Is Solomon in Hell?

[cyberjosh]

I noticed this as I was reading an article which pointed out God's promise to Solomon which said, "As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. IF YOU SEEK HIM, He will be found by you; BUT IF YOU FORSAKE HIM, HE WILL CAST YOU OFF FOREVER." (1 Chronicles 28:9) Solomon in his later days, though he was once righteous (see Ezekiel 18) turned away to idols and forsook God. I must come to the conclusion (since the Bible doesn't say otherwise) that he died with his heart still turned away to idols. Thus it makes it a fair possibility that Solomon is in Hell.

More importantly though: how can this apply to us? We see warnings in the NT (wake up people, these aren't for someone else - and the OT was given as an example to us) that no immoral, impure, or greedy person who is an idolator has an inheritance in the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 5:5). Jesus also said that he would not cast us away but we see here plainly that like Solomon we might instead forsake him. And the scripture in Hebrews 13:5 says that Jesus will never forsake us but read what I found on that same site which talked about Solomon:

You may have heard of Hebrews 13:5, where it has - For He Himself has said, "I wlll never leave you nor forsake you." ~ The writer of Hebrews got that from when the Lord spoke to Joshua, "I will not leave you nor forsake you." (Joshua 1:5). Earlier, "He will not leave you nor forsake you" is what Moses told the people and then to Joshua in Deut. 31:6,8. The reason Moses said this is because he just told them that the Lord told him that he would not cross over the jordan. Moses was giving them assurance of their crossing without him. It doesn't mean that no matter what we do (like being a fornicator, adulterer, or coveter, which are in Hebrews 13:4,5), that God will never leave us. In fact, after this word was given to the people and Joshua in Deut. 31:6,8, the Lord said this...

Deuteronomy 31:16,17 - And the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My ANGER shall be aroused against them in that day, AND I WILL FORSAKE THEM, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured..." ~ Note: Here we see God said that He would forsake them because of their sin. So people should not be preaching that God will never leave you nor forsake you no matter what you do, because we just saw the truth of God saying otherwise. I see the Lord corrected Moses in what he said to the people, because what the Lord said about the people is different than what Moses said. So if you been telling people that God will never leave them nor forsake them, maybe God through Scripture (Deut. 31:16,17) is correcting you like He did Moses. True, it's in Hebrews 13:5, but if you take it out of context by not mentioning the verse right before and the one after (13:4-6), then you could unknowingly be preaching a license to sin. The point in Hebrews is to not be in sin, then the Lord won't leave you.

I think this calls for some serious consideration and study so that we do not neglect Scripture and the truth just because its difficult to accept or because "it's Old Testament" (God's word will never pass away), but rather we must rightly divide the whole word of God. I hope this generates some very good discussion.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Drew]

I have had the same thoughts (although not about Solomon in particular). And if this view is correct, then we can indeed "fall away" and be lost. And this is why I think that the OSAS doctrine is not merely an item of obscure "technical" theology, but rather a desperately dangerous untruth that places people at risk for destruction.

I am willing to entertain counterarguments about my view that OSAS is false. However, the implications of CS 5886's post are yet another example of how "theology" is indeed connected to important life and death issues.

 

[Rick W]

Being saved is having your sins forgiven. Totally.
Was Solomon forgiven of his sins?
Christ hadn't yet made the final sacrifice. His blood had not yet been shed.

So had Solomon been "saved"?

 

[Fnerb]

Being saved is having your sins forgiven. Totally.
Was Solomon forgiven of his sins?
Christ hadn't yet made the final sacrifice. His blood had not yet been shed.

So had Solomon been "saved"?

Wasn't belief in the coming savior credited as righteousness?

 

[Rick W]

Wasn't belief in the coming savior credited as righteousness?

That could very well have been.

I'm addressing the issue of citing Solomon for the OSAS debate. Once "saved", always "saved" would then require a definition of "saved".
Though being "saved" could be accounted as righteous I don't think being accounted as righteous would hold the same meaning as being "saved".
The Holy Spirit hadn't yet been given, the veil in the temple was still intact.
I believe we can see two differing judgements of God from the OT to the NT. Each has it's attributes, it's nature within the framework of God's judgement.

If our efforts of righteousness could "save" us then The Law would "save" those who do The Law. But we know The Law could not save. Romans is full of references to that point.

Solomon may not have been "saved" as we know "saved" as in "once saved always saved". I believe there are various and important distinctions between the two judgements.

 

[cyberjosh]

Wasn't belief in the coming savior credited as righteousness?

Indeed. And many people in the OT declared the Lord as their Salvation so of course there was OT salvation and righteousness, else there could be no said righteous man to qualify for the person spoken of in Ezekiel 18.

 

[Rick W]

Did those of the OT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

 

[cyberjosh]

I'm addressing the issue of citing Solomon for the OSAS debate. Once "saved", always "saved" would then require a definition of "saved".
Though being "saved" could be accounted as righteous I don't think being accounted as righteous would hold the same meaning as being "saved".
The Holy Spirit hadn't yet been given, the veil in the temple was still intact.
I believe we can see two differing judgements of God from the OT to the NT. Each has it's attributes, it's nature within the framework of God's judgement.

If you'll notice I never induced once saved always saved at all in my OP. I talked about forsaking God and him as a result forsaking you. And God is the same God past, present, and future. The OT is not now irrelevant. God's words still stand, and even Jesus appealed to the words of the Pentatuech as still very relevant and important after his parable of Lazarus and the rich man and he said "For if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (and Jesus said this knowing full well he was about to die and be ressurected and that people must believe in him - thus they must believe in Moses first). My point is that what happened then is still relevant and applicable to interpreting the NT.

There are still judgements in the NT the same as the OT. Compare Exodus 32:33 and Revelation 3:5 (which are supplementary converses of one another):

"He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life" (Revelation 3:5)

"And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." (Exodus 32:33)

Well, to be blotted out you first have to be in the book. But anyways...

We should also likewise interpret Jesus' words and promises of not forsaking us in light of the OT (it was an OT quote in Hebrews 13:5 anyways) and thus see that God would as a condition or forsaking Him in turn negate the relationship and forsake them also (even after He had just said that He would not forsake them - but it does not preclude us forsaking him - which makes sense anyways). Striaght from the OT and carried right into the NT.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Did those of the OT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Lets try to stick on topic with the points in the OP, but I will answer you quickly.

Yes there was indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT but not en masse, not for all those who followed God, it was a very selective process and by no means permanant. The great prophetic hope of the nation was that God would pour his Spirit out on all flesh, while it is ture that God had poured his Spirit out only on some flesh, including one's such as prophets, Kings, priests, and even judges like samson did experience the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. But even in the NT the indwelling of the Holy Spirit must be consistant with the OT, including the "seal" that we have (which I detailed in another thread).

~Josh

 

[Rick W]

If you'll notice I never induced once saved always saved at all in my OP. I talked about forsaking God and him as a result forsaking you. And God is the same God past, present, and future. The OT is not now irrelevant. God's still stand, and even Jesus appealed to the words of the Pentatuech as still very relevant and important after his parable of Lazarus and the rich man and he said "For if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (and Jesus said this knowing full well he was about to die and be ressurected and that people must believe in him). My point is that what happened then is still relevant.

There are still judgements in the NT the same as the OT. Compare Exodus 32:33 and Revelation 3:5 (which are supplementary converses of one another):

"He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life" (Rev. 3:5)

"And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." (Exodus 32:33)

Well to be bloted out you first have to be in the book. We should also like wise interpret Jesus' words and promises of not forsaking us in light of the OT (it was an OT quote in Hebrews 13:5 anyways) and thus see that God did as a condition or forsaking Him would in turn negate the relationship and forsake them in turn. Striaght from the OT and carried right into the NT.

~Josh

Did those of the OT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

I'm not debating if the OSAS doctrine is true or not. Rather, pointing out the difference between OT and NT doctrine that may not be comparing the same things when debating the OSAS issue. Solomon may very well have been credited as righteous but I don't think it's the same as the Holy Spirit dwelling within you. The Holy Spirit was given after Christ died... there is a difference. "Baptism by fire" comes to mind.

 

[cyberjosh]

I'm not debating if the OSAS doctrine is true or not. Rather, pointing out the difference between OT and NT doctrine that may not be comparing the same things when debating the OSAS issue. Solomon may very well have been credited as righteous but I don't think it's the same as the Holy Spirit dwelling within you. The Holy Spirit was given when Christ died... there is a difference.

Ok, lets start from the top before we get carried away. Please begin with the presented points about forsaking God and God in turn forsaking you. Lets for a second drop the issue of salvation and the Holy Spirit which accompany following God (the opposite of forsaking him). What did you think of the points presented in the quote provided in the OP?

P.S. As for the "differnces" in OT and NT doctrine (which there are differences, however...) I thought I tried to establish already that the OT is relevant in interpreting the NT. Do you disagree? If so then why is the NT so grounded on the OT and rife with OT quotes?

~Josh

 

[golfjack]

reply

The book of life is one thiing and everyone is in the Book of Life. The lambs book of life is for all born again Christians. In the days of Solomon, people were saved by obeying the Torah and having their sins forgiven once a year. After they died they went to Abraham's bosum. Then when Jesus went down to preach to them, they were born again.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Rick W]

Ok, lets start from the top before we get carried away. Please begin with the presented points about forsaking God and God in turn forsaking you. Lets for a second drop the issue of salvation and the Holy Spirit which accompany following God (the opposite of forsaking him). What did you think of the points presented in the quote provided in the OP?

~Josh

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

So God was remembering sins before the New Covenent was ratified since He promised NOT to remember their sins no more in the New Covenant... meaning He was in Solomon's time.

Solomon was under one covenant, we are under another.

 

[cyberjosh]

Potluck,

You are ignoring that the OT stories were given as examples for us, meaning not entirely the same put parallel and applicable to us today. Else you nullify the usefulness of the OT. Please address my several points given already. I don't want to preceed until you address them directly, and not dodge around them. Else you will side track the original intention for my thread.

~Josh

 

[Rick W]

"Foresake them" is used in your post many times.
So how do you reconcile what God promised? He could foresake those in the Old Covenant sure, otherwise He would never have said He wouldn't later on.

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

If indeed He foresakes us then He lied and His Word cannot be trusted. He promised a New Covenant, that promise was fulfilled in Christ.
So, does God remember your sins or not?

Solomon could be in Hell, he was under a different covenant.

 

[cyberjosh]

"Foresake them" is used in your post many times.
So how do you reconcile what God promised? He could foresake those in the Old Covenant sure, otherwise He would never have said He wouldn't later on.

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

If indeed He foresakes us then He lied and His Word cannot be trusted. He promised a New Covenant, that promise was fulfilled in Christ.
So, does God remember your sins or not?

Solomon could be in Hell.

Don't just look at him forsaking us. Look at what it said about us forsaking him.

And what do you think of my points of the OT still being relevant? I still haven't heard your thoughts on that one.

~Josh

 

[Rick W]

Don't just look at him forsaking us. Look at what it said about us forsaking him.

Now we open the can of worms of who is sovreign... man or God.

And what do you think of my points of the OT still being relevant? I still haven't heard your thoughts on that one.

~Josh

Yes, you have heard my thoughts on that one. I posted Hebrews. Those verses are my thoughts, what I think concerning your points of the OT still being relevant.

Relevant yes, but only to a point as Hebrews demonstrates. We are not under the same covenant as Solomon. We cannot expect what people had to do then to be what is now expected of us. Two different agreements entirely.

Can we learn from the OT? You bet. But we must also keep in mind Christ changed and abolished, made obsolete, many things.

The Bible isn't about man's pursuit of God but God's pursuit of man. It's not about us anyway... It's about Christ and His work on the cross.

 

[cyberjosh]

Lets perhaps make this more relatable with an NT parallel warning. We have already seen how in the OT God says (in the same chapter mind you) that He would not forsake them, but then He clarifies that the exception is if they try to break away and under that condition then he would forsake them. Now, this was given to the nation as a whole and cannot necessarily be applied to individuals, unlike the verse I gave of Solomon which was an individual reitteration of that.

Nonetheless I will show a similar promise/exception pardigm as given nationally in the NT, except that the warning is given first and then the promise afterwards, but nonetheless both are addressed in the same topic/context and are in the same chapter.

Romans chapter 11 presents the promise in verse 29 which says,

"For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable".

Now that is a pet verse for some people but they ussually misapply it to an individual, while is actually talking about God's calling of the nation of Israel.

Yet immediately prior to this he talks about how those who were called were cut off and warns the Gentiles similarly (in light of what happened to Israel):

"Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either." (vs. 20-21)

Thus God's gifts and calling are irrevocable yet God may only do so (extend his promises) for a small remnant if need be (like when Israel rejected God he preserved a small remnant) while the covenant blessings to the nation as a whole may be revoked.

This is a promise/exception type paraidgm as presented in the NT and is no different than telling them that God will forsake them if they forsake him - which is actually mentioned as fulfilled in Romans 11:19-20 (them being "cut off").

Do you now see a practical application for this?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Rick W]

Ok, so is Solomon in hell?

 

[jgredline]

Ok, so is Solomon in hell?

no