured before Peter, James and John, and appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Jesus.  Obviously, the three of them knew who the two figures were because Jesus must have addressed them by name.

I believe the key to understanding this is verse 9, "Tell the VISION to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead."
Capitals, mine for emphasis.

Many times in scripture man is called a soul, and we use the term today.  In Gen. we read that "man became a living soul".  No where that I know of in the Bible is there a reference that "a soul" entered or was infused into a prepared body upon life, but I'm willing to know where, and considerate it.

Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
138 posted 2005-06-10 12:06 PM


quote:
First: she had a familiar spirit, as Saul was told.  Familiar spirits, then as now, were possibly demons, who pretended to be a person brought up from the dead.


Possibilities surely may be considered in biblical interpretation, but only after certainties have been established.  To posit possibilities above what is more concrete and obvious, leads to interpretive error.  


Here are the certainties about this passage that I see:


1) The author of 1 Samuel writes as if Samuel were really himself.  So not only do the characters of the story seem convinced that Samuel is really himself ... the very author does to!  There is no textual evidence that he (the writer) doubts the reality of who Samuel is.  Consider the following verses, which never state things like "the spirit who pretended to be Saul said" ... or "that which was percieved as Saul".  Not only do these verses not say such things, they don't even hint at a ventriloquist act:


"When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul 'Why have you decieved me?  You are Saul!"  (1 Samuel 28:12)


"... Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated his face to the ground." (28:14)


"Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?' (28:15)


"Samuel said, 'Why do you consult me now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy?" (28:16)


"Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel's words" (28:20)



2) Samuel is true to his manner of dress, his character, and his vocation.


- Samuel's dress /garb:  "'What does he look like?' he asked.  'An old man wearing a robe is coming up' she said (1 Samuel 28:14)


- Samuel's knowledge of Saul's history:  "Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy?"  (28:16)


- Samuel's speech on behalf of the LORD, as a prophet:  "The LORD has done what he pridicted through me.  The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors- to David.  Becuase you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today.  The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tommorow you and your sons will be with me.  The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines."  (28:17-19)

  
3)  Everything Samuel said came true:  

"When the people of Jabesh Gilead heard of what the Philistines had done to Saul, all their valiant men journeyed through the night to Beth Shan.  They took down the bodies of Saul and his sons from the wall of Beth Shan and went to Jabesh, where they burned them ..."(1 Samuel 31:12-13)


----------

So to summarize, despite the difficulties that Samuel actually being summoned from dead would cause, this is the most natural rendering of the text.  And it seems to me that you run into far more difficulties interpreting the spirit of Samuel as an imposter or a vision.


Those difficulties would be:

1)  The biblical author of 1 Samuel would have to be either deceived by this spirit himself, or a deceiver of those he wrote to.  Either of which throws enormous problems up against the doctrine of divinely inspired scripture.  Would God allow such a misguided deception exist in the author?!  Or, worse, would he allow such a deception to exist in his written word, to whoever may read?  Because the text clearly reads (with not even a hint otherwise) as if the spirit spoken of were actually Samuel himself, both with the Characters and narrator himself.  


2)  A demon, or imposter spirit, would be giving the utterance the LORD's word, and direct accurate prophecy, rebuking unrighteousness, and even exalting David (a type of Christ) in his speech to Saul.


3)  The most obvious reading/ understanding would have to be rejected, for a much more elaborate, contrived, interpretation ... the kinds of interpretation that come often from a strong desire to salvage some other point of belief.  I'm not saying this is done with bad motives, or even consciously.  (I'm sure I've done it too).  But the principle of Occam's razor, actually applies to scriptural interpretation too.  


I don't have time to get into the other passage about the mount of transfiguration yet ... but soon maybe.


Thanks,

Stephen.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
139 posted 2005-06-10 12:45 PM


Arnold, I forgot to answer a couple of your other points...

quote:
Second: only she could see the spirit, who supposedly was Samuel. If this was a temporary raising of Samuel, why couldn't Saul see him?


I don't think this was a resuscitation / resurrection account.  If Samuel was a spirit, the best I can answer is that the laws of nature are not the same for post-mortem spirits, as for embodied spirits.  Saul, not being a spiritually sensitive man, but a carnal one, perhaps wasn't able to see Samuel, for the same reasons he wasn't able to "see" things his way while he lived.  Perhaps God didn't want him to see him.  But he did hear him.  Notice that the witch did not tell Saul what Samuel said ... "Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?'"  Samuel spoke himself.  

So your question, though interesting, doesn't raise any objection to Samuel being the real spirit of Samuel, any more than it would raise an objection to a demon masquerading as the spirit of Samuel.  Because, I could just as easily ask, "If a demon appeared, why couldn't Saul see him"?  That is irrelevant to the question at hand.


quote:
Third: If this was Samuel come from the grave, he would have had grave clothes on rather than  being covered with a mantle.


As I said before, I don't think this was the bodily return of Samuel from the grave.  I think it was the spiritual / soulish appearance of Samuel from Sheol.  That makes the clothing question irrelevant, other than the fact that the clothes were true to Samuel's usual manner of dress, identifying him to the land of the living.


quote:
Another thought: it couldn't have been the spirit of Samuel, for, we are told in Eccl. 12:7 speaking of death, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."


That's like saying "What goes up must come down", has to mean that a 747 can't fly to the north pole.     

In studying Ecclesiastes you should know that Solomon's writings are anything but detailed dogma.  They are musings of man pondering the the nature of human life, the universe, and the God who made them.  Ultimately the spirit does return to God.  But that doesn't change the fact that the Jews had the doctrine of Sheol ... a place for the dead, prior to the revelation of "Heaven" as we know it in the New Testament.  


Stephen.
  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

140 posted 2005-06-14 12:37 PM


Stephen, certainly Solomon wrote concerning his observances of many things, and I believe his writings are inspired, not that the events were necessarily true and right. We know wisdom was given to Solomon from God, and "it remained with him" as we read in Eccl. 2:9.  

At least two other accounts verify that the spirit returns to God: Luke 23:46 "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."  And
Acts 7:59 "While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." AV

And I am convinced that the truth about the soul of man is to be learned from the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the Greek.  A study of all the occurences of "soul" using a concordance in their contexts is long and tedious, but worth it.  A good definition, to me, is from Death, Resurrection,  Immortality, by Joseph E. Kirk, p.79, "Soul is the consciousness, the feelings, the desires, produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body.  It will be seen that the Scriptures relate knowledge, memory, thought, love, joy, delight, bitterness, dis-tress, impatience, mourning, sorrow, grief,. abhorrence and hatred to the soul."

Many times the soul is said to die or be dead.  See: Lev. 21:1; Num.23:10; Judges 16:30; Psa. 22:30, 116:8, etc.  This means the person dies because man is a living soul.

Well, enough for now.  Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
141 posted 2005-06-14 10:45 PM


Arnold:
quote:
Stephen, certainly Solomon wrote concerning his observances of many things, and I believe his writings are inspired



By what I said, I certainly didn't mean to suggest to you that I consider Ecclesiastes uninspired.  But I think different parts of scripture have different purposes altogether.  Some as historical narrative, some as doctrinal treatise, some as personal expression.  Ecclesiastes (along with Job) seems to be the Philsopher's text of the Old Testament, concerned with the observations of the natural man (albeit a pious man) concering the many issues of human life and God.  It is poetic rather than prosaic, artistic rather than strictly informational, and streams along like the flow of a man's mind who is in deep thought.  It just doesn't abound with dogma, as much as with observation and generalizations.  That doesn't make it's contributions less, just different.


quote:
At least two other accounts verify that the spirit returns to God: Luke 23:46 "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."  And Acts 7:59 "While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."



Again, in context, Jesus uttered that statement as an expression of personal faith and commitment.  The infant Moses was surely "committed" to God by being put in a basket, to be put in the Nile river by Jochebed (his mother).  But my saying so, speaks nothing of the chronology of the journey of Moses.  


There is also a scripture (2 Peter 3:18-20) which says that, through the Spirit, Christ "went and preached to the spirits in prison, who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah ..."  Now, I don't pretend to understand that scripture completely.  Nor do I pretend that it is not without problems no matter which interpretive stance one takes.  But it nonetheless seems to suggest a spiritual visitation by Christ after his death, to the spirit-world of men.  And if that is the case, then Jesus' committing of his spirit to God, would be only a statement of personal devotion and trust, rather than a mere description of his next location or destination.  (like the next town on a map)  But there is also the idea that Christ, by his death and ressurrection "led captivity captive", and literally changed things, making Sheol obsolete.  Thus Paul considers being away from the body, "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8).


But if you're going to argue for our immediate presence with God after death, you are still confirming what I'm trying to show.  Because wouldn't that also require a spiritual existence of man, apart from the body?  Whether or not one's spirit goes to Sheol (a waiting place of sorts) or directly into the presence of God, is irrelevant to our question.  Either way, a man's spirit apart from his body, must exist.  So I'm really not here to argue whether Sheol or Heaven is the next stop on the tour.  But I am here to suggest that annihilation upon death makes either of these views nonsensical.  


If you believe that we cease to exist upon physical death, then what do you mean when you say "the spirit returns to God"?


Also, I'd really like to hear your response to what I said about the post-mortem Samuel, conjured by the witch of Endor.  Do you find what I said compelling, or do you really believe that it wasn't Samuel?


Enjoying the discussion.


Stephen.  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

142 posted 2005-06-17 02:29 AM


Stephen:

Discussing each point one at a time:

What you said about the poetic books is well expressed.  Yet, it is my observation that what is said about the constitution of man, anywhere in the bible, say, in Deuteronomy, will not conflict with what is written in the N.T.  It may flow from Solomon's mind as he is cogjutating about his observations of life, but I believe the Spirit of God moves him to write what is correct.

My study of "spirit" has led me to see that our spirit is the living force in us, and is being formed with every breath we take.

For instance:  Gen7:22, "All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life...."  And others.

Zech.12:1, "Thus says the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the human spirit within.."

I do not believe that the spirit of man is a separate entity that can "go to God in heaven", but as his life force, which is a gift of God through the very air we breathe,
it returns to God who gave it.

A literal translation of 1 Pet.3:18-20 must be used to clarify this misunderstood passage.  Using the CLNT, "..Seeing that Christ also, for our sakes, once died concerning sins, the just for the sake of the unjust, that He may be leading us to God; being put to death, indeed, in flesh, yet vivified in spirit, in which, being gone to the spirits in jail also, He heralds to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah.."

Notice, Christ was put to death in flesh, then He was vivified, made alive to never die again, in spirit, because He was resurrected by God's spirit.  Then in spirit He hearalded, in His resurrected body, to the spirits in prison.  Man is never called a spirit.  These were the fallen angels who left their proper dwelling, spoken of in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4, and were, I believe, the "sons of God" who married the daughters of the Adam during the days of Noah.

Must go now.  Arnold


Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

143 posted 2005-06-18 05:40 PM


Hi, I failed to look up the proper spelling, at first.  It is "cogitate" not "cogjutate".
Stephen:
Again, concerning the account of Saul talking to Samuel, many times in scripture, the key to the subject of the context is in the opening verses.  In this case it is clear, the witch has a familiar spirit who she can bring up.  When the spirit came up she screamed in fear, not, because she thought it was the true Samuel, but because the spirit must have told her, the disguised person was King Saul, who had condemned all witches.

