The Wages of Sin is ..... Eternal Life in Hell!

[jgredline]

Re: Christ does not lie! We are Blind, huh?

I'll jump in here if I might.

The Bible tells us that Jesus never spoke to his audience in anything BUT parables (Matthew 13:34; Mark 4:34; Luke 8:4). We are clearly and CONSISTENTLY told that parables were how Jesus communicated The Word to people.

Is that answer good enough to have you repent of your belief that the Rich man & Lazarus is a parable also, jg?

Sput
So you are saying that the entire sermon on the mount was a parable ha?
I could go on and on about this but I will not.

Oh, Was this a parable also?
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sput'
You must have also missed my post to you.
Here it is again.

Sput
I saw your question and your post and sarcasm as well. I did not respond to you, because as has been told to you many times, you are good at offering OPINION that is worthless, because you very, very, seldom crack a bible and use scripture. Then you go and say a remark that says it is not a Crime NOT to accept Jesus. What makes you think that you will be able to understand anything spiritual? The ANSWER IS SIMPLE. HERE IT IS.

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

Sput
Can you see what you are missing?

Wait there is more.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You need to repent and take back those foolish words of yours and appologize to Jesus for what you said of him. You need to confess your sin publically since you made your statement publically. This is of course if you are a child of God. If not, then it's your soul that will for ever be doomed.

This is an open question to anyone on this forum. Is the above 'screaming' post to me from jg indicative of someone who has my best interests in mind? Or, is the post more indicative of someone who is on the verge of hysteria?

You're not going to intimidate me, jg, so just forget it. I've every right to ask any question I so choose without having to run it by you first. AND, any apology I may need to make to Jesus will be between He and I, not between YOU and I ...got that?

Now, back to the business at hand. Please answer my previous questions devoid of any red herrings, jg.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Re: Christ does not lie! We are Blind, huh?

Sput
So you are saying that the entire sermon on the mount was a parable ha?
I could go on and on about this but I will not.

Oh, Was this a parable also?
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

So ...are you calling Jesus a liar, jg? Hmmm ... ...

The texts I gave you in my previous post concerning parables were direct from the Bible. I'm not making this stuff up, y'know.

 

[guibox]

jg,

Don't go oscar's route of accusations and 'screaming' ramblings. You have been much better than that.

I for one am getting tired of discussing Luke 16. It cannot be taken literally, it is not an expose on the after life and it IS a parable. Everything about including its placement amongst 4 other parables smacks of it.

If people so desperately want to make it a parable (despite the fact that there isn't one iota of scripture that supports it's contents) for no good reason except because there are names in it...be my guest. Orthodoxy doesn't trump biblical exegesis in my book. For others it does. To each their own. I will leave you with this link to read:

Despite the fact that L.Ray Smith is a universalist (of which I obviously don't subscribe to) this commentary on this parable is probably the best one I've ever read. He goes into great detail on what the details mean and why Christ used them (purple, fine linen, 5 brothers etc)

I ask and implore that you all read it and then agree to disagree and put the whole thing to bed. I agree with what you will read. I can't say it any better than Smith. As for me, I am through discussing it.

http://bible-truths.com/lazarus.html

God bless,

guibox

 

[jgredline]

Facts about hell


A. A place of everlasting destruction: 2 Th 1:9; Phil 3:19; Heb 10:39


B. A place of conscious punishment

1. Both the rich man and Lazarus were fully conscious: Lk 16:19-31
2. "away from the presence of God": 2 Th 1:9
indicates conscious existence in exile not annihilation
3. A place of suffering, affliction and retribution: 2 Th 1:5-8
4. Weeping and gnashing of teeth: Mt 13:42,50; 25:30


C. Duration of punishment is forever, eternity

1. The same words that describe hell also describe God and duration of heaven
forever: Rev 14:11; 20:10
black darkness forever: Jude 13
Eternal: Mt 25:46 (heaven and hell alike)
2. Eternal day of Christians is same duration as eternal night of lost
3. The undying worm, everlastingly consuming an unconsumable body
4. No second chance:
Appointed to die once then comes judgement: Heb 9:27
Great gulf fixed between good and bad: Lk 16
5. Annihilation is a false doctrine:
6. Based fundamentally upon the false doctrine that rejects the dichotomous nature of man. Eternal punishment is likened unto setting fire to dry leaf. The leaf is destroyed forever, it ceases to exist and the fire goes out although nothing could extinguish the fire before the leaf was fully consumed. "Carnalists" believe the Bible teaches "eternal destruction" (destroyed forever) rather than "eternal punishment" (conscious pain forever). The Bible mentions a punishment worse than physical death: Heb 10:28-29 What is it if not hell?


