Spirituality
21 Dec 09
23 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo not in the ancient Greek tradition of persons being punished for various crimes eternally, it simply refers to the common grave of mankind, although those who profess that God shall torture persons eternally (persons like Jaywill), may indeed see the connection between the ancient Greek Model and their own 'hell fire', theology. The fact that it Hades itself gets hurled into the symbolic lake of fire, means that it is used itself symbolically for the common grave of mankind.
Hades is part of Christian theology? Wow.
How many alternate planes are there now? Our universe, the Seven Heavens, Nine Hells, Limbo, Purgatory, and now Hades.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo.
What if one of them wanted to repent and turn from his/her wicked ways? Any chance for him?
Jude 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
They are doomed!
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you know what your problem is robbie? I see it all the time.
No not in the ancient Greek tradition of persons being punished for various crimes eternally, it simply refers to the common grave of mankind, although those who profess that God shall torture persons eternally (persons like Jaywill), may indeed see the connection between the ancient Greek Model and their own 'hell fire', theology. The fact that it ...[text shortened]... bolic lake of fire, means that it is used itself symbolically for the common grave of mankind.
You seem to think that what goes on in the world, past or present, has something to do with how the Bible came to be. You have it bassackwards.
The fact is it's the other way around. The Word of God came first. Everything else in history is a counterfeit.
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And that is were it all began.
The truth is in the Word of God. The lie is anything that contradicts it.
23 Dec 09
1 edit
after reading this post, can anyone explain its relevance to anything under discussion? If fact i thought it was a piece of abstract art the first time i read it. But lets give Jospeh a chance, do tell Joseph, what it has to do with the Greeks perception of Hades and those who, well, like to advocate that other humans shall also be tortured eternally, you do see the similarities, dont you? what it has to do with Genesis and the very first prophetic utterance , i have as yet not quite worked out.
perhaps i am really viewing things bassackwards, whatever that could mean?
23 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillMy problem isn't with intent, as much as it is with the phrase and concept's existence being so foreign to anything biblical, except as noted.
===================================
There I go again: claiming that the Christian's charge is to be as concise and accurate as possible, and then sounding as obtuse as a Watchtower pamphlet.
When I said He never told 'us' to take Him into our hearts, the 'us' in mind was any member of the group collectively known as unbelievers. My response was to their heart. And as Paul said He can make His home in our hearts through faith.
The idea behind an unbeliever inviting Christ anywhere is, well, simply nauseating, owing to its underlying arrogance. I invite Him?! Blasphemous! The invitation is from Him to me, emphatically not the other way around.
He made the plan; He set the plan in motion; He executed the plan; He offers His plan as a replacement for ours.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStill not one scriptural reference, no not one utterance either from Paul, or of the Christ!
Still not one scriptural reference, no not one utterance either from Paul, or of the Christ! i think Old mother Hubbard has got more chance of finding one in that post than i do. Let me know when a scripture springs to mind, anything really, you know, the usual drivel you non evangelising evangelical born again 'Christians', (i use the term loosely ...[text shortened]... nd non existent principles and the erroneous assertions of Brother Russell (peace be upon him)
The scriptural references I used were the ones you quoted, i.e., from each and every passage of Paul's various letters to the Church, you misapplied the words within, construing them to mean something vastly different than their otherwise clear intents.
Not one of those epistles was written to any group of unbelievers; they were all intended for believing audiences. The falling from good standing had/has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation and nothing within any of the quotes you provided gives support to such a view otherwise, which would be in absolute conflict with the testimony of the whole of Scripture.
... and the erroneous assertions of Brother Russell (peace be upon him)
I didn't think a JW in good standing could voice doubt about Chucky's veracity as a God-ordained prophet. Glad to see you're starting to think for yourself. Heck, in no time, you may even start doing something worthwhile on Saturdays.
23 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHand what would you know about a public ministry? evangelical Christians that dont evangelise, haha, it is to laugh! and still not one scriptural reference, only vague assertions of this thing or that,
[b]Still not one scriptural reference, no not one utterance either from Paul, or of the Christ!
The scriptural references I used were the ones you quoted, i.e., from each and every passage of Paul's various letters to the Church, you misapplied the words within, construing them to mean something vastly different than their otherwise clear intents.
for yourself. Heck, in no time, you may even start doing something worthwhile on Saturdays.[/b]
(Proverbs 26:12) Have you seen a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for the stupid one than for him. . .
23 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH===============================
My problem isn't with intent, as much as it is with the phrase and concept's existence being so foreign to anything biblical, except as noted.
The idea behind an unbeliever inviting Christ anywhere is, well, simply nauseating, owing to its underlying arrogance. I invite Him?! Blasphemous! The invitation is from [b]Him to me, e ...[text shortened]... He set the plan in motion; He executed the plan; He offers His plan as a replacement for ours.[/b]
My problem isn't with intent, as much as it is with the phrase and concept's existence being so foreign to anything biblical, except as noted.