It is true, the spirit was called "Samuel" by the writer, because, it seems to me, that's who Saul thought it was.

Let's look at it as if it was Samuel, resurrected, temporarily?  He would have to have a body that could be seen (by the witch), and heard by both the witch and Saul.
But, if he was resurrected, did he die again?
If not, where is he?

He can't be in heaven.  John 3:13 says, "And no one has ascended into heaven except He who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind who is in heaven." CLNT. This was written by John after Christ's ascension.
And in Acts 2:34, Peter declares that "David did not ascend into the heavens..", pointing out David's tomb was among them. So, did Samuel die again and go back to the grave?

I'll pick up this interesting discussion later.  Arnold

Mike Kolb
New Member
since 2005-07-11
Posts 2

144 posted 2005-07-11 03:43 PM


Denise,
Your original question was about universalism.  I am a Christian Universalist and have a few web sites for you to check out if interested.
There you can see many of the debates about Scripture, how it is interpreted in a universalist light etc.
The first one has a pretty good forum.
Thanks,
M
www.gospelfortoday.org www.tentmaker.org www.gospelogic.com

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

145 posted 2005-07-11 10:28 PM


Thank you, Mike. I'm aware of the first two, which I have always found to be a great blessing, and the third seems that it will be as well!
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
146 posted 2005-07-12 11:46 PM


Arnold:
quote:
In this case it is clear, the witch has a familiar spirit who she can bring up.



Arnold if you study out the history surrounding the term "familiar spirit", you will understand that such an "oracle" was a spirit by which one could contact other spirits, or obtain occult information.  It doesn't necessarily mean that the familar spirit is what is conjured.  In the context of this passage in 1 Samuel, it should be obvious that the person referred to as "Samuel" by both writer and characters, is not the familar spirit.  You can only come to such a conclusion by changing the context, and running yourself into a myriad of greater interpretive difficulties.


quote:
t is true, the spirit was called "Samuel" by the writer, because, it seems to me, that's who Saul thought it was.



Why would a divinely inspired writer call him "Samuel" just because Saul thought it was Samuel?  If you are going to believe this, then you must be prepared to believe that the writer was also deceived like Saul ... and (here's what should really give you pause) that YOU a 21st century reader have more insight into the situation than the Biblical  writer himself.  Or you could believe (but this one is even worse) that the Biblical writer knew it wasn't Samuel, but wrote as if he were, with intent to deceive his readers.


Then what about the perfectly dressed "Familiar Spirit" giving a prophecy from God that came true, along with a Messianic prophecy?  Doesn't that give you pause?


If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.        
  

quote:
Let's look at it as if it was Samuel, resurrected, temporarily?



Why should we look at it that way?  I never suggested that it was a ressurrection (the text doesn't support that) ... but a supernatural appearance of Samuel's spirit.


quote:
He would have to have a body that could be seen (by the witch), and heard by both the witch and Saul.



Did God have to have a body in order for Moses to hear him from a burning bush?   It is your assumption that spirits can never appear apart from their bodies ... but that assertion is what you are trying to prove, not the proof itself.


quote:
He can't be in heaven.  John 3:13 says, "And no one has ascended into heaven except He who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind who is in heaven." CLNT. This was written by John after Christ's ascension.



Do you know about the Jewish belief in Sheol, both for the righteous and wicked?  Remember Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man?  Yes, of course it was a parable, but one which pointed to reality, and one which the Jews could understand as confirming their developing belief in a post-mortem existence.   No, Sheol is not Heaven, remember the text says that Samuel came "up".


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-14-2005 01:38 AM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

147 posted 2005-07-15 03:10 AM


Hi Stephen.  It is true that Saul called the "spirit" Samuel, without seeing him.  Samuel talked direct to Saul and knew his past and that the Lord had forsaken him.  He also predicted that Israel and Saul would be taken by the Philistines.  And that Saul and his sons would join him (Samuel).  He must be speaking of the grave (sheol), for as we read further, Saul and his sons were killed.

I have never studied extensively about mediums, spiritists, those with familiar spirits, etc, and I have always thought they could only bring up a familiar spirit, though calling it the spirit of a dead person.

In this account, I now am of the opinion that God was behind it all. It was a special
appearance of a spirit like unto Samuel, who could know Saul and predict his and Israels downfall.

I know that spirit beings don't necessarily have bodies that we can see.  As for the burning bush, of course Moses heard God from within the bush, and didn't see a body.

Sheol, is, of course, the grave, the abode of the dead, righteous or unrighteousness.


Getting late.  More tomorrow.  Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

148 posted 2005-07-15 07:34 PM


Hi Stephen: To continue:

I have heard that the Jewish leaders had developed a view that sheol was a divided compartment where both the righteous and unrighteous went upon death, but still had bodies that could see, feel, hear, etc, and that there even was water there, according to the rich man who was in torment (Luke 16).
Based upon certain commentaries, particularly the Companion Bible by Bullinger, It is my belief that these were false teachings brought over from the seventy years in Babylon.
The Pharisees, to whom Jesus addressed this account, by their tradition had made void the law as to divorce (verse 18) and second,
made void the prophets and the rest of the Scriptures, as to the dead (19-30).
  Verse 19 "commences the second part of the Lord's address to the Pharisees, against their tradition making void God's word as to the dead, which may be seen in Psa. 6:5; 30:9
31:17; 88:11; 115:17; 146:4;...Isa.38:17-19, etc.  It is not a "parable", because it cites a notable example of the Pharisees' tradition, which had been brought from Babylon.  See many other examples in Lightfoot, vol.12, pp.159-68." Comp.Bible, pp.1483.
To me, the account is figurative,not literal, the main point being verse 31, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." AV.
  Certainly, sheol is the grave, or the unseen.  Nothing to do with heaven.
  I'll post this and get back later.  Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
149 posted 2005-07-17 02:57 PM


~ It is without a doubt, ArnoldM has a command of biblical matters. His viewpoints and interpretations of the Bible are far and away more logical and much easier to understand than the interpretations provided by others participating in this discussion.

~ Many of his questions went unanswered or when answered, were answered with opinion without biblical support to back those opinions up.

~ If indeed the Christian God is "the" God... There is no doubt in my mind, God is not trying to save the world now... and that the overwhelming majority of the human race will be saved, while the minority incorrigibly wicked will burn up in the lake of fire, forever dead = the 2nd death = Everlasting and eternal punishment not punishING.

Well done, Arnold.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
150 posted 2005-07-17 06:42 PM


quote:
... than the interpretations provided by others participating in this discussion.

Ya know, one might "almost" see an insult wedged in there. Kinda makes one wonder if those kinds of comparisons are really necessary?

quote:
Many of his questions went unanswered or when answered, were answered with opinion without biblical support to back those opinions up.


quote:
If indeed the Christian God is "the" God... There is no doubt in my mind, God is not trying to save the world now... and that the overwhelming majority of the human race will be saved, while the minority incorrigibly wicked will burn up in the lake of fire, forever dead = the 2nd death = Everlasting and eternal punishment not punishING.


Your condemnation seems to be rather closely followed by imitation?

My experience has been that any time someone feels to the need to say "there is no doubt in my mind," it typically means they lack compelling evidence and hope they can get away with authoritative rhetoric.


JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
151 posted 2005-07-17 07:22 PM


Nah... I have been down both roads before and have studied the interpretation issues presented here from either perspectives presented on this thread.

The bait may have been put on the hook, but I am not biting... afterall, I've been down that road on this site many times

I'll stand by the props I have given to Arnold. IMO, he kicked butt on this thread, period.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

152 posted 2005-07-17 09:34 PM


Ron, who were you quoting?

JesusChristPose: what do you mean "Arnold...he kicked butt on this thread"?

My contribution is not to "kick butt", but to to arrive at the truth? by this kkind of discussion based on the Scriptures.

Arnold

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
153 posted 2005-07-17 09:38 PM


Ron was quoting from JCP's prior response.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
154 posted 2005-07-17 09:54 PM


"My contribution is not to "kick butt", but to to arrive at the truth? by this kkind of discussion based on the Scriptures."

~ "Kick butt" was intended to be equivalent to what I posted in the previous reply. Maybe it was a poor phrase to re-describe my original intent on how this search for truth has panned out.

~ But let me ask you... do you think the arrival at the truth will be the same truth for both yourself and those who disagree with you? Do you think you can change the minds of those who disagree with and of course vice versa?

~ It appears you have a truth and so do the other participants - and it all comes down to how one interprets the scriptures, which of course is going to based on one's upbringing and how his or her mind has been shaped through a particular culture and of course, learning experiences.

~ I have said it before and I'll say it again - even if Jesus came down here today and spoke a different interpretation of the Bible other than one or another denomination believes... Christ would be branded a heretic.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

155 posted 2005-07-19 01:41 AM


JesusChristpPose:  To answer your questions:

No. If someone disagrees with my understanding of some "truth", obviously we don't believe the same.

As for me changing their mind, I would not be the one.  It would have to be the result of studying the Scriptures as an unashamed workman, rightly dividing the word of truth.

How one interprets the Scriptures is, unfortunately, very much affected by pre conceived views and doctrines.  To unlearn what we have heard is true, say, from our past, is probably the hardest thing.

I know of dear Christian folks that believe only the King James Version is divinely inspired, and refuse to hear any other. They wouldn't think of using a concordance to find that some word in the KJV really means something else in the originals.

My goal on this link, is hopefully, to encourage others to see that the God of the universe, the all powerful, all loving creator: out of Him and through Him and for Him are all things; to Him be glory for the ages (Rom. 11:36), through Christ, will reconcile all things to Himself whether on earth on in heaven (Col.1:19,20).

God bless,  Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
156 posted 2005-07-19 08:52 PM


"No. If someone disagrees with my understanding of some "truth", obviously we don't believe the same."

~ But then who is telling the truth? Yourself and Stephanos, for example... which one of you is telling the truth when interpreting all of those biblical passages?

~ Would not a Creator understand that with the so many different upbringings, the cultures, the societies, the shaping of minds by others, everything we learn, that there could never be one truth for all of mankind when it comes to biblical/religious matters?

"As for me changing their mind, I would not be the one.  It would have to be the result of studying the Scriptures as an unashamed workman, rightly dividing the word of truth."

~ But others have and are studying the Scriptures as unashamed workmen, and they also, like you, have came to a conclusion, but to another one.

"How one interprets the Scriptures is, unfortunately, very much affected by pre conceived views and doctrines.  To unlearn what we have heard is true, say, from our past, is probably the hardest thing."

~ I completely agree with that statement. So, have you unlearned your past?

"I know of dear Christian folks that believe only the King James Version is divinely inspired, and refuse to hear any other. They wouldn't think of using a concordance to find that some word in the KJV really means something else in the originals."

~ Are they then truly Christian folk? Do they believe in a false Christ - unknowingly, of course?