D. Hell is a demonstration of God's justice: 2 Th 1:5-10

1. The "carnalist" type groups who teach annihilation argue that God would not be just to punish a man forever.
2. Just as no one can actually understand the logic behind God's mercy in saving us through Christ dying on the cross, we probably can't understand God's justice with hell.


E. Degrees of punishment in hell

1. Proof texts:
Many and few lashes: Lk 12:47-48
Both lost but one judgement more tolerable than other: Mt 11:24
Hypocrites will receive "greater condemnation": Mk 12:40
Better for them if they had never been Christians: 2 Pe 2:20-21
2. The basis of the degree of punishment is not the frequency or magnitude of sin, but rather how accountable the individual was to God: (teachers- stricter judgement Jas 3:1)
The elder who runs off with another women will be punished more severely than any of the recent mass murder-rapists.
It is not a matter of how bad they sinned but the degree they knew it was sin.

 

[jgredline]

1 Cor 15:53
All men's bodies will become immortal at the resurrection

Now this is a powerful argument against annihilation. If ALL MEN both good and WICKED put on immortality at the resurrection, then how do they then cease to exist? What kind of immortality is that? Hence eternal torment! Never to die again! Man's body is not immortal now, but will be made so. All men, whether good or wicked! Man survives death consciously, then at resurrection is made immortal!

How can the wicked suffer the second death if they are immortal and then suffer the second death? If the wicked die again, then how can:

"come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory?" 1 Cor 15:55".

Simple, mortal refers to the body part not the soul. when man dies he survives death consciously. After resurrection, his immortal spiritual body is given to him and he will never again be apart from his body. IMMORTAL. But the second death is not the separation of the body and soul, but the separation of man from God for eternity in hell!

Remember, the saying, "Death is swallowed up in victory" will come about at the final resurrection. If the wicked die PHYSICALLY again, then God was wrong when he said: "when this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."" Obviously this was not true, for the wicked are swallowed up in physical death and death keeps its victory forever!

 

[jgredline]

jg,

Don't go oscar's route of accusations and 'screaming' ramblings. You have been much better than that.

Guibox
While I completely disagree with you,
I accept and recieve your rebuke, for you have behaved like a Gentleman. As for the rest of your posey, a rebuke from them would mean nothing. Actually CP has also behaved cool.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Guibox
While I completely disagree with you,
I accept and recieve your rebuke, for you have behaved like a Gentleman. As for the rest of your posey, a rebuke from them would mean nothing. Actually CP has also behaved cool.

Why ...you hypocrite, jg. Your posts, especially the more recent, are the least 'gentlemanly' of all. You persistently use sarcasm and intimidation as a weapon to further your shaky doctrine of eternal torment and you talk down to your learned and worthy 'opponents' as if they are children. NOW, you attempt to earn 'clemency' by 'back-slapping' (there's my word again) one of your 'foes'. We didn't all fall out of the sky in the last shower, jg.

My, you ARE a changeable fellow, jg. It's difficult to keep up with your daily whims. : Not too long back you favored MY thoughts (posts) on this issue as being more worthy of debate and guibox was not even considered. Obviously, your ignoring him was - more than anything else - an admission that his scripturally revealing posts had you on the hop.

I'm serious, jg ...if any topic has brought out the worst in your character, THIS topic is it. What does that mean ...?

 

[Drew]

Hello jgredline:

In one of your posts in this thread, you reproduce the following material from Strong's:

1 the death of the body. 1a that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended. 1b with the implied idea of future misery in hell.

This material does indeed agree with your position, I would think.