====================================
I am glad you note an exception.
=====================================
The idea behind an unbeliever inviting Christ anywhere is, well, simply nauseating, owing to its underlying arrogance. I invite Him?! Blasphemous! The invitation is from Him to me, emphatically not the other way around.
=========================================
But why is it nauseating ? This sounds like hyper Calvinism.
" As many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God ..." (John 1:12)
Would you find it offensive to show an unbeliever this passage and encourage them to pray and RECEIVE the Son of God ?
"Lord Jesus, You promised to give authority to become children of God to anyone who receives you. Lord Jesus I want to receive you as my Lord and Savior"
Does such a sinner's prayer offend your sense of God as the initiator of salvation? I won't argue about it. But such a prayer I would use to lead someone to receive Jesus.
We know that no one can come the Christ except by the mercy and power of the Holy Spirit. I think it is okay to encourage people to invite the Savior into their lives.
This verse is often "borrowed" by gospel preachers. Though context suggests that it is related to the church, I do think our unbelieving friends can borrow it long enough to let Jesus into their hearts:
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him and dine with Him and he with Me." (Rev. 3:20)
Don't you think we can borrow this passage to encourage the sinner to open the door of their heart and allow Jesus Christ to come into their lives?
24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillWould you find it offensive to show an unbeliever this passage and encourage them to pray and RECEIVE the Son of God ?
===============================
My problem isn't with intent, as much as it is with the phrase and concept's existence being so foreign to anything biblical, except as noted.
====================================
I am glad you note an exception.
=====================================
The idea behind an unbeliever inviting Christ er to open the door of their heart and allow Jesus Christ to come into their lives?
No. That is the intent of the invitation by God, namely, that the unbeliever receive the gift of His work for their own, of His substitutionary death on their behalf.
The objection to the phrase isn't merely semantics: words/concepts count. God doesn't stand shivering outside, wistfully hoping someone will be kind enough to give Him a break and let this ol' lost puppy in.
The phrase is an emotional appeal mad popular by evangelists who were desperate for numbers to garrison their own prominence within the eyes of those around them. It's the same fear that gave rise to such notables as Jonathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" bullcrap.
Salvation could not be more basic, its need more profoundly universal. Missionaries who travel to other cultures long-since blinded to the reality of God can attest that--- upon their explanation of the simple Gospel message--- these "ignorant" people willingly, openly, whole-heartedly turn their lives over to the Lord Jesus Christ. They're not shamed or feared into it: they understand their own need based upon the simple message and a self-recognition within that mirror.
The verse you quote from Revelation is, again, given to a body of believers. It's a great sound bite for the "I found it" generation (and those like them), but it is not the Gospel: it is doctrine.
Gospel is for unbelievers. Doctrine is for believers. They're two separate items from the same menu, but they're certainly not interchangeable.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH=====================================
[b]Would you find it offensive to show an unbeliever this passage and encourage them to pray and RECEIVE the Son of God ?
No. That is the intent of the invitation by God, namely, that the unbeliever receive the gift of His work for their own, of His substitutionary death on their behalf.
The objection to the phrase isn't merely semantics: ...[text shortened]... parate items from the same menu, but they're certainly not interchangeable.[/b]
Would you find it offensive to show an unbeliever this passage and encourage them to pray and RECEIVE the Son of God ?
No. That is the intent of the invitation by God, namely, that the unbeliever receive the gift of His work for their own, of His substitutionary death on their behalf.
==========================================
Amen.
=============================================
The objection to the phrase isn't merely semantics: words/concepts count. God doesn't stand shivering outside, wistfully hoping someone will be kind enough to give Him a break and let this ol' lost puppy in.
=========================================
He needs to indwell man in order to accomplish His eternal purpose. So He wants it very much.
We Christians often like to boast the God doesn't need anything. We are the only ones in need. But He does need obtain man as His inheritance:
"In whom also were were designated as an inheritacnce, having been predeistinated according to the purpose of the One who works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11)
Here, obtaining sons of God is God coming into His designated "inheritance". We should not think this is not important to Him.
This is a mutual inheritance. In verse 14 it speaks of "our inheritance". But in verse 11 it says we saved sinners were designated God's inheritance.
Verse 9 speaks of God's "good pleasure". Making known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself ... to head up all things in Christ"
It is God's pleasure to accomplishing the heading up of all things in Christ. And a major part of that is Christ making His home in our hearts through faith (3:15).
His heading up of all things in Christ requires that Christ have a corporate Body indwelt with by His life. And this Body is to be filled unto fullness:
"And He subjected all things under His feet and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church, Which is His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all." (Eph. 1:22,23)
So to accomplish His plan to head up all things in Christ He must indwell His Body. He wants it for His good pleasure. He needs it to accomplish His eternal purpose.
This entity, the church, is pictures as His Bride and His Wife. This picture should touch our hearts that God requires to be completed. God desires companionship. God desires a counterpart that matches Him.
======================================
The phrase is an emotional appeal mad popular by evangelists who were desperate for numbers to garrison their own prominence within the eyes of those around them. It's the same fear that gave rise to such notables as Jonathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" bullcrap.
============================================
I have never read that entire sermon. It seems to have a bad wrap. But I would not criticize it the way I see many people do.
On one hand we ARE sinners in the hand of an angry God. There is unmistakenly that aspect of the Bible too. And sometimes it needs to be said.
We were by nature children of wrath even as the rest (Eph. 2:3). I think we need more than just one way to preach the gospel.
==================================
Salvation could not be more basic, its need more profoundly universal. Missionaries who travel to other cultures long-since blinded to the reality of God can attest that--- upon their explanation of the simple Gospel message--- these "ignorant" people willingly, openly, whole-heartedly turn their lives over to the Lord Jesus Christ. They're not shamed or feared into it: they understand their own need based upon the simple message and a self-recognition within that mirror.
======================================
I would like to think that Jonathan Edwards would agree with you here and not argue. But perhaps he would say "Today, however, I am going to talk about sinners in the hand of an angry God."
I have a book of outlines for over 100 Gospel Messages. There are many different approaches. And they are compiled and organized so that in prayer, and in guidance of the Holy Spirit the speaker may select and appropriate one for the audience.
===================================
The verse you quote from Revelation is, again, given to a body of believers. It's a great sound bite for the "I found it" generation (and those like them), but it is not the Gospel: it is doctrine.
Gospel is for unbelievers. Doctrine is for believers. They're two separate items from the same menu, but they're certainly not interchangeable.
======================================
This passage was used in this way long before the "I found it" bumper stickers in California.
It is very important that men and women realize that we are vessels. And the will of God is to come INTO our vessel.
This concept is not easy for the natural man. It is quite easy to think that we only need to prostrate before God who is far away. Like Islam, it is natural to think God is only objective and far away, up there.
It is crucial to help people realize that this God comes to indwell man. So we need to open up after forgiveness and let Him in. Even after we have been saved we STILL need to open our being so that He can saturate our soul - fill our mind, motion, and will.
We are earthen vessels and He is the living treasure that must in any way, come into the vessel of our being:
"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." (2 Cor. 4:7)
Individually we are earthen vessels to contain the Triune God. Corporately we are a corporate vessel, a temple of God, a habitation of God in spirit. The one who fills all in all strongly desires to come into our individual vessel and even more into the corporate vessel.
He wants it very much.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"But lets give Jospeh a chance,.."
after reading this post, can anyone explain its relevance to anything under discussion? If fact i thought it was a piece of abstract art the first time i read it. But lets give Jospeh a chance, do tell Joseph, what it has to do with the Greeks perception of Hades and those who, well, like to advocate that other humans shall also be tortured eternal ...[text shortened]... quite worked out.
perhaps i am really viewing things bassackwards, whatever that could mean?
I don't need a chance.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitI don't see where this has been answered yet, but the answer is no. Angelic creatures were created perfect and do not sin by mistake. It is a willing and purposeful act for them to comment sin and leave God. The Bible explains that they are in a state of darkeness spiritually from God. And they also have sinned againt the Holy Spirit.
What if one of them wanted to repent and turn from his/her wicked ways? Any chance for him?
Matt 12:31,32. Mark 3: 28-30.
25 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillHe needs to indwell man in order to accomplish His eternal purpose. So He wants it very much.
=====================================
Would you find it offensive to show an unbeliever this passage and encourage them to pray and RECEIVE the Son of God ?
No. That is the intent of the invitation by God, namely, that the unbeliever receive the gift of His work for their own, of His substitutionary death on their behalf.
======================== ...[text shortened]... en more into the corporate vessel.
He wants it very much.
Ouch.
We Christians often like to boast the God doesn't need anything. We are the only ones in need. But He does need obtain man as His inheritance:
"In whom also were were designated as an inheritacnce, having been predeistinated according to the purpose of the One who works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11)
Here, obtaining sons of God is God coming into His designated "inheritance". We should not think this is not important to Him.
Semantically speaking, this is a mess. No offense intended.
This is akin to saying God needs to be God. While His plan is separate from His person, His person would cease to be if His plan failed to eventuate. Nonetheless, truly as we consider need, God needs nothing.
I have never read that entire sermon. It seems to have a bad wrap. But I would not criticize it the way I see many people do.
On one hand we ARE sinners in the hand of an angry God. There is unmistakenly that aspect of the Bible too. And sometimes it needs to be said.
Until two years ago, I had a mid-1800's copy of the sermon, as it appeared in a collection of supposedly important sermons from that time era. Gave the book away to someone who valued it more than me.
Actually, we are not sinners in the hands of an angry God. None of us, believers or non- fit this category any more, since about 2,000 years ago. That is not to say that God was angry before that, but, allowing for poetic license, substituting anger for judgment, God poured out His anger on the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other judgment for sin from that point forward. Now only remains a judgment for unbelief.