"My goal on this link, is hopefully, to encourage others to see that the God of the universe, the all powerful, all loving creator: out of Him and through Him and for Him are all things; to Him be glory for the ages (Rom. 11:36), through Christ, will reconcile all things to Himself whether on earth on in heaven (Col.1:19,20)."

~ That is noble, but on the debating side with the few on this thread, they believe that above statement too, so I don't see what good it is doing you to debate the interpretations with them. They won't change their opinions. And if you think about it, if there is only one true God, one true Holy Spirit, and knowing that their is the evil spirit that can duplicate the Holy Spirit - one interpretation must be true and all of the others... of the devil.

Rev 12:9

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
157 posted 2005-07-20 10:37 AM


quote:
And if you think about it, if there is only one true God, one true Holy Spirit, and knowing that their is the evil spirit that can duplicate the Holy Spirit - one interpretation must be true and all of the others... of the devil.


Yes and no.  I would argue that certain doctrines are central to Christian orthodoxy (such as the vicarious atonement, the Resurrection, monotheism, the Trinity) and any divergence from such core teachings should rightly be regarded as error.

There are other teachings and traditions that are matters of interpretation, but not central to Christian teaching and tradition.  Baptism by emersion or sprinkling, of adults or of infants, or whether the Communion drink should be wine or grape juice, are secondary and, although one version may be a best interpretation of available Scriptures on the subject, there is sufficient ambiguity to warrant more than one interpretation.

I think it is important to remember that God revealed what we needed to know through Scripture.  Those things that are of lesser importance seem to leave it to the believer to decide how they practice their Christianity.  In such circumstances, I think regarding one interpretation of secondary matters of belief as "godly" and all others "of the devil" is unwarranted and incorrect.

Jim

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

158 posted 2005-07-20 07:33 PM


Amen, Jim.

Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
159 posted 2005-07-20 07:58 PM


Well, I was hoping Arnold M would of answered the questions I asked, since they were directed towards him...

So do both yourself and Arnold believe in a ressurection or does one of you believe in an immediate soul departure to heaven upon death?

Do you both believe in a trinity?

And why would the same Holy Spirit of God reveal different truths to either of you or anyone in any other denomination, if it is the same Holy Spirit?

... now onto the bigger picture...

"I think it is important to remember that God revealed what we needed to know through Scripture."

~ And therein lies the problem, Jim. Christianity believes that the one and only God has revealed to them the one and only truth, yet many other people of many other faiths believe the same - that God revealed to them the one and only truth... and all one can go by is how he or she, a human being, interprets words written by men thousans of years ago.

~ As an agnostic, in my mind, from my studies, I could never believe that a Creator would do that. You could call me a person who is to suffer forever in a hellfire or whatever, but I'll tell you this, Jim...

I won't judge you. And don't give me the story about a righteous judgment, I am not buying that. You or any other person of any faith are not God. You think in your mind and heart you know what is the will of God - and that is fine by me - but you are only a human being, just the same as me, and I prayed and studied the same word as you did - and at no fault to my own, I came to another conclusion.

It is really that simple.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
160 posted 2005-07-20 08:48 PM


I was nine years older than my nearest sibling, Mike. You'd be amazed at what my father told me that he didn't tell them. My nearest sibling happened to be a sister. I was not at all surprised to learn, later in life, that he told her things he didn't think I would ever need to know.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to accept the limitations you want to impose on omniscience. As long as there is more than one listener, there will always be more than one Truth.


It's really that simple. LOL.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
161 posted 2005-07-20 09:09 PM


~ Actually, Ron... I agree with you. Read my last reply, the bottom part. That is why I can't accept any one religion as the only way. In my humble opinion, the Creator would have to know that, especially if He or She is going to condemn human beings for eternity just because they didn't believe in one way.

~ And I'll go onto say, it is selfish to judge others as heretics for not believing in what your mind has come to accept as truth.

Thanks, Ron. I mean that.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
162 posted 2005-07-20 10:09 PM


We're essentially in agreement, Mike. Except I think it's perfectly fine to judge others as heretics. I just don't consider heresy to be such a bad thing.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
163 posted 2005-07-20 10:38 PM


LOL! Really. Too good.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

164 posted 2005-07-22 03:02 AM


J.C. Pose:  You say you wanted me to answer your questions. I'm not as prosaic as, say Ron or Stephen, but I'll do the best I can.
I cannot change anyone's mind or view.  It has to be through their study and understanding of what God has revealed in the scriptures.  

As our Creator, I'm sure God understands all the variances of human society that you mention.  Then add to it, all the languages, and the difficulty of translating.

Jim answers this question so well.  Again I say, Amen.

Yes. it's true, that many diligently study the Word and arrive at different conclusions.
I have experienced this, and most of the time we disagree agreeably.

As for unlearning my past, I certainly have had to.  Of course, not the basic trues of salvation through faith in the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection.

Do those who only would use the KJV believe in a false Christ? Of course not!  They are truly Christian folk. The KJV has been the authorized version for centuries and it's phrases and expressions are much loved.

As to why this debate is proceding, look at the name of this thread.  Yes, we are warned to test the spirits to see if they are of God.  In 1 John 4 we read that every spirit that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

I'm not sure what interpretation you are referring to, but I would disagree that the "true" one is of God, and the "false" one is of the devil.

For instance: look at the positions on the Millennium.  There is pre-millennium, post-millennium, a-millenium, etc.  One is true, but all others are of the devil?  Of course not!

Must go for now.  Arnold



jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
165 posted 2005-07-22 11:55 AM


JCP:

To answer your question as simply as possible regarding what I believe, I am a Christian with a theological preference for Lutheran and Augustinian Pauline theology.  The Augsburg Confession more or less sums up what I believe (although I do take issue with a few minor points).  If you google "Augsburg Confession" you should be able to find it.

quote:
And why would the same Holy Spirit of God reveal different truths to either of you or anyone in any other denomination, if it is the same Holy Spirit?


Who said anything about the Holy Spirit revealing different truths?  God doesn't screw up the interpretation of God's revelation - man does.

quote:
"I think it is important to remember that God revealed what we needed to know through Scripture.

~ And therein lies the problem, Jim. Christianity believes that the one and only God has revealed to them the one and only truth, yet many other people of many other faiths believe the same - that God revealed to them the one and only truth... and all one can go by is how he or she, a human being, interprets words written by men thousans of years ago.


Just because all world religions believe their particular faith is God's revelation to man does not put all religions on a level playing field.  I'd have a serious problem with Christianity if it wasn't rooted in historical fact (an admitted weakness of mine).  Too often people ask the find the answer in religion to only one of two important questions - (1) Where do I go to find answers to life's questions? - but forget to ask the followup question - (2) How reliable are my sources?

And I'm not going to "judge" you.  It is not my place to do so.  If anything, I empathize with your doubt.  But I will encourage you to continue asking questions - tough questions - until you're satisfied with the answer.  My encounter with faith is a little different from others in that it was preserved by my discovery of firm, historic foundation on which my faith was grounded.  Otherwise, I'd probably be an agnostic like you.

And both Arnold and Stephen are sharp, thinking Christians. (Denise, you are too).  Although we disagree on some points (geeze, I must be the only amillenialist in the forum), we recognize what is most important and agree on those points.

Jim

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
166 posted 2005-07-22 08:28 PM


Does not Paul talk much about the Church already becoming divided during biblical times?

And did not Paul warn about these divisions among the Church and actually state that the Spirit and those who have received the Spirit should all be in agreement?

I believe he goes on to say that it is the work of the devil that divides the Church.

From my readings of the Bible, which I read and asked questions from preachers, priests, holy men from all walks of the Christianity faith... my conclusion was that it was the devil and that the greatest deceit of all-time... a false spirit - a false Jesus - religions preaching a "different Jesus" as the Bible states...

I have come full circle and then some...

There were certain passages of the Bible that I couldn't ignor and truly believed that they could not be misinterpreted. They were (I don't have where they actually are, but it doesn't matter, I know they are in there):

1. "Satan deceives the whole world."  I don't know how any person could interpret this any different than Satan deceives the whole world - too simple.

2. Christ calls his true flock "... a little flock."

~ Now if Satan deceives the entire world and Christ's flock is little, then the followers of Christ must not equal that many at all - far from the millions of practicing christians throughout the world.

3. Christ warned that many would call his name and believe upon him, but he will ignore them. "In vain do they worship me, believing in doctrines of men."

~ Quite clear that of the entire world that Satan deceives, many of those are practicing christians, worshipping Him in vain.

4. Christ, I believe, says that Satan will "... appear as a minister of rightuousness..."

~ A false Christ of which Satan gets to deceive the vast majority of the christian world, not to mention all other religions (mind you, I am speaking as if the bible is the only true word of God).

~ Take all of these passages together - it is like fitting together a jigsaw puzzle... the pieces do fit.

However, how can Satan deceive the entire world through a false Christ?

There would have to be sin.

Sin is the breaking of the laws of God.

Of the 10 commandments, which one would practicing christians commit without realizing since they are deceived by a false christ through satan?

Now, if a Creator is going to punish me forever because in my mind, after coming to my knees and begging and praying for understanding - completely humbled - this was the way my mind interpreted the bible and it is wrong - then I would say, "to hell with the Creator, and if I had to stand in judgment, bring it on."

"And I'm not going to "judge" you.  It is not my place to do so.  If anything, I empathize with your doubt."

~ But Jim, the problem with that statement is that it is inherent for Christians to judge others. If one is not a born again christian and that person dies, what does a christian of your faith have to say about that person who died? The answer is that person is going to hell because that person was never saved - that is judging.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
167 posted 2005-07-22 09:09 PM


Opeth,


I thought I had met your twin, until I looked under your profile and saw it was you.  


You've turned over a new leaf.
But as the controversy picks up, I recognize it's from the same tree.




Stephen.


JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
168 posted 2005-07-23 12:23 PM


I never hid from the fact. I have nothing to hide. I merely appreciate Arnold's views on Christianity. His views were much like mine were. And for the record, your views were much like mine were before they were like Arnolds.

The bottom line is not one person, not one group, not one book, not one anything has the corner on what God is what God expects of the humankind.

That, I am sure of, just as you are sure of your beliefs.



"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

169 posted 2005-07-23 03:23 AM


JCP: The Sovereign God of the universe, is in control. There may be many things that are hard to understand in this world; views or doctrines that are being debated; traditions that are believed as much as scripture; and a spiritual adversary (Satan) who seems to be the victor; but Paul assures us that "from Him and through Him and for Him are all things." Rom.11:36 RSV. God is in control. Good is going to triumph over evil.

So I appeal to you, JCP, put your whole heart and faith in the good news, the gospel, "that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures..."
1 Cor.15:3,4.  And, I feel many of your questions will seem minor.

The Bible is a written revelation of God's redemption of Adam's race.  It is a progressive revelation, revealing more and more of God's plans, from Genesis through Malachi, in the OT, and from the Gospels to Revelation in the NT.

During man's history, his duties and responsibilities to God changed from time to time, or era to era. These eras could be called "Administrations" or "Dispensations."

To me, the most important thing to understand today, is that believers in Christ are His church-body.  That Paul is the apostle to the gentiles; his epistles are the last word for the church-body, enlightening us as to our walk, our hopes, our future in the heavenlies with Christ.
Mysteries were revealed to Paul which were not revealed to the other writers of the NT.

