Spirituality
20 Jul 18
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Some comments on Kelly's verses:
John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
If the wrath of God means the person is non-existent then that means everyone not born and not created is under the wrath of God. This makes no sense.
So for God's wrath to remain upon someone, there has to be someone somewhere in some mode of existence for it to remain upon him.
Romans 2:5
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Probably "storing up wrath" indicates varying levels of God's anger. It is at least logical that with some God is angrier than with others, THOUGH He is angry with all who reject His justifying salvation.
Storing up wrath means accumulating more and more as you live an unrepentant life.
20 Jul 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @rajk999You are not bound to my doctrine, all of us will give an account for our lives before God. You think I am misusing scripture to suit me, share how these verses mean anything other than the text that is there!
Blindly quoting portions of the bible that suit your doctrine?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 Jul 18
Revelation 14:10
he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
This also implies that God's anger may be tempered with mercy. But unmixed wrath is that which is NOT tempered with mercy.
That seems a logical understanding - "Wrath ... in FULL strength". Of course ANY wrath from God we should want to avoid.
His wrath fell on the Son of God on Calvary's cross FOR all sinners.
Matthew 18:8
And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
If we do not take this as a warning to Christians then we arrive at a doctrine of Justification by Amputating Body Parts.
But Justification is by Faith. So the passage is about discipline to the Once justified refusing to undergo sanctification.
The fire is eternal but the un-sanctified justified one is hurt by this punishment temporarily.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
These are followers of Antichrist alive when Jesus comes to the earth in His second coming. The terrible persecution of the Lord's brothers, down to the least of them, is remembered by Christ.
They receive their eternal reward for following Satan and his Antichrist to the uttermost during the last three and a half years of this age - the great tribulation.
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The goats of the nations described above. In their dedication to Antichrist and his horrific persecution of Christians and Jews, they went along in blindness.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Jude 1:7
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Speaks for itself.
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
This warning, like Matthew 18:8 should be of the more serious and probably MOST serious warnings to those saved people who will not see that the old life should no longer be lived, though they are saved by grace.
My comment is brief.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
20 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIt is either literal or it isn’t?
Its to be taken at face value.
Its overall impact is what should be paid attention to.
I know the trap you are setting up for him to walk into.
If he says "Yes literally" you will say "But I can't pluck out my eye or amputate my hand or foot to escape hell."
Right?
Instead of concocting a tricky question, you should soberly contemplate the ov ...[text shortened]... to do.
"Punishment ... punishment from then ON ... " is the usually the impact of the words.
There is nothing in between.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 Jul 18
Luke 12:5
But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
This warning then should be applicable to ANYONE.
It is a clear instruction to whoever has an ear. God has an authority and power to reach BEYOND what mere men can do. His disciplinary or punishment can reach FURTHER than what human beings are able to inflict.
Conversely His reward and blessing ALSO can go beyond man's ability.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
20 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonship
Luke 12:5
[b] But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
This warning then should be applicable to ANYONE.
It is a clear instruction to whoever has an ear. God has an authority and power to reach BEYOND what mere men can do. His disciplinary o ...[text shortened]... ngs are able to inflict.
Conversely His reward and blessing ALSO can go beyond man's ability.[/b]Is Matthew 18:8 literal or not?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeesterNo. There is prose which contains more than one device.
It is either literal or it isn’t?
There is nothing in between.
Its a trick question - "Do you take it literally?"
You need to ignore that literal devices like hyperbole could the Lord use. This gives you a rationale for rejecting parts you cannot believe Christ would speak.
Do you really think a gambler will cure his gambling habit by cutting off a hand? You can still gamble with a missing hand.
Do you think one who frequents prostitution houses can keep himself from going by cutting off his foot? He can still take a car there or go on crutches.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
20 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonshipBe clear, Matthew 18:8 about having to cut body parts off if they sin, literal or not?
No. There is prose which contains more than one device.
Its a trick question - "Do you take it literally?"
You need to ignore that for a rationale for rejecting parts you cannot believe Christ would speak.
Do you really think a gambler will cure his gambling habit by cutting off a hand? You can still gamble with a missing hand.
Do you think one ...[text shortened]... eep himself from going by cutting off his foot? He can still take a car there or go on crutches.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
Originally posted by @sonshipHow is it a trick question?
Its a trick question - "Do you take it literally?"
The instruction from Jesus is either a literal command or it isn’t. It’s only a trick question for you becuase it proves unequivocally that these commands are metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic.
Open your eyes, stop lying that you can’t see it, it’s pitiful behaviour.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeesterI consider the question to be fair.
Be clear, Matthew 18:8 about having to cut body parts off if they sin, literal or not?
Like I said. Do you think a man who loves to go to a house of prostitution will keep himself away by amputating his foot?
He can still hobble over there on crutches with his lust burning just as much.
To understand this cutting off of body parts it is best to consult a pioneer in the life of a Christian - like Paul.
He said we have to utilize the Holy Spirit to put to death the practices of the body. We have to use the Spirit of Christ to put to death the practices of the body. That is a dealing with not just the physical member but the psychological motive behind the action of the body.
The words of Jesus show that we have to deal with our weakness in all seriousness down to the innermost motive of such a sin. The way it comes out in hyperbole is - 'Cut off your foot. Pluck out your eye."
History has had a number of cases of people cutting off body parts thinking they were doing what Jesus wanted. It didn't help them. The lust to sin was still there.
We have to throw ourselves into the grace of the Holy Spirit on a molecular level. The inner inclination of the heart, the imagination, the leaning and temptation must be checked by turning to the Lord Jesus in our hearts.
That is the real amputating of the body member in a sense.
Paul pioneered into this and wrote to show us the way in Romans chapters 6 through 8. And also some in Romans 12.
This is a brief word on a weighty subject.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeester
How is it a trick question?
The instruction from Jesus is either a literal command or it isn’t. It’s only a trick question for you becuase it proves unequivocally that these commands are metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic.
Open your eyes, stop lying that you can’t see it, it’s pitiful behaviour.
The instruction from Jesus is either a literal command or it isn’t. It’s only a trick question for you becuase it proves unequivocally that these commands are metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic.
Open your eyes, stop lying that you can’t see it, it’s pitiful behaviour.
When you read that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, do you take this literally?
Have you gotten a camel and a needle to see if it really IS easier ?
But the tenor of the teaching is not trivial. There IS a kingdom. There IS the difficulty of riches keeping the greedy man OUT of that kingdom.
You have to take the teaching in context of the rest of the Bible.
Long before Jesus came the prophet Daniel, by the Spirit of God prophesied that some would be resurrected to undergo eternal contempt.
"and many of those who are sleeping in the dust of the ground will awake,
some to life eternal and some to reproach, to eternal contempt." (Daniel 12:2)
Too much of what Jesus spoke had some bases in the Old Testament law and prophets.
Now you CAN take "eternal contempt" as annihilation into oblivious non-existence if you work hard on it. But I think the more logical interpretation is -
resurrection and subsequent everlasting punishment.
Which do the preponderance of like sounding verses seem to indicate?