- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
18 Apr 13
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI am not trying to force you to believe something you find very unpleasant to believe. I simply ask if you see reasonableness in the assumption that Christ in all these cases, is speaking fearful words about essentially the same thing ?
Notice though how similar the passage is to another passage from Matthew. Compare the two please:
[b] Matthew 26:24 - " ... woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
Matthew 18:8 - "If your hand or your foot stumbles you, cut it off and cast it from you; it is bett in all these cases, is speaking fearful words about essentially the same thing ?
=============================================
I understand that, and I still consider any born again Christian a brother in Christ weather he/she believes either way. The verses you mention are reasonable, of course, but I have to consider in light of all verses that pertain to the subject. God's word cannot contradict anywhere, so I usually consider all the verses and find the problem to be in translation, context, customs at the time of the writing, or even my own understanding. Here are some things or guide lines I use in my study...
Interpretation and application in light of to whom addressed
Interpretation and application must be in light of to whom a section of scripture was
addressed.
The books from Genesis to Malachi were written before the new covenant, and are
not addressed to the born-again believers of the Christian church.
The gospels were written after the day of Pentecost, and were addressed to born-again believers to explain the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, his life and ministry.
Since it is a bridging period between the old and new covenants, not all sections can
be interpreted as being addressed to born-again believers.
The books from Acts to Revelation are addressed to born-again believers.
Scripture not addressed directly to the born-again believer is still truth, and should be
studied and directly applied to the Christian walk, unless it is contradicted or clearly
superseded by new covenant truth. (Romans 15:4, II Timothy 3:16-17)
Previous usage
Words or phrases need to be understood in terms of how they have been used before in the Bible as a whole.
Scriptures on the same subject must be in harmony
Multiple accounts of the same event may be from different viewpoints, or contain
varying details, but they must be interpreted in a way that they do not contradict
each other.
Similar incidents or descriptions may appear on the surface to be identical. Many
similarities do not prove identity; a single dissimilarity disproves identity.
Difficult verses or sections of scripture must be understood in light of clear verses on the same subject.
- Errors can occur in transmission or in translation. Is there a problem with the
text or translation? Is there some credible manuscript that resolves the
apparent contradiction?
- Our own assumptions can lead to apparent contradictions. Check your
assumptions. Are we assuming something that leads to a misunderstanding?
- We should establish what is clear before attempting to interpret difficult
passages.
- A preponderance of clear verses outweighs difficulty with a few unclear verses.
- It is OK to say, “I don’t know” or “I am still looking for the answer”.
And I don't know why this all came out bold..
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI can't remember if I saw it. But I will look again.
[b]"... which is the second death.”
Yes, the second death. The death of the soul.
Matthew 10:28 suddenly has new importance, eh?
jaywill, did you even see my post responding to yours at the end of page 8 in the thread 'John 3:16'? If you did, you never replied to it.
EDIT: Bah! Here this post sits at the end of another page. I suppose you'll never see it, either.[/b]
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterBecause you made it bold at the beginning.
I am not trying to force you to believe something you find very unpleasant to believe. I simply ask if you see reasonableness in the assumption that Christ in all these cases, is speaking fearful words about essentially the same thing ?
=============================================
I understand that, and I still consider any born again Christian a br ...[text shortened]... know” or “I am still looking for the answer”.
And I don't know why this all came out bold..
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Apr 13
2 edits
Is it reasonable to understand "X" = "the eternal fire" = "the Gehenna of fire" = "the second death" = "the death of the soul" ?
The second death is not the non-being of the soul.
The second death is not the non-existence of the soul.
What is non-existent cannot be "hurt". But the New Testament speaks of the hurt of the second death -
" ... He who overcomes shall by no means be hurt of the second death" ( Rev. 2:11) .
1.) The promise to not be hurt of the second death is made in Revelation 2:11 to CHRISTIANS. That means it is made to those for whom the question of eternal salvation has already been solved in the affirmative.
This then is a warning that though they Christians are eternally redeemed, in some cases a believer might be disciplined by being "hurt of the second death". That means hurt by the lake of fire.
2.) Man may be sloppy and include unbelievers along with believers as "members of a church." But Christ is not so sloppy. God knows WHO is a member of the church by means of regeneration and who is not, having not yet become regenerated.
So in Revelation 2:11 the possibility exists for born again Christians to be "hurt" of the lake of fire or the second death.
The lake of fire is the second death (Rev. 20:14) - "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
3.) Though this may shock many evangelical Christians, with deeper study of the New Testament it should not. Paul speaks of members of the church in Corinth who will be saved yet so as through fire.