The church-body is not perfect and yes, Paul wrote appealing for unity of the spirit in the bonds of love.  Practically all his letters were instructions in doctrine and deportment.  And, I would say that Satan, the devil is behind controversial doctrines that split churches.  In Paul's time it was the Jewdyizers? who were the most disruptive.

God bless you. All for now, Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
170 posted 2005-07-23 06:02 PM


I hear what you are saying, Arnold... but still, not one person has taken the biblical information I put together and dismantled it.

In other words, how I came to my conclusion is irrefutable. One can disagree, but one can't say how I came to and the conclusion I arrived at is wrong, except to say that in his or her opinion, my interpretation is wrong...

Hence the problem of interpretation of any so-called god inspired works.

Nope... any true Creator would not of left His only true way that ambiguous - not to mention the billions of people who have lived and died and never had a chance to hear his word, repent, become baptized and then receive the Holy Spirit in order to become a born again saved person of God.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
171 posted 2005-07-23 06:38 PM


So be it.  It's nothing new for people to say and give examples of ambiguity they see in the bible.  It is however, something new and impressive when I see someone can propose a way for men to be able to deal with that ambiguity and still appreciate and make the most of what we have with the bible.  All you're giving us is a negative argument, without a positive way to deal with it.   What help are you finding or giving in your pessimism about Christianity and the bible?  
Look at some ancient pagan beliefs of Greeks, Romans, Germanii, etc.  Everyone that is Christian usually has negative things to say about the pagan lores of those folks.  But in the end, those negative sayings are useless.  They don't help anything.  Personally, I just want to be able to appreciate better what we have left from the ages: what we are still holding on to and make the most of them.  Some Christians may never come to admire anything about what we know of Vikings' beliefs because they can't stop wieghing them in such harsh judgement and comparison at every turn with their own religion and conduct.  Well, there are no vikings left to defend and further their misdirected and warlike beliefs and behaviors.  What's the point in hammering what we know of their beliefs to further death?   All we have left is a body of vague things to study and make the most of and try to understand better.  People who only want hammer these things with negativeness make it only the more troubled and difficult for others, and probably for themselves as well.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-23-2005 08:33 PM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

172 posted 2005-07-23 08:34 PM


JCP: Quote: I hear what you are saying, Arnold... but still, not one person has taken the biblical information I put together and dismantled it.

OK, I'm willing to. Let's take each point, with the scriptures in their context, one by one.

If it gets to be too much for this thread, I'll be happy to converse by email.  My email is ambickham@aol.com  .

Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
173 posted 2005-07-23 09:06 PM


" OK, I'm willing to. Let's take each point, with the scriptures in their context, one by one."

~ I am game... In context... according to whom? It is opinion not fact when determining what is in context and what is not - granted, not always, but when one wants words to conform to his or her or his or her's church's belief.

I'll start again...

Let's take one at a time...

1. "Satan deceives the whole world." Rev. 12:9  I really can't figure out how to interpret this any other way, except that in Revelations, it is revealed, that Satan deceives the entire world. I think any Christian could believe that.

What say you?

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
174 posted 2005-07-23 11:25 PM


quote:
As long as there is more than one listener, there will always be more than one Truth.


It's really that simple. LOL.


As long as there is one original speaker, there will always be one truth.  

It's really that simple. LOL.

quote:
I think it's perfectly fine to judge others as heretics. I just don't consider heresy to be such a bad thing.



It's not such a bad thing in its origins ... The word originally meant "to choose".  It had to do with the ability to assess beliefs and to follow accordingly.  But the repeated abuse of such a freedom gave rise to the negative connotations of the word.  One can choose what is wrong, in the eyes of men, which may be of no or little consequence.  But one can also choose what is wrong in the eyes of God.  That distinction seems easy enough right?  What God says is God, and what man says don't sweat.  The only thing is, is that he chose to reveal himself through one man in particular, and through men in general.  


As always Ron, I appreciate your appreciation for human choice.  But I think sometimes you minimize the gravity of an idea such as heresy.  By arbitrarily reinstating the virgin use of the word, you are denying the very reasons why the word acquired such negative baggage in the first place.  And from a Christian view (which you profess) at least some heresies may be damning, and may lead individuals to ruin.

  
Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-24-2005 08:45 AM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
175 posted 2005-07-23 11:34 PM


"As long as there is one original speaker, there will always be one truth.  

It's really that simple. LOL."


~ Oh, and you heard this original speaker? No one I know of ever heard this original speaker.

~ Men recorded the words, that one hears... you read the words recorded by men... hardly hearing the one and only original speaker.

Well, I believe some people claimed to have heard the original speaker... Charles Manson, I believe was on of those whom claimed to have done so.

LOL



"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
176 posted 2005-07-23 11:40 PM


Besides, many men claim that they know and heard the words of an original speaker.

Seems to be a disagreement on which one of those original speakers is the actual original speaker.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
177 posted 2005-07-24 12:11 PM


Do you remember Ron's opinion about derision?

Here is a reminder:
/pip/Forum8/HTML/000471.html

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
178 posted 2005-07-24 12:57 PM


The problem I have with JCP's words is not his questions or statements; but the seeming lack of direction he is so far showing.  What is the aim thro the questions and statements?  What is the pursuit?  Many men already feel uncertain and confused about things in the bible, including me.  Specifying where the uncertainty is may be helpful if you wish to enlighten and clear up that uncertainty.  But so far all he seems to be doing is thickening negative feelings, and expressing only things that we should be uncertain about, without helping make a path out of that uncertainty.  
What can we do with more uncertainty, if we can't get any help out of it?  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
179 posted 2005-07-24 01:49 PM


Ess,

I don't want to argue with you, but I am compelled to tell you that I have no idea why you would remind me of what Ron thinks about derision. I have not attempted to ridicule any person in this thread. In fact, if a case of derision could be made, it could be made against another participator of this subject matter.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
180 posted 2005-07-24 01:58 PM


First, let me say I don't have a problem with any person's replies regarding this subject. I think it has been discussed in an open and honest manner of which civility has prevailed.

"The problem I have with JCP's words is not his questions or statements; but the seeming lack of direction he is so far showing.  What is the aim thro the questions and statements?"

~ Seriously, I don't understant why that should be a problem for you. I don't know of any rules in the philsophical folder which delineates that a direction has to be followed.  What is the aim? That all religions may come from a Creator. That man cannot judge his fellow man because he doesn't happen to agree with the other's beliefs in a Creator...  and most importantly...

That if all humankind could quit thinking that their belief in God is the only true belief, we would all, as a human race, be much better off.

"... But so far all he seems to be doing is thickening negative feelings, and expressing only things that we should be uncertain about, without helping make a path out of that uncertainty."

~ In your opinion, of course. Others may not feel that way.  

"What can we do with more uncertainty, if we can't get any help out of it?"

~ Well, if it causes you to think, that could be a good thing. If you feel uncertain, then it is within yourself you feel the uncertainty. I would bet Stephanos and others don't feel uncertain about what I am writing.  



"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
181 posted 2005-07-24 08:01 PM


"I have not attempted to ridicule any person in this thread"

No; but you made a rude suggestion about a personal belief.

You could refer to a saint, a religious authority, or any true believer as a representive of people that claim to hear and believe in hearing God, but instead you referred to a murderer behind jail for his life and then laughed about it?  I think that  was outrightly disturbing and derisive.  

That is why I posted that link.  Better discretion should avoid comments like that in the context of something as personal as a religious belief.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-24-2005 08:57 PM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
182 posted 2005-07-24 08:56 PM


Then I submit to you that you misunderstood the context in which "Charlie Manson" was used.

The reference to Mr. Manson was to illustrate the fact that many human beings, even an abhorrent creature such as Manson, can claim to hear the original speaker. The original speaker was never singled out as the christian deity or any other religious deity for that matter.

And, I might add, if you plan on policing this folder for derisiveness, don't single me out, please... because there have been other instances on here which could be misconstrued as derisiveness too.

Thank you.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
183 posted 2005-07-24 09:13 PM



You never specified that the first time around.  That makes much more sense.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
184 posted 2005-07-24 09:35 PM


"The original speaker was never singled out as the christian deity or any other religious deity for that matter."


Well there may only be one original speaker so how can you or any one else be referring to any other?  

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

185 posted 2005-07-24 09:48 PM


JCP: quote"
1. "Satan deceives the whole world." Rev. 12:9  I really can't figure out how to interpret this any other way, except that in Revelations, it is revealed, that Satan deceives the entire world. I think any Christian could believe that.

Yes, it says Satan is deceiving the whole world.  But, "the whole world" is a generality and cannot include the righteous believers.  As in any biblical subject, or doctrine, there are usually many verses related to it in the bible. For instance:

In 2 Cor.4:3-4, Satan is called "the god of this world (age)"  'And if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.  In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds  of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.' RSV.

And in Eph.2:2-3 "You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived, following the course of this  world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient."  NRSV.  Here, I believe 'the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work' refers to Satan.

So, my conclusion: Satan blinds the minds of those who are unbelieving; and is the spirit behind those who are disobedient.

Question 1 answered.  Arnold

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
186 posted 2005-07-24 10:01 PM


World < woruld < wer "man" + ieldu "age"
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
187 posted 2005-07-24 10:05 PM


Answered, but not refuted.

Satan deceives the whole world... including the non-believers, and of those who worship the false Christ - who are actually non-believers too... "in vain do they worship me believing in doctrines of men" as Satan appears as "a minister of righteousness."

Christ called his flock "little" and persecuted and "not of this world."

Question one answered, but not refuted.

"So, my conclusion: Satan blinds the minds of those who are unbelieving; and is the spirit behind those who are disobedient."

~ I agree, but that also includes those who worship in vain because they are not being called at this time. They are of this world and worship the false christ based on doctrines of men. This is how Satan deceives the entire world, but not the true "little flock" who have been called.




"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
188 posted 2005-07-24 10:46 PM


"Christ called his flock "little"

"...This is how Satan deceives the entire world, but not the true "little flock" who have been called."


Surely you know the difference between past tense and present tense?  
The flock was "little" back then.  That doesn't mean it is that today.  God knows it is grown much more than "little"

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
189 posted 2005-07-24 11:03 PM


sound a little hostile to me... insinuating I don't know the difference between past and present tense - see how one can take a reply and find it to be derisive - if they allow subjective feelings to dictate the thought process?  

That statement by Christ holds today. Logic would dictate, not to mention how prophecy  and the words of Christ, works in the Bible, that if the flock was little then it will be little now. Why? Because Satan deceived the entire world then just as he deceives the entire world now... leaving Christ's truly called - a little flock - persecuted and not of the world.




"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
190 posted 2005-07-24 11:46 PM


"sound a little hostile to me... insinuating I don't know the difference between past and present tense - see how one can take a reply and find it to be derisive - if they allow subjective feelings to dictate the thought process?"