It has been claimed that Strong's also expresses the view that Lazarus in Luke 16 is a fictional character.

If this claim is true, please explain precisely on what basis you accept Strong's opinion in respect to one assertion and not the other. Presumably, it cannot be the authority of Strong's, since such authority would be accorded equally well to both assertions.

 

[Drew]

1 Cor 15:53
All men's bodies will become immortal at the resurrection

Now this is a powerful argument against annihilation. If ALL MEN both good and WICKED put on immortality at the resurrection, then how do they then cease to exist? What kind of immortality is that? Hence eternal torment! Never to die again! Man's body is not immortal now, but will be made so. All men, whether good or wicked! Man survives death consciously, then at resurrection is made immortal!

Here is the text of 1 cor 15:53 with the preceding verse as rendered in the NIV (with my adding of bolding):

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

On balance, I think that the context indicates that those who will be transformed into an imperishable and immortal condition are specifically those who are already in the body of Christ. Verse 53 by itself would seem to suggest that all the dead will put on immortality. But my reading of the preceding material (the entire chapter up to v. 53) seems to me to establish a context in which the fate of believers in particular is being addressed in verse 53.

To be fair though, I do think that perhaps in a very local sense, this material could maybe be seen as suggesting that all men put on immortality. However, I think this not likely because I see the preceding material as strongly indicating that the future of the saved is being discussed.

Consider also the verses that follow:

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

It seems rather implausible that the fate of the lost is being addressed here (and hence, by context in verse 53). The transition of the lost into a state of immortality in hell hardly seems like something that would warrant a claim that death has been swallowed up in victory. It seems that Paul must be specifically talking about the saved - immortality in hell is hardly a victory of any kind.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Hello jgredline:

In one of your posts in this thread, you reproduce the following material from Strong's:


This material does indeed agree with your position, I would think.

It has been claimed that Strong's also expresses the view that Lazarus in Luke 16 is a fictional character.

If this claim is true, please explain precisely on what basis you accept Strong's opinion in respect to one assertion and not the other. Presumably, it cannot be the authority of Strong's, since such authority would be accorded equally well to both assertions.

Thanks for having asked the same question that I've asked of jg, Drew. He doesn't find me 'Christian enough' to respond to my posts with anything other than condemning tirades from the scriptures ...scriptures that NO LESS point the finger at him, incidentally.

If this kind of attitude alone doesn't speak volumes about jg's own 'Christianity', then I don't know what does. I not only find this to be out of character for the jg that I thought I knew on the forum and through PMs ...I also find it very troubling that he COULD toss a friend on to the trash heap - whether he believes that friend to be a Christian or not - simply because he objects to a comment they (truthfully and sincerely) made from the heart.

This topic has become destructive in more than the scriptural theme (destruction of the lost/eternal torment for the lost) that is under discussion.

 

[Rick W]

I'll jump in here if I might.

The Bible tells us that Jesus never spoke to his audience in anything BUT parables (Matthew 13:34; Mark 4:34; Luke 8:4). We are clearly and CONSISTENTLY told that parables were how Jesus communicated The Word to people.

Is that answer good enough to have you repent of your belief that the Rich man & Lazarus is a parable also, jg?

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

these things?

The things refered to in the previous text of Matthew 13.

Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Many things... certainly not all things he said to them throughout His ministry were parables.


Mat 11:7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

If all He said to the multitudes is indeed in parables then is John the Baptist's work a parable? Are John or Solomon or Jonah or even Moses the characters of myth or parable?

So we have human judgment and conclusion to determine whether something is a parable/myth? Was Adam a mythical character? Some would say so to support their arguement that evolution is a reality. But where then is the dividing line between Adam and Christ between myth and reality? Where in the geneologies do we conclude the previous characters are mythical and the following are real?
Yes, I can see where claiming a certain text is a parable and another is not to support whatever it is that one wants to believe. That tool can indeed come in handy. Heck, I've known some that dismiss the entire OT as myth or just a story concocted as illustration for those things mentioned in the NT.