Though I agree that "fire" may be figurative in First Corinthians 3:15, knowing that God cannot be easily locked into limitation, it just may include any other kind of fire also should the need arise.
"If anyone's work [that emphatically is any CHRISTIAN'S work] which he built on the foundation [Christ (v.11)] remains, he shall receive a reward;
If anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:14-15)
Christian brethren, HOW can you be SO SURE that the scope of this warning could not include in some extreme cases "the lake of fire" also ? I would not be so foolish as to totally exclude the second death from the disciplining agent in "saved, yet so as through fire".
Brethren, were we not told in the Gospels that the lust of our members, the sins in our eyes, the sin caused by a hand, a sin caused by wayward feet all needed to be dealt with with utmost seriousness ?
Mark 9:43 - "And if your hand stumbles you, cut it off; it is better for you to enter into life maimed than to have two hands and go away into Gehenna, into unquenchable fire."
Strange verse, right ? I do not mean for Christians to cut off their sinning hand in order to be saved. It does mean that the motive of sinning must be dealt with seriously at all cost in relation to the millennial kingdom reward. For the parallel passage in First Corinthians is speaking not of eternal redemption but of reward for whom eternal redemption has already been solved in the affirmative.
"If anyone's [any Christian] work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."
Suffer Loss - is open ended. It could be a little loss. It could be a greater loss. It could be even more severe loss. It could, in some cases, be a very great loss.
"Suffer" - as in be hurt. It could be a lesser hurt. It could be a greater hurt. It could be a very great hurt.
Suffer loss can mean WHATEVER the Righteous Judge of His own house deems appropriate for the specific case. You know that. If the worldly judges can dispense a whole array of possible disciplines to offenders of civic law how much more can God have at His wise disposal a large scope of available possible remedies.
Therefore I submit that on the extreme end of the spectrum Jesus my Savior could HURT me with the lake of fire. Yet I would be saved myself, "yet as through fire."
4.) All this means that the second death, the lake of fire cannot mean the non-existence of the soul. No one "suffers" a spell of non-existence.
One suffers loss by the enduring of some unpleasant matter which in some sense destroys something within them that needs to be destroyed.
Right after Paul's warning that some believers will be saved yet so as through fire, he adds -
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, and such are you." (1 Cor. 3:16,17)
"Suffer loss" ... "saved, yet as through fire" ... [Christians] possibly "hurt of the second death" ... and even Christians failing to deal seriously with habitual sinful conduct in their members - "have two hands and go away into Gehenna, into unquenchable fire" all signify discipline that could include being temporarily hurt by the second death.
This indicates that the second death is not the non-being of the soul. It is the non wellbeing of the one put there. The annhilationist cannot make "second death" to mean non-existence.
In the next post we will get a firmer grip on the Corinthian warning of loss of reward.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Apr 13
3 edits
Right after Paul's warning that some believers will be saved yet so as through fire, he adds -
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, and such are you." (1 Cor. 3:16,17)
What is the context ?
1.) Paul is emphatically speaking to Christian disciples for whom the question of eternal redemption has already been solved in the affirmative.
2.) The works being judges are judged concerning how useful they are to building the church which is the temple of God.
3.) To build with superior works indicated by gold, silver, and precious stones - will result in a REWARD at Christ's second coming.
"For another foundation no one is able to lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
But if anyone builds upon the foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, stubble, the word of each will become manifest, for the day will declare it, because it is revealed by fire, and the fire itself will prove each one's work, of what sort it is.
If anyone's work which he had built upon the foundation remains, he [the eternally redeemed one] will receive a reward.
That is a reward apart and in addition to eternal life.
"If anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."
To build with inferior works as indicated by wood, hay, and stubble is to endanger the Christian of suffering loss, yet he himself will be saved. He will be saved yet so as through fire.
The work here is the wok of building up the temple of God, the church of God which is on the one foundation, Jesus Christ.
To live in such a manner or work in such a manner as to insert worthless, inferior quality things of the fallen man is to mar the temple of God and to even destroy the temple of God.
" ... YOU ARE THE TEMPLE OF GOD, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you ... IF ANYONE DESTROYS THE TEMPLE OF GOD, GOD WILL DESTROY HIM ..." (v.16,17)
Excuse me for shouting. But you have to put it all together friends and saints.
The "destroy" here is related to Christians. The "destroy" is related to the loss of reward. One may be saved yet so as through fire. Something tolerated too long in the believer is finally destroyed by God in this examination.
Why? Because the Christian's poor fleshy living has destroyed the holy temple of God the church. She or he has lived in a way to descrate the living temple, the church. And though that believer is saved, he may be saved as if running through a burning building - by the skin of his teeth - "saved yet so as through fire."
The application of this warning has a wide scope. It may be lesser or more sever. It may be in some case SO severe that there is also "the hurt" related to the lake of fire.
You doubt? Suppose Jesus says in essence -
"Okay, you believed in Me. I forgave all your past sins. Yet you never forgave others. You also lived in fornication for years AS MY DISCIPLE though. You thought that you had your ticket to heaven. You thought that My grace was a cheap thing. And you had many grudges against other Christians, NEVER forgiving them who offended you.
Okay, you marred my temple. You lived as a Christian in a way that desecrated my church.
You will be saved as I promised. But you will lose the reward of reigning with Me in the millennial kingdom for 1,000 years. Not only so, because you lived virtually like an unbeliever, like someone who never got saved, and because so many could tell no difference year after year between you and an unsaved person, AND in some cases even acted WORSE than an unbeliever, I am going to let you for a while FEEL what it is like to go to hell.
You will be disciplined. And you will suffer some hurt of the lake of fire as I warned."
This is all paraphrase and my imagination. But I do this to drive the point home as best as possible. I believe this. I believe this is sober teaching of the New Testament.
The bottom line is that the second death is something that can hurt. I don't know the physics or the science of the matter. I am pretty sure that the Holy Spirit intends for us to understand that God can punish in the second death and that punishment is not non-existence as the Annhilationists wishfully assert.
18 Apr 13
All of the walls of text here are meaningless.
No one has ever been to hell. No one can describe what it is like.
All we have is a few pieces of writing by people who think they know
what hell might be like. But no one actually knows. Not one. No one.
So this whole thread is a lot of rubbish. None of you know what you
are talking about. You don't even know if hell exists let alone what it
might look like. Why don't you find something more productive to do
with your time?
Is there anyone in your neighbourhood who needs some practicable help?
Why don't you help them instead of talking bollocks?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyDid you ever hear the expression, "People who live in glass houses...." 🙂
All of the walls of text here are meaningless.
No one has ever been to hell. No one can describe what it is like.
All we have is a few pieces of writing by people who think they know
what hell might be like. But no one actually knows. Not one. No one.
So this whole thread is a lot of rubbish. None of you know what you
are talking about ...[text shortened]... hood who needs some practicable help?
Why don't you help them instead of talking bollocks?
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterI have already been productive in a practical sense,
[b] Why don't you find something more productive to do
with your time?
This...[/b]
and hopefully will continue to do so. There is more
to life than chess and certainly even more to life
than fairy tale man made organized financial fraud
which is better known as religion.
Practical help and real hope of problem solving resolution
is better than the fairy tales you and others prefer to
cling to.
Quit talking about something you know nothing about,
have no experience of, and have no real proof of.
18 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyWho says we're not?
All of the walls of text here are meaningless.
No one has ever been to hell. No one can describe what it is like.
All we have is a few pieces of writing by people who think they know
what hell might be like. But no one actually knows. Not one. No one.
So this whole thread is a lot of rubbish. None of you know what you
are talking about hood who needs some practicable help?
Why don't you help them instead of talking bollocks?
We are cautioned that the ticket to Heaven is not paid by good works "... so that none could boast". Good works is the by-product of a saved Christian, not the ticket price.
You know nothing about what we do after we post here. Absolutely nothing. Zip. Nada. Please don't assume we just go back to the couch, suck down another beer and remain glued to the tube.
What we DO know is that one purpose of the New Testament (for believers, anyway) is as an operating manual for the 'life lived more abundantly'.
And as far as Hell, Jesus knew. First hand.
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyThe church is life, in a much more practical sense, in some third-world countries (especially common in Latin America) where practically no one has the means to rise above their fellow man, and the few that do spend their money on themselves or on their interests elsewhere.
I have already been productive in a practical sense,
and hopefully will continue to do so. There is more
to life than chess and certainly even more to life
than fairy tale man made organized financial fraud
which is better known as religion.
Practical help and real hope of problem solving resolution
is better than the fairy tales you and ot ...[text shortened]... lking about something you know nothing about,
have no experience of, and have no real proof of.
"Quit talking about something you know nothing about, have no experience of, and have no real proof of." Just what I was thinking.
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneAm I right in thinking that the Catholic Church will not permit birth control in some of those third-world countries ?
The church is life, in a much more practical sense, in some third-world countries (especially common in Latin America) where practically no one has the means to rise above their fellow man, and the few that do spend their money on themselves or on their interests elsewhere.
"Quit talking about something you know nothing about, have no experience of, and have no real proof of." Just what I was thinking.