True    Sorry for mistaking you earlier.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-25-2005 12:44 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
191 posted 2005-07-24 11:48 PM


"That statement by Christ holds today. Logic would dictate, not to mention how prophecy  and the words of Christ, works in the Bible, that if the flock was little then it will be little now. Why? Because Satan deceived the entire world then just as he deceives the entire world now... leaving Christ's truly called - a little flock - persecuted and not of the world."

But how is that supported by the bible and by the rest of history?


[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-25-2005 12:05 AM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

192 posted 2005-07-25 01:45 PM


JCP: What do you think should be refuted?  Satan is the adversary created for the purpose of deceiving.  Satan is said to have the power of death, but through Christ's death, he will be destroyed. Heb.2:15

So, Satan the great deceiver, the father of lies, who has been sinning from the beginning
will be defeated and all his works destroyed:
"The son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil."
1 John 3:8, NRSV.

You keep quoting "little flock", Jesus words.
Those words don't apply today.  Jesus earthly ministry was first and foremost to minister to His own people, Israel. Jn.1:11.
Their hope was the Messianic kingdom, and He and His disciples preached the gospel of the kingdom which practically all Israel and their leaders refused to believe. When He sent out the twelve disciples, He said, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaratans but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt.10:5,6 NRSV.
The number of true disciples during Jesus ministry was small.  He used the words "little flock."  It has nothing to do with the rest of the world.

As to His ministry, He preached moral trues which are principles to be followed from Adam on. Such as: faith in God, hope, love, forgiveness, humility, etc.

He became the Saviour of the world only after His death, burial and resurrection.

God bless,  Arnold

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
193 posted 2005-07-25 02:02 PM


Opeth:

I didn't realize you were JCP, and allowed myself to get baited into what seems to becoming another pointless debate.  Nevertheless, I have a few points to make regarding your earlier post:

quote:
Does not Paul talk much about the Church already becoming divided during biblical times? And did not Paul warn about these divisions among the Church and actually state that the Spirit and those who have received the Spirit should all be in agreement?


I think the point Paul made was that we are all of Christ, and should not align ourselves with Cephas or Paul at the expense of enjoying a larger Christian fellowship around the Ministry of Reconciliation.  In that much, I believe Stephen, Arnold, and I are all at one and the same place, regardless of whether we call ourselves Dispensationalists, Evangelicals, or Reformed.

quote:
I believe he goes on to say that it is the work of the devil that divides the Church.


True, the devil creates schisms.  But I submit that differences on issues that are not of salvific significance is not schism.

quote:
From my readings of the Bible, which I read and asked questions from preachers, priests, holy men from all walks of the Christianity faith... my conclusion was that it was the devil and that the greatest deceit of all-time... a false spirit - a false Jesus - religions preaching a "different Jesus" as the Bible states...


I think your destination was predetermined.  Certainly, if the writings of Paul were tampered with, altering the meaning of such important Christian concepts as justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then certainly we are all serving a "different Jesus" and are lost.  But the bibliographic and textual evidence overwhelmingly supports the consistency of the written record we have today - the burden is yours to establish which letters and books are fraudulent and which are reliable.

In summary, I believe it is exceedingly difficult to arive at a theology of salvation different from that of the majority of Christian traditions that (1)  sees salvation as being a free gift, bought by God, because of the man's total inability to redeem himself and (2) sees good works as being expressions of gratitude for God's action on our behalf.  Quibbling over little details (as you seem to be doing by asserting that all Christians should believe absolutely the same thing about everything) actually leads to division.

quote:
But Jim, the problem with that statement is that it is inherent for Christians to judge others. If one is not a born again christian and that person dies, what does a christian of your faith have to say about that person who died? The answer is that person is going to hell because that person was never saved - that is judging.


If Scripture pronounces such a judgment, then it must be true - and that makes it God's judgment, not mine.  I, on the other hand, can make certain judgments, such criticising your continued use of proof-texting as a substitute for sound interpreting practices.

Jim

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
194 posted 2005-07-25 09:13 PM


LOL ~ the new and improved version, JCP, is going to bow out of this. It is futile to argue opinion... If you are secure in your beliefs, fine. I know I am. And I know I have nothing to fear at my death. And I also know I will never tell another human that there is only one way to do the lord's will.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

195 posted 2005-07-25 09:28 PM


Excellent, Jim. I agree whole heartedly with your latest post.

JCP, I'm not sure what you are looking for.

For question 1, you wanted an answer. I agreed that Satan is the great deceiver. What is there to refute?

Arnold

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

196 posted 2005-07-29 01:36 AM


JCP: If you read this, I was serious when I suggested you could contact me through my email, given above.  Is that acceptable?

Stephan: Picking up on our thread: I'm still having trouble assuming it was Samuel (his spirit?), (his soul?) that was "brought up", in light of the many, many scriptures that say the soul can dies (the person dies); and the breath of life returns to God who gave it.  The writer of the account only knows about it because, I assume, Saul, or one of his men who were told about it, related it to whoever wrote 1 Samuel.

But,in any case, God was behind it. And, to me, this account, and the vision of Moses and Elijah account cannot disannul all that is set forth that the dead are not alive in some other body.   The cure for death is resurrection.

Arnold

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

197 posted 2005-07-31 09:42 PM


The concept of eternal punishing, tormenting without end, either physical or spiritual, whether confined to one human being, or a few human beings, or to the vast majority created in His image since time began, is an affront to my sense of morality, my understanding of justice, and my conscience, instilled in me by Him.

Can the ultimate price, already paid by Christ "for the sin of the world", be demanded again from the sinner?

Can temporal sin demand an eternal punishing? If so, shouldn't Christ still be suffering?

Can punishing with no other goal than continual unending torture be considered anything other than cruel, baseless and immoral, and unworthy of the holiness of God?

Can we call "good" in God what we would call the greatest of evils if done by man, or allowed by man? Can God's definition of good and evil and justice be so vastly different than the definitions that He has implanted in our own hearts, and upon which we base our own human justice systems, where the higher goal is remedial, or redemptive, in nature?

Can the God who commands that we love our enemies and do good to those who despitefully use us in this temporal world one day change the rules and either eternally torment His enemies, or allow them to be tormented unendingly?

Will sin and evil co-exist for all eternity with God's righteousness and peace? Or will "sin and death be swallowed up in victory"?

Are sin, Satan, and man's will stronger than the grace of God? Or will God and His grace eventually prevail over all? Will the God who "shuts up all in disobedience that He may have mercy on all", actually extend that mercy to all?

I know what my heart and my conscience tell me, and a literal translation of God's words, unadulterated with the doctrines, creeds, and traditions of men, confirms what they tell me.



JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
198 posted 2005-07-31 10:08 PM


Denise,

I was momentarily left speechless upon reading your reply.

To argue with your words, is to argue solely with a closed and subjective mind.

To argue with your words, is to argue because one's mind has been blinded.

To argue with your words, is to argue for a Creator whom would never be in my heart and mind.

In other words... I believe what you have replied is, at least, my truth as it is yours.



"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
199 posted 2005-08-01 10:40 AM


What becomes of free will, Denise?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
200 posted 2005-08-01 04:36 PM


Once we come to govern free will better, we also come to mightier government and service, and freer will, because we may be trusted more to govern things healthily and worthily within those grips and freedoms given.  Free will does not become only better by the might/ability/possibility to make more good or evil choices, but becomes better because it has that might, but may be trusted to be used healthily and worthily.   An angel is not an angel because she/he is capable in  free will of doing more of anything than a man, but because she/he can be trusted that he shall do good within his greater power.  The more we are trustworthy, the more we earn our freedom, and the more we may be gifted with more.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-01-2005 05:09 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
201 posted 2005-08-01 07:24 PM


Denise:
quote:
Can the ultimate price, already paid by Christ "for the sin of the world", be demanded again from the sinner?



It can if there is anything required of us to benefit from the payment that has been made.  There seems to be a demand in the Bible for identification with this work of Christ.  It's not automatic, or evangelism makes no Biblical sense.  The Bible does not teach unconditional salvation.  You could put a million in my bank account, but if I never had the faith to write a check, I would never recieve anything from what you've done.  

And no, I'm not arguing for a salvation by works.

The so-called "literal" translations merely make improper use of the fact that all of our words for the eternal, are built of linguistic roots that simply multiply finite periods of time (for us, there's really no other way to describe eternity).  But that is also true of our English word "Forever".  And guess what ... it's also true of words speaking of the destiny of the righteous.  But I don't hear anyone arguing for a temporal salvation.  The same identical language is used for both the saved and the damned.    


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
202 posted 2005-08-01 09:23 PM


"...it's also true of words speaking of the destiny of the righteous.  But I don't hear anyone arguing for a temporal salvation.  The same identical language is used for both the saved and the damned."


Good point Stephanos.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

203 posted 2005-08-02 12:40 PM


Ess: you are undoubtedly well read, have studied man's philosophies and searched man's wisdom, but I would ask a question. Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?
I'll go on assuming the answer is "yes". At any rate, you are quite familiar with the Scriptures.
I would like to know what you mean by
"earning our freedom"?  Is that "earning our
salvation"?
Assuming that is what you mean, let's discuss that, final authority being the Scriptures.

Question: Will mankind of his own free will, apart from God's influence, ever seek God?

Answer: Using the NIV, quoting Rom.3:10-12,18
"As it is written: there is none righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands
no one who seeks God.  All have turned away,
they together have become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

So then, as Jesus disciples asked, "Who then can be saved?" And Jesus answered "With God all things are possible."  

Question: How then can anyone "know God and His righteousness"?

Answer: By faith which is a gift through His grace: Rom.3:22, "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Christ Jesus to all who believe."
Eph.2:8,9, "For it is by grace you have been saved--and this not from your selves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."

Question: Are all saved now?

Answer: No. In Romans 9, God makes it clear that He "will have mercy on whom He has mercy, and He will have compassion on whom He has compassion."  As the potter, He makes vessels of honor and dishonor. For those of dishonor to show his indigination and make His power known.  And, for those of honor, to make the riches of His glory known.

But, can this be right?  Can the God "who so loves the world He gives His only Son" destroy, punish the bulk of the world?  After all, no one asked to be born into a dying sinful race.

All for now,  Bick



Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

204 posted 2005-08-02 02:20 AM


Stephen:  Your illustration of "not cashing the check" is not one I would use.  I can see all humanity drowning in the sea and Life preservers with lines on them, being tossed to everyone so they could be saved from death.  I would say that all would grab that life preserver, believing they would be saved.

As to "why evangelize"?  I believe Denise discussed that earlier on this link.  That is a logical question from tha human point of view, but from the perspective that God is Sovereign, that His desires, His wishes will come to pass, is where I stand.
The Apostle Paul, the greatest evangelist, I would say, to whom it was revealed that the church/body of Christ were chosen and pre-destined to be that body, never slacked in zeal to preach the word, knowin that those who are called would hear and believe.
Paul gave a good illustration in 1 Cor.3, when he said that he, Apollos and others, were assigned each his task.  Paul planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.  A metaphor of how the seed of the word is heard and takes root, but further words, like water, help make it grow, but God brings the person to a saving faith.
So, it should be for all Christians, as they are led, because we have the joy and peace of God in our hearts.