Human judgment and conclusion. Not God's for most cannot accept the judgments of The Father. Would we not provide condition for the punishment of Adam instead of judging all men and all living things after Adam to death? Would we not prefer to provide condition for those killed in The Great Flood instead of wiping out all living things from the face of the earth whether they heard about the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob or not? That includes all women and children (even newborns, all people, .. young and old...all living things) Death entered the world through Adam in that ALL things must die. That's quite a nasty judgment according to our sense of evaluation. Same with the Flood.
So to soften the judgments of God in the future, to make these judgments more palatable to our sense of right and wrong, we instill conditions on God's final judgment for certainly not all those that do not accept Christ as their savior will burn in Hell. That just doesn't seem right therefore there must be condition.
Regardless of what we care to believe regarding Hell God's judgments will be enacted. How we feel about this punishment will in no way influence the outcome.
Therefore there is the urgency to preach the salvation of Christ, to say things we don't want to say to those we love. And because we really don't want to offend we prefer other means to sidestep our responsibilties as christians so we may be judged blameless and unaccountable for those who fall prey to Satan.

 

[Solo]

It is interesting that those that continually debate against the Statement of Faith of this Christian Forum align themselves together on almost every false doctrine against the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ. You can state a fundamental belief of the statement of faith that is contrary to the unsound teachings of false brethren, sit back and watch the same people argue against the truth, time and time again.

Here is the Statement of Faith belief concerning hell:

• "We believe that heaven is a real place where the saved will dwell forever, and that hell is a literal place of torment where unbelievers will suffer forever."

Write down the names of those against this teaching, the deity of Jesus Christ being God in the flesh, the Sabbath worship, the immortal soul, etc. etc. etc. and you will find an interesting following on this forum. Are they purposely teachings the lies of the devil himself, or are they just ignorant of the truth? I believe they are guilty of both.
.

 

[John the Baptist]

Re: Christ does not lie! We are Blind, huh?

I'll jump in here if I might.

The Bible tells us that Jesus never spoke to his audience in anything BUT parables (Matthew 13:34; Mark 4:34; Luke 8:4). We are clearly and CONSISTENTLY told that parables were how Jesus communicated The Word to people.

Is that answer good enough to have you repent of your belief that the Rich man & Lazarus is a parable also, jg?

****
Thanks for the reply. Surely if one believes in the Godheads Word as Truth? It can not be said any more clearly! (your posted Inspired verses)

I find sincere people thinking that God cannot be Trusted when things are to be reasoned out. Such as Peter's three time vision for one. And even the Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 verses. They seem to think that God made a mistake or the translation is wrong or whatever? Yet, it takes MATURITY to REALLY BELIEVE & TRUST THE GODHEAD. Such as what was before Adam in.. 'Nothing New under the sun'

Again, thanks! ---John

 

[SputnikBoy]

It is interesting that those that continually debate against the Statement of Faith of this Christian Forum align themselves together on almost every false doctrine against the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ. You can state a fundamental belief of the statement of faith that is contrary to the unsound teachings of false brethren, sit back and watch the same people argue against the truth, time and time again.

Here is the Statement of Faith belief concerning hell:

• "We believe that heaven is a real place where the saved will dwell forever, and that hell is a literal place of torment where unbelievers will suffer forever."

Write down the names of those against this teaching, the deity of Jesus Christ being God in the flesh, the Sabbath worship, the immortal soul, etc. etc. etc. and you will find an interesting following on this forum. Are they purposely teachings the lies of the devil himself, or are they just ignorant of the truth? I believe they are guilty of both.
.

You know, Solo, I belong to a church that, some time ago, took the position that any doctrines, while presently considered to be sound, could be amended at a later date if new light deemed that to be necessary.

The three main doctrines that immediately differed from mainstream Christian teaching were 1. the keeping of the 7th-day Sabbath. 2. that the dead 'sleep' in their graves until the resurrection, and 3. that the 'lost' are not in eternal torment.

Now, despite the rantings of Solo and others who refer to these doctrines as being 'from the pits of hell' (such empty rhetoric) I find that the Bible DOES support all three. If one diligently studies their Bible with no preconceived ('traditional') notions, they will INDEED find that 1. the Sabbath remains for God's people (Hebrews 4), 2. the dead DO sleep in their graves until the resurrection (far too many texts to list here), and 3. the 'unsaved' perish (John 3:16 and MANY other texts that support this concept).

This forum should perhaps be big enough and be less dogmatic with its TOS beliefs and take a leaf out of the SDA book. The forum administrators don't know everything either. Or do they think they do? Appropriately amending one's doctrines if necessary - or, at least, allowing the possibility that another viewpoint could be valid - would be seen as a strength, not a weakness.

 

[Judy]

This forum should perhaps be big enough and be less dogmatic with its TOS beliefs and take a leaf out of the SDA book. The forum administrators don't know everything either. Or do they think they do? Appropriately amending one's doctrines if necessary - or, at least, allowing the possibility that another viewpoint could be valid - would be seen as a strength, not a weakness.

Please! The internet is also big and if one really tried they too could find a site that would fit what they believe.

Our statement of faith is what the owner of this site as well as others including myself believe, it alines itself with mainstream Christianity. We will not amend our statement of faith to include any false doctrine just to accommodate.

 

[Drew]

Please! The internet is also big and if one really tried they too could find a site that would fit what they believe.

Our statement of faith is what the owner of this site as well as others including myself believe, it alines itself with mainstream Christianity. We will not amend our statement of faith to include any false doctrine just to accommodate.

Well then, please clarify. Are we, or are we not allowed to provide a Biblical case for the ultimate annihilation of the lost? You are allowing us to do so, even though Solo seems to be correct in pointing out that this position disagrees with the statement of faith.

I think you are wise to allow an open discussion of this topic as you have.

 

[John the Baptist]

Please! The internet is also big and if one really tried they too could find a site that would fit what they believe. Our statement of faith is what the owner of this site as well as others including myself believe, it alines itself with mainstream Christianity. We will not amend our statement of faith to include any false doctrine just to accommodate.

********
Please! The internet is also big and if one really tried they too could find a site that would fit what they believe.

Well, what is next?? Are you and Solo telling 'us' who are not of your 'fold' to take a hike?? And the owner of the site seems to have trusted you with the keys of the forums kingdom here, if it has now finally become a non freedom loving church?? And Even on the 'General Talk' thread ??

Whatever? Awaiting your required packing orders. Remember forum, in Revelation 13:15 we see a Christless church needing FORCE! Something similar to 'Trademarked' Seventh-day Adventism!

--John :fadein:

PS: If any know of a forum that still believes & practices freedom of religion & freedom of speech with only legal USA 'censorship', let me know, OK?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Well then, please clarify. Are we, or are we not allowed to provide a Biblical case for the ultimate annihilation of the lost? You are allowing us to do so, even though Solo seems to be correct in pointing out that this position disagrees with the statement of faith.

I think you are wise to allow an open discussion of this topic as you have.

So do I, Drew, but I fear we may be here on borrowed time unless amendments are made to accomodate NON-mainstream tenets that CAN be backed up with scripture. A scriptural case CAN be made for annihilation so it is CERTAINLY NOT a false teaching. Whether one accepts it or not is up to the individual and as to how steeped in tradition they are.

Thanks for the PM, by the way. I'll respond tomorrow after I get some shut-eye. ing:

 

[Judy]

********
Please! The internet is also big and if one really tried they too could find a site that would fit what they believe.

Well, what is next?? Are you and Solo telling 'us' who are not of your 'fold' to take a hike?? And the owner of the site seems to have trusted you with the keys of the forums kingdom here, if it has now finally become a non freedom loving church?? And Even on the 'General Talk' thread ??

Whatever? Awaiting your required packing orders. Remember forum, in Revelation 13:15 we see a Christless church needing FORCE! Something similar to 'Trademarked' Seventh-day Adventism!

--John :fadein:

PS: If any know of a forum that still believes & practices freedom of religion & freedom of speech with only legal USA 'censorship', let me know, OK?

John,
What was being ask is for us to change what we believe and to accomodate what we here find to be false. I only was suggesting that the internet is big and that if you didn't like what our statement of faith says then I am sure that you could find a site on the net to fit what you believe. Speaking in gerneral.
I am not telling you to take a hike, but we will not change our statement of faith on this site just to accomodate.