Will the church/body enjoy unending life?  Of course.  In 1 Cor.15 Paul tells us that we will be vivified, i.e. made alive to never die, just as Christ.  We will have new, spiritual bodies, fit for the heavens.

During Jesus earthly ministry to his people, Israel, He preached the good news of the kingdom, the kingdom they have been looking for, for centuries.  Will those who do the will of God, and be resurrected to be part of the kingdom of the heavens, have life for the ages, aionion life?  Absolutely.

And are the ages unending?  Not according to Heb.9:26, "...but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, has he been manifested."

In 1 Cor.15:24ff, we are told that Christ reign will end, whenever all enemies have been put "under his feet". He will have done away with all rule and authority and power, and will turn over the kingdom to his God and Father.  The last enemy to be done away with is death.  Which means all who were dead wil be made alive and all humanity will have unending, eternal life.  And the reign of God will never end, and the Father will be all in all.

God bless,  Arnold


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

205 posted 2005-08-02 06:39 AM


Dang computers....I must get a new one soon.

JCP/Opeth...Welcome back! I missed you. I left you momentarily speechless? That's a first, isn't it? I'm glad that our hearts are in sync on this subject.

Ron and Ess...I believe that man has a will that he exercises and that he perceives it to be 'free', but I believe that ultimately it is subject to His will for the fulfilling of His purposes... "He is the potter, we are the clay." I don't believe that we are as 'free' as we like to think we are.

Stephen...I don't believe in an unconditional salvation in the way that you are thinking of it. All are not 'saved' now. Only those who appropriate Christ's sacrifice in the here and now by faith become members of His church/body, and will be resurrected when He comes for His church and will enjoy the blessings of life during the two future eons (the promise given for faith in Christ in the here and now). Those who don't appropriate Christ's sacrifice by faith in the here and now remain in the grave during those two future eons, and additionally, those who remain alive after the Church is taken out of the world will experience the Day of God's Wrath on the world prior to His earthly Kingdom being established in Israel (the promise made to Israel). And all unbelievers will also face the White Throne Judgment and be subject to the second death for their actions (believers don't...they will appear before the Bema seat of Christ, to either receive rewards or suffer loss of rewards for their actions, and are not subject to the second death). But at the consummation sin and death will be swallowed up in victory and God will become All in All, made possible by the efficacy of Christ's atonement.

We evangelize, as Arnold said, in obedience to God, as His vehicles to reach those whom He has chosen for belief in this world, for that is how God has determined that they should hear and come to faith.

I believe that all punishment is remedial, and limited, motivated by His love, and endures only until it has done its job.

Off to work now. Have a great day, everyone!



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
206 posted 2005-08-02 10:10 AM


quote:
Ron and Ess...I believe that man has a will that he exercises and that he perceives it to be 'free', but I believe that ultimately it is subject to His will for the fulfilling of His purposes... "He is the potter, we are the clay." I don't believe that we are as 'free' as we like to think we are.

Then what matters life, Denise? If I kill my neighbor this afternoon, clearly that is what the potter wanted the clay to do? A few thousand years from now, a little murder won't matter to me, to my neighbor, or apparently, to God. Indeed, nothing matters.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
207 posted 2005-08-02 05:01 PM


Sorry I couldn't finish my comment so I deleted it.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-02-2005 06:53 PM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
208 posted 2005-08-02 07:33 PM


"JCP/Opeth...Welcome back! I missed you. I left you momentarily speechless? That's a first, isn't it?"

~ lol... difficult to believe that could happen, eh?

I think it is rather selfish to believe that the God of your choice would allow all others to suffer for eternity. In fact, as I said before, I believe it is a doctrine of Satan - arguing from a biblical standpoint, that is.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
209 posted 2005-08-02 07:37 PM


"But that is also true of our English word "Forever".  And guess what ... it's also true of words speaking of the destiny of the righteous.  But I don't hear anyone arguing for a temporal salvation.  The same identical language is used for both the saved and the damned."

~ Who ever said it was an "either or" situation regarding the specifics of the outcome? It makes sense to me:

Saved for eternity
punished for eternity

Saved for eternity - living forever
punished for eternity - dead forever

Not eternal punishING, but an eternal punishMENT.  I believe Paul called that the second death.

Thanatos = nonexistence  

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
210 posted 2005-08-02 09:52 PM


quote:
Who ever said it was an "either or" situation regarding the specifics of the outcome?



I was speaking of the Universalist belief that all will be saved ... Arnold seems to believe that.  Your belief, the annihilationist belief, is somewhat different ... it is the belief that those who are not saved are made non-existent, annhiliated as if they were never created.  They are different beliefs, but like spokes on a wheel they revolve around the same premise ... that an all loving God could never allow someone to suffer for eternity.  


I of course don't believe in that premise, because the prerogative of rejecting God lies with us.  I also think there's enough scriptures in the Bible that one has to ignore or explain away, which refute both the universalist and annihilationist positions.  


I've never read, "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis but from what I understand it describes people who see enough of Heaven to know that accepting the radical change it requires is too much, and therefore are willing to face even Hell to avoid it.  It's not an injustice to give men what they insist upon, and if we were all created with "eternity in our hearts" as the book of Ecclesiastes tells us, the duration aspect is simply part and parcel with who we are ... made in the image of God.  


Stephen.  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
211 posted 2005-08-03 07:23 PM


"I was speaking of the Universalist belief that all will be saved ... Arnold seems to believe that."

~ I believe the Bible teaches that the overwhelming majority of the humankind will be saved too. From a biblical standpoint, I believe it is evil and of the devil to believe otherwise.

"Your belief, the annihilationist belief, is somewhat different ... it is the belief that those who are not saved are made non-existent, annhiliated as if they were never created.  They are different beliefs, but like spokes on a wheel they revolve around the same premise ... that an all loving God could never allow someone to suffer for eternity."

~ That belief is no different than believing the the overwhelming majority will be saved. Only the few, the Bible teaches, will be annihilated. To believe otherwise is to believe with a prejudice against the millions upon millions whom never had a chance to know Christ... one must be born again in order to receive salvation. That happens after repenting, accepting Christ as one's saviour and being baptised with the Holy Spirit.

"I of course don't believe in that premise, because the prerogative of rejecting God lies with us."

~ Under whose terms... Yours... Rejecting your God... The way you understand to interpret words from a book? And that doesn't take into account the billions whom never heard of your Saviour... of course, they can't get a free ticket to salvation. Even Christ didn't get that.

"I also think there's enough scriptures in the Bible that one has to ignore or explain away, which refute both the universalist and annihilationist positions."

~ No way. I can't find it. I can only find passages that are either taken figuratively, or do not condone with a concordance like Strong's with how those passages are interpreted.  The most logical and clear passages always indicate that the wicked will be annihilated and the majority will be saved.  

"I've never read, "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis but from what I understand it describes people who see enough of Heaven to know that accepting the radical change it requires is too much, and therefore are willing to face even Hell to avoid it."

~ To be nice, it is quite evident that Mr. Lewis is quoted too much in this folder. He doesn't mean nothing to me. I don't hold him in any esteem at all... just as Christ didn't hold any of the so-called "learned" people of faith during his time.

"It's not an injustice to give men what they insist upon, and if we were all created with "eternity in our hearts" as the book of Ecclesiastes tells us, the duration aspect is simply part and parcel with who we are ... made in the image of God."

~ Ecc. doesn't state that. You interpret it that way. Ecc. does state that the "dead know nothing" Clear and simple. When one is dead, they have no thoughts... the dead know nothing. They can't. They are dead.  



"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (08-03-2005 08:06 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
212 posted 2005-08-04 06:04 PM


quote:
I believe the Bible teaches that the overwhelming majority of the humankind will be saved too. From a biblical standpoint, I believe it is evil and of the devil to believe otherwise


To believe that most will be saved is to be an optimist.  To belive that all must be saved is to be a universalist.  See the difference?


Annihilationists often disagree among themselves about how many of the wicked will be made non-existent ... As believers in the orthodox view of hell, disagree about how many will be damned.  So, quantity is another issue altogether.  Annihilationism, Universalism, and the orthodox view are ALL different from each other.  But the Annihilationist and Universalist view have the same foundation ... namely the opinion that God cannot be both loving, and permissive of Hell.

Notice that in what I just stated, I did not even attempt to argue why one view would be more tenable than the others.  Those are just the facts.

quote:
To be nice, it is quite evident that Mr. Lewis is quoted too much in this folder. He doesn't mean nothing to me. I don't hold him in any esteem at all.


Apart from his theology, he was a phenomenal writer.  


quote:
Christ didn't hold (in esteem) any of the so-called "learned" people of faith during his time.


I don't think you can foist an anti-intellectualism on the Bible.  There were (and are) many intelligent believers.  Is there a danger in being "learned"?  Of course.  And there are scriptures which address that.  One can slip into relying more upon one's learning and accomplishments than upon God.


quote:
do you think the arrival at the truth will be the same truth for both yourself and those who disagree with you? Do you think you can change the minds of those who disagree with and of course vice versa?


I think minds can be changed.  And dialogue is a part of it.  I've seen it happen.  Admittedly, it never happens quickly.  


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Ron (08-07-2005 10:27 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

213 posted 2005-08-07 09:19 PM


Ron, the Bible says that God is the potter and we humans are the clay. Do you think that it was meant to be taken as a generality or to be taken literally?

I'm sure that I haven't even begun to scratch the surface into the mind of God, but I do think that just as we can't truly appreciate joy without having known sadness, I think we can only truly appreciate goodness against the backdrop of evil, which God says in numerous verses that He Himself has created. But it is temporary, a tool used by God for mankind's eventual ultimate benefit, as in Christ's murder, or as in Joseph's brothers' scheme to attempt to murder him, and when that failed, selling him into slavery. I think that if we can try to catch a glimpse of the larger picture, through the lens of God's sovereignty, many of our questions become moot. Evil is only a temporary tool, for a season, but God's goodness, righteousness and love are eternal.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
214 posted 2005-08-07 10:16 PM


quote:
Ron, the Bible says that God is the potter and we humans are the clay. Do you think that it was meant to be taken as a generality or to be taken literally?

Literally, Denise? My doctor, I suspect, would assure us both that it's a metaphor, not to be taken too literally, but rather to be interpreted and, even, explored.

I think you're falling afoul of the paradox that is inherent in absolute power. Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? Answer yes and you've undermined God's omnipotence since there's now something He can't lift. Answer No and clearly you no longer believe He can do anything. Absolute, unlimited power, by any human standards we know, inevitably creates such paradoxes. Similarly, when you mix Ultimate Good with absolute power, the result is going to confound logic. Can God lie? No means he's not omnipotent, Yes means he's not Ultimate Good. Seemingly, you just can't have it both ways.

Personally, I believe the problem is not with the answer, but rather with the questions.

Would God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? The answer, to me, is obviously no. Would God lie? Again, I believe the answer is no. The limitations are self-imposed.

Free will is the foundation upon which all faith must stand. If we don't have a choice, or if the choice has already been made for us, our faith becomes as meaningless as our lives. Preordained salvation isn't salvation at all.

Can God save every individual ever born? Answer Yes and the promise of free will was all a lie. Answer No and God is neither omnipotent nor Ultimate Good. However, once again, the paradox lies not with the answers, but rather with the question.

Would God save every individual ever born? Again, any limitation has to be self-imposed lest we run afoul of paradox. I believe God has passed all question of salvation into our individual hands. We get to choose. It's no longer a matter of whether God "could" take it out of our hands, but rather a matter of whether He would.

I don't believe He will.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
215 posted 2005-08-08 07:56 PM


Aw come on Ron,

ain't there a difference between good natured, ruddy-cheeked satire, and  maliciously insulting someone?  The world of literature and poetry would be impoverished without such banter.  And you've got to admit ... sometimes it's warranted.  You've done it to me!      

As to the other deleted parts, I think questioning motives is a legitimate thing to do.  Are we walking on eggshells?


Stephen.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
216 posted 2005-08-08 10:28 PM


quote:
ain't there a difference between good natured, ruddy-cheeked satire, and  maliciously insulting someone?

There is. And I feel fairly certain I haven't mistaken one for the other. Of course, if I did, that might well be a sign that others could, too.

quote:
... I think questioning motives is a legitimate thing to do

Really? To me, it smacks of intellectual desperation. Making an argument personal is typically something born of frustration and a sign the argument has already been lost. What matters why I argue two plus two equals five? It is or it isn't, and my intent changes my contention not at all.

Attack the issues, not the person.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
217 posted 2005-08-08 11:34 PM


quote:
And I feel fairly certain I haven't mistaken one for the other. Of course, if I did, that might well be a sign that others could, too.


Though I think you might have, I can see your point, and I accept it.

quote:
Really? To me, it smacks of intellectual desperation.


Not to drag this out, but even this, is a kind of questioning of motive.  I do disagree with you, when you say that questioning motives is always illegitimate, but I certainly won't say you don't have the right to raise the question (as long as there's no obvious rancor involved).  I can take it.  


Stephen.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

218 posted 2005-08-10 12:17 PM


In my case it might be extremely literal, Ron...I'm usually feeling all lumpy and squishy!

But I'm not finding the promise of free will in the Bible, especially as it relates to salvation. It seems to be presented as God's choice in election of those being saved, and the positive response of faith evidenced in them is also from the hand of God, a gift.

"For to Moses He is saying 'I shall be merciful to whomever I may be merciful, and I shall be pitying whomever I may be pitying.' Consequently, then, it is not of him who is willing, nor of him who is racing, but of God, the Merciful." Romans 9:15-16 (CLNT).

It's all of God, nothing that anyone can brag about or take credit for in the slightest.

I certainly agree that God has self-imposed limitations as you stated, but I don't agree that salvation is something that he has put into man's hands in the first place, and so not something that I believe He will leave up to man's choice.

I believe that ultimately God's will is the only truly free will, free from the influences of genetic predispositions, circumstances beyond our control, and physical needs like hunger and thirst, for example, that can influence our moment by moment decisions or choices, consciously or unconsciously, and that His will shall ultimately triumph over every man's will, eventually. I don't believe that He will give up until He has found the very last lost sheep and has brought him safely into the fold.

I believe He can and He will.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

219 posted 2005-08-10 06:56 PM


Amen, Denise.  I with you 100%

Faith is indeed a gift from God. Eph. 2:8,9. for example.

The seed that creates new life in man is God's word: Rom. 10:17; The evangel that Paul preached.

Peter says it so well: 1 Peter 1:23, "YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW, NOT OF PERISHABLE BUT OF IMPERISHABLE SEED, THROUGH THE LIVING AND ENDURING WORD OF GOD. NRSV

And God speaking through Isaiah says:
In Isaiah 45:22-24, "TURN TO ME AND BE SAVED, ALL YOU ENDS OF THE EARTH; FOR I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER.  BY MYSELF I HAVE SWORN, MY MOUTH HAS UTTERED IN ALL INTEGRITY A WORD THAT WILL NOT BE REVOKED:
BEFORE ME EVERY KNEE WILL BOW; BY ME EVERY TOUGUE WILL SWEAR.  THEY WILL SAY OF ME, 'IN THE LORD ALONE ARE RIGHTEOUSNESS AND STRENGTH.'  ALL WHO HAVE RAGED AGAINST HIM WILL COME TO HIM AND BE PUT TO SHAME."

And this will happen as we read in 55:11:
"SO IS MY WORD THAT GOES OUT FROM MY MOUTH:  IT WILL NOT RETURN TO ME EMPTY, BUT WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT I DESIRE."

God bless,  Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
220 posted 2005-08-10 08:21 PM


"But I'm not finding the promise of free will in the Bible, especially as it relates to salvation. It seems to be presented as God's choice in election of those being saved, and the positive response of faith evidenced in them is also from the hand of God, a gift."

~ When I studied the Bible, this is what I couldn't understand as compared to what mainstream Christianity teaches.

... if God elects or calls people to salvation - one must be called or elected. That there is an election, means there will be others who are not elected or called. They have no choice.

... now, with that in mind, if one is to believe that today is the only day of salvation, God must of predestined many to a hellfire, as they were not to be elected or called or given the gift as mentioned above. Why create those damned people at all? They were not elected.

... So I studied and found in the Bible that today is not the only day of salvation, that God is only calling/electing certain individuals during this age, who will be with the saints, born again upon the 2nd coming, teaching the word of God to all (the majority) of the humankind who were never called - after a ressurection of the body of all who have died and were not saved upon death or born again during Christ's return to earth.

... It is written in Isaiah, I beleive, that all shall worship on the true Sabbath... and no longer will one's brother say to another to worship God, that that job will be the saints job.... and that after Christ's Kingdom is established on earth, then those taught by the born again saints, will have their one and only chance to be saved - which the majority will accept and only the few incorrigle wicked (along those few who had their one and only chance of salvation during their lives), will cast into the Lake of Fire to suffer the Second Death = eternal punishMENT, not punishING.

... as one can see, this view would put out of business today's traditional mainstream churches. And that is why the leaders and their followers would never accept this so-called "heretic" type of view.


"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (08-10-2005 10:36 PM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

221 posted 2005-08-11 08:49 PM


Hi JCP: I'm not sure where you are coming from, but we must "rightly divide the word of truth."  

God today is calling out a people for the Church/Body of Christ.  This message of salvation by faith through grace was given to the apostle Paul; and the doctrines, the trues concerning our standing and state, and our hope to share the glory of God, and co-reign with Christ in the heavenlies, is to be learned only through his letters.

Yes, we, the church/body, are elected, predestined, called, sanctified, and yet to be glorified.  But this is for service, not that the rest of humanity are "lost" for all eternity.  

As for "death".  All of us will die unless the Lord catches us away to the heavens, to meet the dead in Christ who have been resurrected.

The "second death" means just that.  After judging at the great white throne, where God's vengeance and true justice will be given out, those whose names are not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire where, if they haven't died at the end of their judging before the awesome power and glory of Christ, will die.

God bless,  Bick

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
222 posted 2005-08-12 08:43 PM


"Hi JCP: I'm not sure where you are coming from, but we must "rightly divide the word of truth."

~ My favorite verses about this matter were, "... Prove all scriptures..." and the one about fitting verses together like a puzzle and that only those truly called will "get it." I would have to look through my old notes for that one, but... not gonna do it.

"Yes, we, the church/body, are elected, predestined, called, sanctified, and yet to be glorified.  But this is for service, not that the rest of humanity are "lost" for all eternity."

~ Now with this being said, maybe some of the mainstream christians on this website won't tell you that you are a heretic, but many many baptists and pentacostals that I knew of - mostly from the deep south - would say that that statement makes you, "Of the devil."

~ And once again, I will say it. Christianity can't even agree with itself. Why? If Christianity is indeed the only way, then it is because of Satan, who deceives the WHOLE world.

"As for "death".  All of us will die unless the Lord catches us away to the heavens, to meet the dead in Christ who have been resurrected."

~ Yes! The bible states that all men will die, and that all men have died (even Enoch and Elijah), but when Christ returns, those who were called and chosen will meet Jesus in the air, but I don't believe the bible states that Christ will do a u-turn. They will be caught with Christ in the air and be with Christ - where ever Christ is - and that will be on earth to set up his Kingdom, you know, the true gospel, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." I still don't understand how people believe that Christ will do a u-turn when he descends from heaven to establish his kingdom.

"The "second death" means just that.  After judging at the great white throne, where God's vengeance and true justice will be given out, those whose names are not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire where, if they haven't died at the end of their judging before the awesome power and glory of Christ, will die."

~ For sure. Most people were never called during their life times, which includes: people whom simply never heard of Christ, people who heard of him, but couldn't believe because they were not called, retarded people and others with mental impediments, people who died at a young age, etc., will be raised from the dead in their fleshly bodies (Ezekial's vision Valley of the Bones - and yes, I know of the mainstream interpretation, but I don't believe it) - and then, those called today, who became born again at Christ's second coming, and all the dead in Christ who were raised from the dead - they will teach these fleshly people, and no longer (as quoted in Isaiah, I believe) will one's brother teach and show the way to his brother, but the saints of God.

"God bless,  Bick"

~ I don't know what Bick means, what does that mean? Btw, If I were a Christian, your beliefs match my old ones quite closely, I believe.
  


"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

223 posted 2005-08-13 11:39 PM


Hi JCP. "Bick" is a nick name.  My last name is Bickham.

Of course all Scripture has relevance as 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us.  But not all scripture is to be applied for doctrines of the church/body of Christ.  Those truths only come through the epistles of Paul, our Apostle.

The future destination of the church/body is in the heavenlies, enjoying the spiritual blessings prepared.  In Ephesians we read that we are joint-heirs with Christ, and we will be witnessing to the spirit beings in the celestials, the manifold wisdom and grace of God.  We have nothing to do with the "kingdom of the heavens" on earth.  That will be the Messianic reign with Israel as head of the nations.

So, study Paul's letters.  The church/body is being called out during this era.  We are not to co-reign with Israel.

God bless.  Bick

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
224 posted 2005-08-14 12:43 PM


"But not all scripture is to be applied for doctrines of the church/body of Christ.  Those truths only come through the epistles of Paul, our Apostle."

1. Paul is the only apostle?
2. Why wouldn't OT doctrine be applied to the Church today? Is there division within the Church? Aren't all saved Christians children of Abraham, an Israelite?

"The future destination of the church/body is in the heavenlies, enjoying the spiritual blessings prepared."

~ Where does the Bible say that? It says that when Christ returns, those who are dead will become born again and meet Christ in the air, it doesn't say only gentile or jew? And where does Christ and all of those born again beings go? One has to read the OT to find the answer. That Christ and all of those born again will establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

~ It is funny to me and is what caused me to lose faith in any religion... You read and understand it one way, Stephanos yet another, and countless people in between and outside the standard deviations set by mainstream christianity. No wonder I no longer believe in this stuff.

"In Ephesians we read that we are joint-heirs with Christ, and we will be witnessing to the spirit beings in the celestials, the manifold wisdom and grace of God.  We have nothing to do with the "kingdom of the heavens" on earth."

~ Where does it say that in the Bible?

"That will be the Messianic reign with Israel as head of the nations."

~ Saved people, Christians, how can one separate the Church? Christians are spiritually children of Abraham, an Israelite.

"So, study Paul's letters.  The church/body is being called out during this era.  We are not to co-reign with Israel."

~ I have studied it. So have many others and do not agree with you. So, whose truth is the real truth - yours, mine, or anybody else's?

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

225 posted 2005-08-16 08:22 PM


JCP: In practically every letter, Paul says he is called to be the apostle to the Gentiles.  In fact he points out in the Galatian letter, that he, Paul, was entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gentiles), as Peter was entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (Jewish believers).

You asked, "Was he the only apostle?" The answer, "no".  There were the 12 in Jerusalem; then, besides Paul, there was Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thes. 2:6); Barnabas (Acts 14:14 and 1 Cor. 9:3-6); Andronicus and
Junias (Rom.16:7); and Apollos (1 Cor.4:6-9).

Do OT doctrines apply to the Church today? My
answer is NO.  They lived under the covenant of "I will bless you if you keep the law", etc.  Animal sacrifices were part of their doctrine. A priest-hood and a temple (before it was destroyed).  Keeping the Sabbath.  Which meant no work, only a short distance to walk, etc.  And, if two or more witnesses said you broke the Sabbath, the judgement was death.

Now, I want to say, that there are principals
true in every age, from Adam on. Such as faith, love, forgiveness, obedience, right living etc.

We, believers and members of the church/body of Christ are not children of Abraham according to the flesh.  We, who are justified by faith as Abraham was justifed by faith, are his "children", because we follow his example of living by faith.

As to the future of the church/body being in the heavenlies, this is revealed in Ephesians

Quoting from the Concordant NT: 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who blesses us with every spiritual blessing among the celestials, in Christ, according as He chooses us in Him before the disruption of the world, we to be holy and flawless in His sight, in love designating us beforehand for the place of a son for Him through Christ Jesus; in accord with the delight of His will, for the laud of the glory of His grace, which graces us in the Beloved:"

God sees us as sons, perfect in the celestials through Christ. To enjoy spiritual blessings beyond our wildest imaginations. All because of God's grace.

In 2:4-6 it says, "God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us(we also being dead to the offenses and lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) and rouses us together and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

God, who sees the future as today, sees us, the believers, as being made alive and roused together with Christ, seated in the celestials.

Are you equating "resurrection" with "born again"?  Paul, in 1 Cor.15, reveals a secret: not all in the body of Christ will die; but those who are alive when Christ gives the shout of command, and the trumpet blows, will put on immortality and, with those who are resurrected (those asleep in Christ), will meet the Lord in the air. And, since we know that, potentially, we will be seated in the heavenlies with Christ, then, that is where Christ takes us.

Well, JCP, I'll admit, there are many interpretaions.  One book that I would recommend getting is "God's Eonian Purpose" by Adlai Loudy. It can be purchased over the web, as well as other publications, at www.concordance.org.

If you would want to discuss this more privately, we could correspond by email.

Let me know.  Arnold


JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
226 posted 2005-08-17 09:14 PM


Well Arnold,

There are countless of other people, scholars, etc., who would disagree with you on many of those issues. When I studied the Bible, it was evident to me that the OT and NT have much in common about the second coming and salvation.

I really don't want to get back into it. I am over it anymore. I am sick and tired of other people telling me what I believe is wrong. What I believe came through asking God with a contrite and truly humble heart. If the answers I received are wrong according to you, Stephan, Jim or the countless others of people of faith, then the only answer left for me is - there isn't any God or if there is, the truth revealed to me is the truth FOR me, maybe not you or others, but given to me by God so I can understand what God wants me to understand.

It is really quite simple.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

227 posted 2005-08-18 08:21 PM


Hi JCP.  Try to take any inputs as advice, or coaching. If, when examining all scripture relating to a particular subject, you are convinced one way or another, then stand by it.  Like many things in life, you make descisions based on facts, data, etc.
Some of which you must get from others.

Again, try not to lump everything together.
Take one point at a time and let's discuss that, referencing all the scriptures that apply.

Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
228 posted 2005-08-18 09:06 PM


"Try to take any inputs as advice, or coaching. If, when examining all scripture relating to a particular subject, you are convinced one way or another, then stand by it."

~ Hey Arnold, I am 43 years old. I have taken advice and have been coached. I have been convinced. I did stand by it.

"Like many things in life, you make descisions based on facts, data, etc.
Some of which you must get from others."


~ Of course, that is how my search began... way back when I was in my early 20s.

"Again, try not to lump everything together."

~ I don't.

"Take one point at a time..."

~ I do.

"... and let's discuss that, referencing all the scriptures that apply."

~ You can reference any scripture you want to, but it can still be interpreted in literally hundreds of ways. What is the point?

Read the last paragraph of my last reply again. How can one argue that?

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
229 posted 2005-08-18 09:32 PM


Alright, I will provide one easy example of how the Bible can be interpreted differently between two, and of course many more, people who have or are searching for the truth.

In Peter's dream, he saw all of the animals of the earth in a blanket, including "unclean" animals.  God told him to rise, kill, and eat, and Peter told the Lord, no. That he has never eaten anything that was unclean.

Question One: Did this dream mean that it was now okay to eat unclean animals?



"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (08-18-2005 11:16 PM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

230 posted 2005-08-19 06:02 PM


Hi JCP: I don't see that the dream meant it was acceptable for Peter and the circumcision to eat unclean animals.

It certainly wasn't clear to Peter, for in verse 17 it says "...Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision.." NIV.

I appears to me that he interpreted the vision to mean that "God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right", verse 34.

Also, this insight must have occured to him right after the dream, for he invited three "unclean" Gentiles to be his guests.  This was, of course after the Spirit told him,in verse 20,to go with them, for the Spirit had sent them.

And, after going to Cornelius' house, and seeing the Holy Spirit fall on all those hearing the word, even though all Gentiles, he is definitely convinced about God's impartiality.

If Peter thought this dream meant it was OK to eat "unclean" animals, he certainly didn't tell any of the Jewish believers.

God bless,  Arnold


JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
231 posted 2005-08-19 06:32 PM


I agree. Peter even states what the dream meant and it did not include eating unclean animals.

Peter also speaks to God in his dream stating that he never has eaten any unclean meat.

Now, that dream was how long after Christ's death?

And was how long after the day of Pentacost?

Certainly, if it was okay to eat pork (notice in the blanket crustaceans, or any sea animal WAS NOT included) or any other foods banned by God, for our own health reasons, Jesus and the Holy Spirit of God would of set Peter straight a good while back.

Why wouldn't of Christ told Peter and the other apostles that it was now okay to eat any type of food one wanted to eat... that it was no longer a commandment of God not to eat certain unclean foods?


"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
232 posted 2005-08-19 06:34 PM


"I really don't want to get back into it. I am over it anymore. I am sick and tired of other people telling me what I believe is wrong. What I believe came through asking God with a contrite and truly humble heart. If the answers I received are wrong according to you, Stephan, Jim or the countless others of people of faith, then the only answer left for me is - there isn't any God or if there is, the truth revealed to me is the truth FOR me, maybe not you or others, but given to me by God so I can understand what God wants me to understand."

~ Who can argue against this? I'd be interested to hear it.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
233 posted 2005-08-19 07:49 PM


"If the answers I received are wrong according to you..."


Who said your answers are wrong?

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
234 posted 2005-08-19 08:05 PM


Most of whom were mentioned, plus countless others.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
235 posted 2005-08-19 08:21 PM


You're answer may not be as right and true as Christ's.  But I have no doubt that it is right and true.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
236 posted 2005-08-19 08:47 PM


Belief is to truth as treasurechest is to treasure.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
237 posted 2005-08-19 10:54 PM


quote:
Who can argue against this? I'd be interested to hear it.

Who would want to argue it, Mike, either for or against? This forum is to discuss issues, not personal experience.

"Either Mike is right or God doesn't exist." Now there's a proposition I'm sure everyone is getting in line to debate.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
238 posted 2005-08-19 11:07 PM


I would suppose people who believe that their faith is the only true faith would want to argue my reply.  And there are many who would argue it.  

However, I can see your point Ron, but I was talking about God and those whom believe that their faith is the one and only correct religion.

In other words, if one accepts that I did do what I said - that I did (with a contrite heart) petition the Lord, and my answers were alien to mainstream christianity beliefs, among others...

then who is to say whom is right or wrong?
That is all I am saying.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
239 posted 2005-08-20 08:51 PM


JCP

Anyone has the right to say your answer is wrong.  Just as you have the right to say his/her answer is wrong too.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

240 posted 2005-08-25 06:21 PM


I'm curious, JCP.  When you petitioned the Lord for truth?  How did He answer you?  In dreams?  In visions?  Words that you heard?
Maybe even to carefully study His written revelation of redemption, the Bible?

And were you told not to consider the epistles of Paul as the final authority regarding the evangel to the gentiles and to the church which is Christ's body?

I would like to know.

Arnold

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
241 posted 2005-08-25 07:48 PM


All of the above.

EDITED: Except for the part about not listening to Paul. I missed that at first.



"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (08-25-2005 10:26 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
242 posted 2005-08-28 03:03 PM


If two or more answers of a disagreement are wise and reasonable, but still contradictory to each other, what is the better answer to give?

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

243 posted 2005-08-29 12:32 PM


Ess:  you ask such deep philosophical questions sometime.

Do you have an illustration to clarify your last question?

Arnold

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
244 posted 2005-08-29 01:31 AM


Hi Arnold          


Well an example is that sometimes someone in this forum may come along and give an excellent answer and argument to a question, that I believe may be the only answer I shall thoroughly agree with.   And then someone else comes along and gives an answer and argument, that even may disagree, but I find myself agreeing with that answer/argument as well.  And then more people come along and give answers and I agree with more answers too, even though they differ in places and disagreeable and contradict others. What is it that makes me agree with all the answers? I believe it must be that all of them are wise and based on life and learning, and stand as truths no matter what the differences and disagreements are. But under such condition, if someone agrees so, how does he make an answer himself?   What should he go by?  Everyone's answer has wisdom and truth, and he believes in them but nevertheless they are different and contradict each other in some places.  
Should he say just "everything" or "I don't know"?    

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
245 posted 2005-08-29 03:16 PM


Where's Serenity?
I didn't see her in Philosophy for a long time.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-29-2005 05:21 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
246 posted 2005-08-30 01:24 AM


Ess,

Serenity (Karen) Lives in Gretna Louisiana, very close to New Orleans, just about ground Zero for hurricane Katrina.  I hope all is well with her.  Let me know if you or anyone hear from her.


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
247 posted 2005-09-13 06:21 PM


Everyone,


I got an email from Karen (Serenity) yesterday.  She's doing fine ... don't know many details other than that.

Just thought I'd let you all know.


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
248 posted 2005-09-14 06:44 PM


Thanks Stephanos.
I'm glad to hear she is doing well.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

249 posted 2005-09-20 12:00 PM


Yep, she and her family got out in the nick of time, Stephen. Thank God.

Here is a link from Announcements for more details.
/pip/Forum3/HTML/003727.html

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Universal Reconciliation

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary