Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Paul,
    
    My list of central themes was not a conclusive list but an example. 
    The random remarks are one's such as women should be silient in church
    that slaves should obey their masters etc.
    
    God's judgement against sin as well as the fact that God loves us even
    as we are still sinners is part of the central message.  That God is
    going to torment sinners forever in hell is one of those not so central
    themes which I reject as does Johavah's witnesses and many others.
    
                              Patricia

>    as we are still sinners is part of the central message.  That God is
>    going to torment sinners forever in hell is one of those not so central
>    themes which I reject as does Johavah's witnesses and many others.
    
    I guess Satan has duped many.

    
>    God's judgement against sin as well as the fact that God loves us even
>    as we are still sinners is part of the central message.  That God is
>    going to torment sinners forever in hell is one of those not so central
>    themes which I reject as does Johavah's witnesses and many others.
 

    Not so central themes?  On the contrary, Hell (and how to escape the fires
    of same, is quite central.  Jesus Himself spoke quite clearly on the 
    fires of Hell (in fact Luke 16 gives a startling account of one who is
    actually there!).

    Last week during our Revival services, the Pastor delivered a message that
    included a reading of Jesus speaking of Hell and the fires therein..
    Jude verse 23, Paul says "and others save with fear, pulling them out of
    the fire..."  That is a vital mission of Christians..

   
    Jim

 Jesus speaks of Hell..


Matthew 5:29  And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it 
from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should 
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 

 30  And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: 
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not 
that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 

Matthew 10:28  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill 
the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell. 


Matthew 18:9  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from 
thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than 
having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 


Matthew 23:33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the 
damnation of hell? 


Luke 12:5  But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after 
he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. 

Luke 16:23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth 
Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 

    "Regarding the Hell, Fire, and Damnation crowd"
    
    
    There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear
    hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
    
    
    I believe in a God of Love, not a God of torment.
    I believe in a God who persuades people to God not scares people to
    him.

 19 We love him, because he first loved us.

 20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he
    that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he
    hath not seen?

 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his
    brother also.
    
    
                                  Praise God!!

 How much more could God love you than dying on a cruel cross on your
 behalf, to save you?  Can you think of any human, who would sacrifice their
 son, or daughter, to save the lives of people, the majority of which don't
 care?


 

I haven't had time to catch up here, after being 'out' on Friday - I'm 
hoping to skim through the discussion tonight...!  But I did just catch 
your's, Patricia, in 728.108, and wondered quite who you thought the verses 
were addressed to.  The book of 1 John, which your quotes are taken from, 
are written to worshippers of the LORD Jesus, who have been rescued from 
the result of their sin.  The verses you chose only present one side of the 
picture - for instance, 2:22-23 say:

  "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.  
   Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son.  No-one 
   who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the 
   Father also."

The separation is also emphasised in 3:10 : 
	"...This is how we know who the children of God are and who the 
	 children of the devil are..."

Bearing in mind also that 'brother' in the New Testament is not referring
to a conceptual brotherhood of all mankind, but to a brotherhood of God's
children - those who share the same Father.

It is only because 'God is love' that He has made this gap in time - the
church age - when there is opportunity for people to escape the consequences 
of their sinful nature.  If He were not a loving God, He would have brought 
only immediate punishment. 

That is why He urges all people to repent NOW, in verses like 2 Corinthians 6:2

Your "Regarding the Hell, Fire, and Damnation crowd" seems to imply that 
this is an insult to a God of love.  However, it is clear from many places 
in the Bible (not least, from the LORD Jesus Himself) that there *is* 
judgement and punishment ahead.  It is only to be avoided by action taken 
in this life.  After this life, it will be too late.  bear in mind 2 Peter 
3:7
    "...by the same Word the present heavens and earth are reserved for 
     fire, being kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly 
     men...."

Where there is danger, the most unkind thing you can do to the person in 
danger is to placate them and pacify them, encouraging them to continue as 
they are.  It is the God of love who warns them of the danger, with the 
express intent that they may have opportunity to avoid it.  Not that He is 
unjust or unloving, but that He is just, and loving.  The warning is to 
encourage people to escape from the wrath to come, which is the exclusion 
of sin (and those who will not be separated from it) from His presence.

It cost God to make salvation.  It cost Him the life of the LORD Jesus, 
who bore the penalty of sin on the cross.  He chose to do that for us, so 
that we sinful mortals could receive eternal righteousness.  Those who 
spurn the LORD's gift, choosing to remain in sin, receive their choice of 
exclusion from God for eternity.  This is not something we gloat over, but 
something we grieve to see in the individual in this life, longing for 
their salvation.  However, God knows the heart of all...

It is fatal to ignore the 'judgement' side of the Bible, prefering to take
a simplistic view of the 'love' side.  They have to be included and 
compatible, and where our human minds reach their limits, we do not have a 
mandate to dismiss what God has revealed.


						God bless
								Andrew

re:.108 "Regarding the Hell, Fire, and Damnation crowd"

Patricia, it really does no good at all to quote scriptures talking about
God's love, because love and judgement CAN coexist.  A Biblical position must
take into account *all* scripture, not just the parts that support it.  You
have never had any answer whatsoever to the multitudes of scriptures,
including many, many direct quotes from Christ himself (a few listed by Jim
in .106) that proclaim the reality of hell and the reality that some (many?)
people will go there, except to dismiss them outright.

Fine, Patricia, If you want to dismiss those passages, then dismiss them. 
But could you please do one of two things:

  Show a reasonable explanation of how all those passages can be reconciled
  with universal salvation.

  Stop asking us to dismiss those passages as you have.  We won't do that.

If you would just stop trying to proclaim that the Bible can be construed to
support universal salvation without completely gutting it, then we could stop
this unseemly wrangling.

You believe in universal salvation.  That's fine, I don't have any need to
argue with you about that.  But the Bible does not support that view at all,
and I *do* need to argue if you try to proclaim that it does.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    THere are several notes in the Christian Perspectives note file on
    "Hell" in which the Jehovah Witness postion is clearly articulated. 
    They are pretty easy to find in note 974 there.
    
    I have some information at home written by William Ellery Channing who
    is the father of American Unitarianism.  Channing's work shows biblical
    support for the concept of the Universal love of God.
    
    Unfortunately, one of my top priorities is to write my paper on
    Process/Relational Theology for my directed study.  It will be a while
    before I can get to the Unitarian/Universalist position on the issue.
    
    Patricia

I know you will take this the wrong way, but:

If you can get three dozen professors with multiple Harvard doctorates each
and years of research to conclusively prove that a horse is in fact a small
wedge of cheddar cheese...

It's still a horse.

Paul

    You have to ignore truck-loads of Scripture to achieve any man-made
    extreme.

    It's no secret that the premise of this conference and the JW stand are
    very much in disagreement, Patricia.  You aren't gaining much ground by
    bringing their beliefs into view.
    
    I remember the verse that talks about itching ears...
    
    Nancy

Matthew 3:10  And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: 
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and 
cast into the fire. 


 12  Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and 
gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with 
unquenchable fire. 

Matthew 5:22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother 
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to 
his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, 
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 

Matthew 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and 
cast into the fire. 

Matthew 13:40  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so 
shall it be in the end of this world. 

Matthew 13:42  And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be 
wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

Matthew 13:50  And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be 
wailing and gnashing of teeth. 


Matthew 18:8  Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, 
and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or 
maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting 
fire. 

  9  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is 
better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes 
to be cast into hell fire. 

Matthew 25:41  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 


Mark 9:43  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to 
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire 
that never shall be quenched: 

 44  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 

 45  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter 
halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that 
never shall be quenched: 

 46  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 


Luke 17:29  But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and 
brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 


John 15:6  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is 
withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are 
burned. 

    
>    I have some information at home written by William Ellery Channing who
>    is the father of American Unitarianism.  Channing's work shows biblical
>    support for the concept of the Universal love of God.
    
 

     Read some of the writings of John, Luke, Paul, Peter and ask God through
     the Holy Spirit to show you the truth.




    Jim


   

	Gee... I thought Patricia did a good job bringing in the info she did.
Of course once ya do, you know the premise stuff will come up again. I often
wonder if it isn't brought in so one can't make a point....

Why, yes, Glen, to answer your question, that's exactly the reason the
premise is brought in.  And I'm not being facetious.  I'll be right up front
about it - there are points we don't want to even give ear to.

Jesus repeatedly told his disciples (that's us, now): "If anyone loves me, he
will obey my teaching.  My Father will love him and we will come to him and
make our home with him.  He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. 
These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."
(Jn 13:23).  He also repeatedly warned them: "Watch out that no one deceives
you." (Mt 24:4 is one example).  We are warned not be "deceived by
fine-sounding arguments" (Col 2:4).  And we are more specifically warned:
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive
philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this
world, rather than on Christ." (Col 2:8)

We recognize that much of Jesus' teaching was in parable and paradox, and we
wrestle with that together, knowing that our understandings are not complete.
Process is also recognized here, difficulties are recognized, it takes all of
us time to fully let Jesus be Jesus.  We're more than just willing, we're
enthusiastic to embrace all those who are seeking Jesus, wherever they are in
that journey.  

But teachings and viewpoints which are not based on Christ, on the words
which He spoke, on His teaching, are not welcome here.  Persistent rejection
of His words, repeated rejection of who He says He is, tenacious teaching
that His words were in fact meaningless bears no resemblance to seeking Him. 
If that is what you must do, we respectfully ask that you do it elsewhere.

Paul

    .124
    
    Watch out Paul...the next thing you know they'll be saying *fear* is
    the motivation behind your words.
    
    I think it should be pointed out that *fear* is NOT the motivation
    unless its fear of a false Gospel that will send people to hell, then
    *that* would be accurate.
    
    Nancy

      Man, I just read .101 to .104 and I marvel at some of these
      replies!
    
      Brian, agape never gives up, always perseveres, always tries.
      I can't come to the same conclusion you do on the basis of
      1 Corin 13.  Jesus prayed 7 (a symbolic 7 I might add) times 
      for Mary.  He just wouldn't give up on her.
    
      Mike, I am sure your comment about Satan duping many was just
      the thing God inspired you to say that would be receivable by
      Patricia's heart (heavy sarcasm obviously implied).  Your comment
      couldn't be received gracefully by anyone of dissenting belief
      unless they were mighty in faith.  What a totally useless comment.
      Well, maybe it made someone feel better, but I doubt it could 
      sanctify a single person's heart.
    
      And, there is an eternal fire.  And _my_ Bible tells me it is 
      inhabited by the righteous (Isaiah 33:14-15).   This is because 
      the fire is the commandment/God's love (Song of Soloman 8:6-7/
      Isaiah 51:7) which law destroys anyone in whose heart is sin
      (Daniel 3:19-25).
    
      But, I know.  The last thing we would want to do is to study
      scripture like scripture tells us to study it (Isaiah 28).
    
      						Tony

"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur,
where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.  They will be tormented
day and night for ever and ever....  Then death and hades were thrown into the
lake of fire....  If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life,
he was thrown into the lake of fire." 
(Rev 20:10,14-15)

Pretty horrible place, the "lake of fire."  Let's see who's there:

	The devil
	The beast
	The false prophet
	Anyone whose name is not found written in the book of life

And let's see what else is there:

	Death
	The grave

And what is it like there:

	Torment

For how long:

	For ever and ever

Some of you people had better snap out of your fantasy world and accept the
reality of the situation.  The Creator of the universe is a God of judgment and
wrath, and plans to eternally punish those who are foolish enough to put their
faith in a god of their own creation. 

    Hello all-
    
    As far as this "is there really a hell?" stuff;
    
    If there was not a hell, then my Lord Christ's work would have been in
    vain, as well as his death and miraculous rising.
     And not only will I not even give ear to such ludicrous ideas,
    but it goes directly against everything that stands as true.
    
    "universal salvation" Hah! That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. If
    salvation was universal, then there would be nothing to be saved from.
    "salvation" itself implies that there is something to be saved from.
    Namely, hell, eternal damnation.
    Yes, I beleive that there is a horrible ugly place called hell, and
    that is where I was once destined to end up, had it not been for the
    great love that Christ showed on the cross for mine and everyone's
    sake!
    
      The enemy would like everyone to believe that there is no hell. The
    enemy himself wants to believe that there is no hell, because he is
    going there too. And if he gets everyone believfing that ther is no
    hell, then there would be no need in their eyes for the saving grace of
    Christ, and the ironic part is that no one would accept Christ,
    thinking there is no hell, and that is exactly where they would end up
    without him. Talk about learning the hard way!
    
    
    Hoping_I_made_sense,
    
    Joe
    
    

    RE:  .131  Joe
    
    / And if he gets everyone believfing that ther is no
    / hell, then there would be no need in their eyes for the saving grace of
    / Christ, and the ironic part is that no one would accept Christ,
    / thinking there is no hell, and that is exactly where they would end up
    / without him.
    
    'No one would accept Christ'?????  Not a single person on this planet?
    
    Is it utterly impossible for any human on the planet Earth to love Jesus 
    for His own sake rather than loving Him purely for the sake of escaping 
    the depths of hell?
    
    So we are a totally and completely selfish species, eh?  If we didn't
    worry about hell, not a one of us humans would care one iota for Jesus
    - is this what you're saying? 

    Amen Garth!  

    No, what I am saying is that if there was no hell, there would be
    nothing for sinners to fear. So they, thinking that they don't need
    Jesus, would depend on themselves. But those that would love God just
    for the sake of loving him wouldn't STOP, but just those who sometimes
    need to be scared into believing in Christ because of the reality of
    hell.
    
    is my point clear yet?
    
    Joe

    RE: .134  Joe

    / No, what I am saying is that if there was no hell, there would be
    / nothing for sinners to fear. So they, thinking that they don't need
    / Jesus, would depend on themselves. 
    
    Do you think most people love Jesus mostly out of the fear of what might
    happen to them if they do *not* love Jesus?

    / But those that would love God just
    / for the sake of loving him wouldn't STOP, but just those who sometimes
    / need to be scared into believing in Christ because of the reality of
    / hell.                              

    So, someone who *does* love God for God's own sake would not be in any
    danger by believing that hell does not exist.

    The only people who would be in danger by *not believing in hell* are
    those who only love God because they fear hell.

    / is my point clear yet?

    It would seem that people can love God in a more selfless and 'pure'
    way if they do not believe in hell (because they can love God for God's
    own sake and not what God can do for them.)
    
    It also seems possible that 'the existence of hell' is used as a way
    to scare people into becoming converts.  ('Join us or face eternity
    burning in hell.')

    
>    Is it utterly impossible for any human on the planet Earth to love Jesus 
>    for His own sake rather than loving Him purely for the sake of escaping 
>    the depths of hell?
 

     I came to love Jesus for what He did for me...please note that 
     Jesus Himself said "I came to seek and save that which was lost"..His
     mission on this earth was to pay the penalty for what I owed..my life
     in payment for my sin..and I am quite please to say that I love Him for
     that..does that mean that is the only reason I love Him..no.  Each day
     that passes I come to learn more about me, which in turn tells me
     just what it meant that He suffered and died for me, and my love for
     Him grows..


     Do you love Jesus?  Why?

   
    >So we are a totally and completely selfish species, eh?  If we didn't
    >worry about hell, not a one of us humans would care one iota for Jesus
    >- is this what you're saying? 


      The awarness of my sin, (Romans 3:10,23) the penalty for my sin (Romans
      6:23a) which by the way is eternal separation from God in Hell) the
      free gift from God of my salvation (6:23b) through Jesus Christ is
      quite a good reason for me to love Jesus, wouldn't you think?  And
      frankly I'm sure God is pleased with that..now, I'm sure there are those
      who think they can "grab" on to Jesus for a free ride to heaven, but
      I suspect their motives will be exposed at some point.


   Jim

 God loved us so much that he lived and died that those who believe (trust)
 in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life..

 Would you please explain to us, what is so wrong with loving Him for that?



John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 

 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that 
the world through him might be saved. 

    RE: .136  Jim Henderson

    / The awarness of my sin, (Romans 3:10,23) the penalty for my sin (Romans
    / 6:23a) which by the way is eternal separation from God in Hell) the
    / free gift from God of my salvation (6:23b) through Jesus Christ is
    / quite a good reason for me to love Jesus, wouldn't you think?  

    Well, it doesn't sound like you would be in a lot of danger if you
    stopped believing in hell, though.  (Or would you?  Would you stop
    loving Jesus if you found out that hell does not exist?)

    / And frankly I'm sure God is pleased with that..now, I'm sure there are 
    / those who think they can "grab" on to Jesus for a free ride to heaven, 
    / but I suspect their motives will be exposed at some point.

    People can convince themselves of almost anything.  For example,
    Paul Hill thinks he is going straight to heaven for murdering an
    abortion doctor and the doctor's escort.

    RE: .137  Jim Henderson

    /God loved us so much that he lived and died that those who believe (trust)
    /in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life..

    /Would you please explain to us, what is so wrong with loving Him for that?

    Would this sound as compelling to you if 'perish' were defined simply
    as '*not* spending eternity with God'?

    Would you give up the prospect of a Heavenly reward if you knew that
    those who don't go to heaven *do not* burn in hell for eternity?

    Wouldn't the loss of an eternity with God be punishment enough?

    
    That is what perish means Suzanne, eternal separation from God,
    a spiritual death.
    

    Well, I guess the issue I have with 'hell' is the idea that someone
    who truly loves God wouldn't stop loving God just because s/he found
    out that hell doesn't exist (which means that 'avoiding hell' is not
    the major point of loving God.)
    
    So why is it that some folks tell others that if people didn't believe 
    in hell, then 'no one would accept Christ' (as if they wouldn't have
    some other reason to love Jesus anyway)?
    
    It's this 'hard sell' approach to religion ('Join us or burn in hell
    for eternity') that I find strange, especially when it's used toward
    someone who already professes to love Jesus a great deal without
    necessarily believing in hell.

    RE: .140  
    
    / That is what perish means Suzanne, eternal separation from God,
    / a spiritual death.
    
    Exactly!!  So why all the stuff about burning in hell for eternity
    - wouldn't an 'eternal separation from God, a spiritual death' be
    punishment enough?

    I think the context is backwards.
    
    God is love.  We cannot love him or be love unless we know Him.  In
    this world love has been defined by many as a feeling, or as action or
    as lust... but true love is agape and covers all.
    
    WE cannot love God until we first experience His love.. which was made
    manifest on the cross.  I agree with Joe... Christ's death would be a
    mockery of that love and very unjust if there is no hell.
    
    I of course do believe that there is a hell, but I also know that if
    Satan can convince people that there is not simply by redefining love,
    [for a loving God would have no hell], then he can make a mockery of
    Jesus' death.
    
    The decision is up to each individual to choose Love as manifested on
    the cross, or to accept the redefinition or redefine it themselves.
    
    But Love that satisfies the longing in the soul is God himself, I pray
    that no-one settles for a clone.
    
    
    Nancy
    

 Suzanne, I note you did not answer the question I posed in .136 "do you
 love Jesus, and why?"



 Jim

    RE: .143  Nancy Morales
    
    / WE cannot love God until we first experience His love.. which was made
    / manifest on the cross.  I agree with Joe... Christ's death would be a
    / mockery of that love and very unjust if there is no hell.
    
    If 'perish (eternal separation from God, a spiritual death)' is
    punishment enough, why would Christ's death be a mockery for saving
    people from 'perishing' (even if it didn't mean burning in hell for
    eternity)?
              
    / But Love that satisfies the longing in the soul is God himself, I pray
    / that no-one settles for a clone.
    
    Are you saying that a person can't believe in God unless they also
    believe in hell?

    RE: .0

    / 4 - so why can't God just let every one in to Heaven?

    / And the answer is hidden in that last question. "Justice".

    If there is such a thing as 'not going to Heaven', does it necessarily
    have to be defined (literally) as 'burning in hell for eternity'?

    Why can't 'not going to Heaven' be defined as 'not allowed to spend
    eternity with God' (which would be punishment enough)?

    Wouldn't justice be served if a non-deserving person was simply 'not
    allowed to spend eternity with God' (in other words, 'died a spiritual
    death')?

    > Are you saying that a person can't believe in God unless they also
    >believe in hell?
    
    This is a curious question.  I don't believe that is what I said, but
    then again maybe it is. :-) How's that for ambiguity?
    
    Uhmm let me think this through..
    
    God's love was made manifest in Christ on the cross.  But one cannot
    fully know the love of God unless they accept it in its entirety, which
    includes the belief in Hell.
    
    So, I guess the answer is Yes... though I would have answered No at
    first.
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 728.137 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>



| John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
| that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

| 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that
| the world through him might be saved.



	Gee Jim.... Paul was going off a while back that you have to show you
love Him by believing His teachings. It doesn't say that above.

	But I was happy that Paul was upfront about it all.

	Nancy, I can't believe you wrote the fear thing when you wrote what you
did about those who you perceive as non-Christians over in soapbox. What was
it, people get upset by the morals Christians have cuz they compare it to their
own lives. How you compared the non-Christians to dirt and dust? I can't
believe you can say all that, and then bring in the fear factor. You're too
much Nancy, to much.


Glen

    >If 'perish (eternal separation from God, a spiritual death)' is
    >punishment enough, why would Christ's death be a mockery for saving
    >people from 'perishing' (even if it didn't mean burning in hell for
    >eternity)?
    
    Well I guess I'd have to ask who is defining what is enough?

    It seems as though 'not allowed to spend eternity with God' doesn't
    sound bad enough for the 'hard sell' for conversion (because some 
    people might not care if they ever see God.)  Some would be happy
    to get eternal 'non-existence' so they wouldn't have to worry about
    anything.
    
    "Burning in hell ('the torture of the damned') for eternity" sounds 
    a lot scarier.
    
    Isn't the purpose (of such a scary scenario) to get converts and/or
    to believe that justice is served (for eternity) to those who don't
    convert?
    
    The thing is - is it really 'justice' to burn in hell for eternity
    simply because someone holds a different religious belief than someone
    else (although this person tried to exhibit as much faith and love
    toward God as s/he knew how to do?)
    
    'Burning in hell for eternity' (not for 120 years, or for 300 years,
    but for all time) sounds like a pretty harsh penalty for almost anyone
    except maybe Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin (who both killed millions.)
    
    A difference of religious belief sounds like a very small reason to
    condemn someone to the torture of the damned for eternity (and I don't
    believe God is given to such small reasons for doing things, although 
    human beings most definitely can be!!)

    .147
    
    #1 What *fear* thing?
    #2 You're reading comprehension is still needing attention even 
       in this conference, Glen.
    
    #3 I'm not at all surprised that you find the concept of sin
       as offensive.
    
    Nancy

    Anyone wishing to see the notes in their context may look in soapbox
    note 430.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    RE: .148  Nancy Morales
    
    // If 'perish (eternal separation from God, a spiritual death)' is
    // punishment enough, why would Christ's death be a mockery for saving
    // people from 'perishing' (even if it didn't mean burning in hell for
    // eternity)?
    
    / Well I guess I'd have to ask who is defining what is enough?
    
    If you died and were not allowed to see God, wouldn't this be the worst
    thing that could possibly happen to you (after all the years you've
    spent loving God and expecting to spend eternity with God and with
    those you love who are with God in Heaven)?
    
    Wouldn't this be a horrible enough punishment?

    I know very few people who were scared into salvation.. I know many
    people who were loved into salvation.
    
    I don't believe the central theme of Christianity is Hell, though I do
    believe it is a consequence for rejection of Christ.  I believe the
    central theme of Christianity to be the love manifested on the cross,
    so that Hell becomes a choice, not an inevitable.
    
    The key here is knowing that no amount of your love or self
    righteousness will gain entrance to the kingdom of Heaven.  That the
    only door to heaven is through Christ.
    
    BTW, in the Bible those who go to hell will face Christ, they will look
    Him in the eyes and see the love and pain of their choice.  Matthew on
    the otherhand gets to greet the saints as they arrive.
    
    How sad to see the redeemer, the one whom you rejected as being real..
    the Bible says that every knee will bow to Jesus....
    
    Again, it is in my heart to see all that participate in this conference
    in heaven. 
    
    Nancy

    It is not up to me to surmise the justice of God.  If you want my
    human, fleshly reaction, I'd have to say that would be emotional
    suffering, but spiritual consequence is what we are discussing, not
    human emotion.
    
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 728.149 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| .147

| #1 What *fear* thing?

	Try reading your .125 Nancy.

| #2 You're reading comprehension is still needing attention even in this 
| conference, Glen.

	I'm reading just fine Nancy. How bout you? Have ya read .125 yet?

| #3 I'm not at all surprised that you find the concept of sin
| as offensive.

	I don't compare people to dirt and dust, and Christians as light. I
would consider God as light, but not Christians, not any human being. Putting
yourself up a little high there, aren't you Nancy? The same thing you stated
people accuse you of?

| -< Try a reading of the book of Romans Glen >-

	That's in the Bible, right?

    .153
    
    Glen,
    
    You are not making sense to me at all.  I read .125 here [thought you
    meant in soapbox] and can't understand your beef, well I suppose I can
    if I really think about your noting here.
    
    I said Christians were dirt and dust... we all have sinned.  I'm a
    sinner and as Paul has said the chiefest thereof.
    
    Again, I don't think you understood the intent of the message, but
    heard through your filters what you wanted.
    
    Are you willing to accept that you are wrong about your perception?  Or
    do you just wish to continue to accuse?
    
    Nancy

    RE: .152  Nancy Morales
    
    // If you died and were not allowed to see God, wouldn't this be the worst
    // thing that could possibly happen to you (after all the years you've
    // spent loving God and expecting to spend eternity with God and with
    // those you love who are with God in Heaven)?
    
    // Wouldn't this be a horrible enough punishment?
    
    / It is not up to me to surmise the justice of God.  If you want my
    / human, fleshly reaction, I'd have to say that would be emotional
    / suffering, but spiritual consequence is what we are discussing, not
    / human emotion.
    
    The punishment mentioned above *is* spiritual consequence.  If you
    were not allowed to see God when you died, wouldn't it be spiritual
    death (and wouldn't this be a horrible enough punishment)?

    >The punishment mentioned above *is* spiritual consequence.  If you
    >were not allowed to see God when you died, wouldn't it be spiritual
    >death (and wouldn't this be a horrible enough punishment)?
    
    The answer remains the same.  This is *emotional* punishment, not
    spiritual.  The spiritual death is Hell, not simply separation from
    God.  This is again God's area of definition, not my human ponderings
    of what God means.  He defined Hell, I did not.  
    
    God has told us what Hell is like, are you saying now that you believe
    Hell to be different then as the Bible declares it?
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

RE:                  <<< Note 728.147 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>


>| John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
>| that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

>| 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that
>| the world through him might be saved.



>	Gee Jim.... Paul was going off a while back that you have to show you
>love Him by believing His teachings. It doesn't say that above.


 What??


>	Nancy, I can't believe you wrote the fear thing when you wrote what you
>did about those who you perceive as non-Christians over in soapbox. What was
>it, people get upset by the morals Christians have cuz they compare it to their
>own lives. How you compared the non-Christians to dirt and dust? I can't
>believe you can say all that, and then bring in the fear factor. You're too
>much Nancy, to much.



 1)  Please keep discussions in other conferences out of this one

 2)  Please keep your personal comments directed at other noters out of this 
     conference.



  Jim

 Suzanne...please refer to .130 in this topic.  Also, please refer to
 the guidelines in 2.* which state what we in this conference believe,
 and why we are here.


 This debate on what if this and what if that is foolish, since the Word of
 God is quite clear on the reality of the situation we all face.



 Jim

    Nancy,
    
>    Again, it is in my heart to see all that participate in this conference
>    in heaven.

    Amen, But there are those here who have 'hardened hearts', and will
    (sadly) miss it.

    S_ (Suzanne?)

    you keep bringing up the question about 'Eternal separation from God' as
    "punishment Enough"?

    I don't know. I'm not God. However, from my understanding of the Bible,
    it appears to me that there *is* a literal Hell, and that there is/will
    be a literal 'Lake of Fire' where all who's name is not written in the
    Book of Life will be cast. This includes satan, his demons, and all who
    were(are) not followers of the Living God.

    Yes, they will be Eternally Separated from the Living God, but
    apparently, His Justice is such that it demands that *someone* "pay"
    for each individual's sin. Christians have the advantage that Jesus has
    already Paid that Price! *He* is the *only* method/path/way/{whatever}
    to Salvation.

    Eternal Separataion from God as 'punishment enough'? Well, as I said. I
    dunno. But God took it *seriously* enough to throw us a life-line in
    Jesus. But if we don't grab onto that life-line, if we refuse to think
    that we are drowning, if we insist that we can do it our own way and
    that we will make it to safety on our own, then we will drown.

    And there ain;t no life-lines in the Lake of Fire :(

    Harry

	Nancy, in your note in soapbox you stated Christians were seen as
light, and in that case, the dirt and dust is seen. this was your reason for
saying that non-christians get upset at christians.

    RE: .156  Nancy Morales

    // The punishment mentioned above *is* spiritual consequence.  If you
    // were not allowed to see God when you died, wouldn't it be spiritual
    // death (and wouldn't this be a horrible enough punishment)?

    / The answer remains the same.  This is *emotional* punishment, not
    / spiritual.  

    'Spiritual death' sounds pretty spiritual to me.  It also sounds
    pretty final (as in 'dead'), which sounds like a lot more than
    just an emotional experience.

    / The spiritual death is Hell, not simply separation from
    / God.  This is again God's area of definition, not my human ponderings
    / of what God means.  He defined Hell, I did not.  
    
    Spiritual death would be hell, alright, even without burning in
    hell for eternity.

    / God has told us what Hell is like, are you saying now that you believe
    / Hell to be different then as the Bible declares it?
           
    It was described in terms of one of the most hellish types of pain that 
    can be experienced on Earth:  fire upon flesh.  I think it was meant to
    describe the misery of a spiritual being who is being denied access
    to God for eternity (which is a horrible, horrible, horrible punishment
    in and of itself even without feeling the sensation of burning flesh.)

    RE: .146  Nancy Morales
    
    / Are you saying that a person can't believe in God unless they also
    / believe in hell?
    
    / God's love was made manifest in Christ on the cross.  But one cannot
    / fully know the love of God unless they accept it in its entirety, which
    / includes the belief in Hell.
    
    / So, I guess the answer is Yes... though I would have answered No at
    / first.
    
    So, all it takes to burn in hell for eternity is to hold a somewhat
    different religious belief than others hold about this?  How about 
    if someone truly, truly loves Jesus and does everything possible to
    live a life dedicated to this love for God - but does not believe
    in hell?  Would this person burn in hell for eternity for having
    a different belief, even if the person spent his/her life devoted
    to Jesus?
    
    Would this be justice?  Jesus even believed that 'an eye for an eye'
    was too harsh, didn't He?  So how does a 'failure to believe in hell'
    turn out to be so awful that a person deserves to burn in hell (and
    suffer the endless torture of the damned) for it?

>    So, all it takes to burn in hell for eternity is to hold a somewhat
>    different religious belief than others hold about this?  How about 
>    if someone truly, truly loves Jesus and does everything possible to
>    live a life dedicated to this love for God - but does not believe
>    in hell?  Would this person burn in hell for eternity for having
>    a different belief, even if the person spent his/her life devoted
>    to Jesus?

        Matthew 7:21

    "Not everyone who says to me,[Jesus] 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
    kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in
    heaven. (22) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not
    prophecy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform
    many miracles?' (23) Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.
    Away from me you evildoers!' (NIV)

    RE: .158  Jim Henderson
    
    / Suzanne...please refer to .130 in this topic.  Also, please refer to
    / the guidelines in 2.* which state what we in this conference believe,
    / and why we are here.

    I'm sorry if my questions have been difficult or unwelcome.  I will
    cease my search (in this forum) for answers to my questions.
                                                                

 Ask the rich man in verse 24 if he believes in a firey hell.



Luke 16:20  And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at 
his gate, full of sores, 

 21  And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's 
table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 

 22  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels 
into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 

 23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham 
afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 

 24  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send 
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; 
for I am tormented in this flame. 

 25  But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy 
good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and 
thou art tormented. 

 26  And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so 
that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to 
us, that would come from thence. 

 27  Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him 
to my father's house: 

 28  For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also 
come into this place of torment. 

 29  Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear 
them. 

 30  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the 
dead, they will repent. 

 31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. 

    RE: .162
    
    // Would this person burn in hell for eternity for having
    // a different belief, even if the person spent his/her life devoted
    // to Jesus?
    
    / Not everyone who says to me,[Jesus] 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
    / kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in
    / heaven...
    
    My note was talking about doing the Lord's will (in a life spent
    devoted to Jesus.)
    
    Your quote doesn't say that believing in hell is a critical piece of
    the Lord's will, such that if one does not believe in hell, the Lord
    would say: 'I never knew you.  Away from me you evildoers!'
    
    If a person does everything possible to do the Lord's will, how is
    this evil?
    
    If this is a forbidden question, I won't ask it again.

    Jim,

    I *love* this verse:
    
> 31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
>will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    It's *so* true. There is Moses, the Prophets, and to cap it off, the
    One who rose from the dead! And they still are not persuaded.

    Thank you Lord for persuading me.

 Questions are quite welcome, and answers have been provided as best we can..
 Again, we base our beliefs on the Word of God, thus our answers are based
 on the Word of God.  We recognize that not all are comfortable with what
 the Word of God has to say.


 Jim

    Well, Jim, it seems as though words from the Bible are frequently
    used in situations where these matters are not directly specified
    or referred to in the Bible, which certainly seems like a degree of
    'interpretation' is involved.
    
    If a person doesn't believe in hell, this person is described as
    an 'evildoer' (even though the Bible does *not* directly say that 
    a person who does not believe in hell will necessarily go there due
    to this one belief even if the person spends an entire lifetime
    doing God's will.)
    
    Nothing I've ever read in the Bible has ever made me uncomfortable.
    
    Seeing what others can do with quotes from the Bible sometimes does 
    make me uncomfortable, though, and it raises serious questions for me
    at times.

    Suzanne,
    
    You seem to be making accusations in this conference versus seeking
    answers.  You throw out bait and then when answered, you tear the
    answer apart... had I not seen your m.o. elsewhere, perhaps I'd believe
    that you were sincerely looking.
    
    I truly exhort you to take your search to God himself, through a
    thorough scriptural study.  Start with with the gospel of John and
    then work your way through the vast many verses that have been offered
    here for your study.
    
    I really believe that a woman with your intelligence, and obvious
    mind-made-up opinions don't really need *our* assistance in your
    search.
    
    Nancy

    Glen you obviously have determined to make accusations versus reading
    content with context.  
    
    Nancy

	FWIW, my "take" on the question raised is that one *can*
at first have a very incomplete (or even very distorted) understanding
of some Biblical doctrines (such as the lake of fire), yet begin to
trust and rely on and know the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed by
the Scriptures and (usually) as preached by a faithful steward.
One *can* begin to accept the atonement he purchased with His own blood,
and begin to live His exchanged Life in place of one's own.

	Over time, by reading the Bible and listening to the true voice
of the Shepherd by His Holy Spirit, one can (and should) begin to
understand and believe all of the clear teachings of the Bible.

	When this fails to occur at all, one should carefully
examine the foundations of his or her faith, and, if necessary,
abandon all rotten foundations in order to begin building anew;
line upon line, precept upon precept, like a child learning to
walk for the first time.

    Suzanne,
    
    This seems like a moot point.  I mean without there being sin and 
    the punishment thereof, Christ had no reason to come and die on the
    cross.  There would have been no separation from God.  
    
    Another thing is that you act as if we are making up this whole
    hell concept just as a selling point.  We didn't write the bible.
    It's God's Word.  He brought it up.  Whether it's literal or 
    simply imagery of what it will be like to be separated from God,
    the pain still there.  Why would anyone want that pain?  And
    why would it be wrong to point out that pain to someone else, if
    my God loved me enough to point it out to me.  
    
    Lastly, I think you should be concerned that you've never felt
    uncomfortable about anything you read in the bible.  You should
    be very uncomfortable that your sin separates you from God and
    you should be extremely thankful that Christ atoned for those
    sins.  That thankfulness should turn into a humbled heart before
    God asking for forgiveness, a personal belief that Christ died for 
    your sins, was buried, and rose again loosing the chains of death
    on all who would follow Him.  Jesus needs to be the Lord of your 
    life.  
    
    I hold out hope.  I mean Saul persecuted christians too and look 
    what God did to him!  I'm up for another miracle.  Open your heart
    to Christ Suzanne.
    
    Jill

    RE: .58  Nancy Morales
    
    / You seem to be making accusations in this conference versus seeking
    / answers.  You throw out bait and then when answered, you tear the
    / answer apart... had I not seen your m.o. elsewhere, perhaps I'd believe
    / that you were sincerely looking.
    
    These personal comments from you (regarding my character) will not
    be answered.

Suzanne - SURPRISE! - I understand what you were saying and I agree with what
seems to be the main point you were trying to make.  I believe you're
absolutely correct, eternal separation from God is the most horrible
punishment imaginable, and no torment added on to that can make it
significantly worse.  If eternity without God in horrible torment is
-(infinity) on the scale of things that I'd like to do, then eternity without
God in ease and comfort only rates -(infinity-1).  Hell is eternity without
God, and though I accept the Bible's description as a place of torment, the
fire and torment isn't at all the part that makes me want to stay away from
it.

But that's not really the point of departure here.  This whole string began
not over whether hell - eternity without God - is a place of torment or a
place simply apart from God, but in response to the assertion that there is
no such thing as eternal separation from God at all - that God will save
every person, that ultimately every person will spend eternity with Him.

If you do believe in hell as a place of eternal separation from God, but
don't believe in hell as a place of eternal firey torment, that belief is not
necessarily going to cause significant problems in itself.  It will undermine
faith in what the Bible teaches and THAT will cause problems, but specific
belief about exactly what hell is like isn't that big a deal.  For myself,
I've never much cared, really.  If asked the question "Do you want to be put
to death?" I wouldn't really be all that interested in determining the method
of execution before answering "NO."

The lie that hell is just separation from God and not a place of torment
isn't really a very big one.  We all believe some lies, none of us have
perfectly attained the truth of Christ.  And as noted, every lie we believe
undermines the truth and paves the way for bigger lies.  But this lie doesn't
invalidate Christ's death or atonement - Christ has still saved us from
eternity without God.

But if you go on from that to accept the belief that there is no such thing
as eternal separation from God at all, then there's no sense of urgency or
obligation in life.  I lived this way for many years as a christian.  There's
no real need to draw closer to God - "He'll forgive me for my wayward ways,
I'll be with Him in eternity no matter what, so for today I don't have to
really follow Him."

THIS lie is a big one.  This is the one that invalidates the cross.  This is
the one that lures us down to death.  This is the sweet-smelling bait in the
trap.

Though it's important in maintaining Biblical integrity to accept what hell
is like, that's not nearly as important as maintaining the existence of hell
in the first place.  All the wrangling in this note over what hell is like
before even agreeing on hell's existence is swinging wildly at the gnat while
the camel strolls on in.

I'd love to see us leave the question of what hell is actually like alone for
the moment.  Yes, it is an important important question, but right now it is
only a distraction from a much more important question.

Paul

    RE: .61  Jill
    
    / Lastly, I think you should be concerned that you've never felt
    / uncomfortable about anything you read in the bible.  
    
    I should have phrased this differently.  As I stated later in my
    note, I am *more* uncomfortable by how I see human beings attempt
    to *use* quotes from the Bible (than I am uncomfortable by the
    Bible itself.)
    
    / I hold out hope.  I mean Saul persecuted christians too and look 
    / what God did to him!  I'm up for another miracle.  Open your heart
    / to Christ Suzanne.
    
    My heart is already open to Christ, Jill.  Obviously, our views are
    not strictly and 100.0000% identical, though, and I have some honest
    questions about some of your views (and I use the term 'your' in a
    situation where questions have gone to numerous people because it
    seems as though most folks here have strictly and 100.0000% identical
    views on Christianity.)
    
    When you meet someone who loves Christ but who also sees things a
    bit differently than some folks do, it doesn't seem right to try to 
    push this person away from Christ by saying that s/he doesn't really 
    accept Christ.  Only God can know enough to make such a judgment.  
    (I'm talking here about people in general who love Christ but who also
    see things a bit differently than most folks here do.  A great many
    Christians in the world hold slightly different views than those
    presented here and only God can know if God looks upon these people
    with favor.  Not so?)
    
    / ...I mean Saul persecuted christians too...
    
    Do questions amount to the 'persecution of Christians'?

    RE: .67  Paul Weiss
    
    / Suzanne - SURPRISE! - I understand what you were saying and I agree 
    / with what seems to be the main point you were trying to make.
    
    Wow, thanks!
    
    / But if you go on from that to accept the belief that there is no such 
    / thing as eternal separation from God at all,
    
    I have a surprise for you, too - I do actually believe that there is
    such a thing as 'eternal separation from God'.  I believe that this
    is the depth of spiritual misery that is called 'hell' (and has been
    described as 'burning for eternity' to give an idea of what this misery
    is like.)

| <<< Note 737.58 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| You seem to be making accusations in this conference versus seeking answers.  
| You throw out bait and then when answered, you tear the answer apart... had I 
| not seen your m.o. elsewhere, perhaps I'd believe that you were sincerely 
| looking.

	Wow..... look who is making accusations now Nancy. You are. I honestly
believe she IS looking for answers. For you to say what you did was definitely
uncalled for. Man... you just don't stop, do you.....

| I really believe that a woman with your intelligence, and obvious mind-made-up
| opinions don't really need *our* assistance in your search.

	Real good Nancy.... real good....

| <<< Note 737.59 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Glen you obviously have determined to make accusations versus reading
| content with context.


	Nancy, nice to know that you have a way of guessing what I am doing. It
doesn't match reality, but that's ok I guess....

Please keep on the topic here, folks, or I'll have to start another topic 
for personal reactions....  Probably call it NL: .... ;-)

								Andrew

    It just sounds so much more nobler to love God because God is worthy of
    our love than to love good because if we don't than he will torture us
    forever.
    
    It sounds so impossible to really love a God who would torture even one
    human being.
    
    Can any of us love a ruler like Hitler?  Then how can we love a God who
    would make Hitler's evil look like child's play.
    
    And how would we explain the quotation in 1 John that says
     In love there is no fear?  For fear distorts love.  Any one who is
    converted out of fear risks the possibility of never having a healthy,
    mature relationship with  God.  I don't think it is possible to
    have a mature love for one whom we fear.
    
    So fear, if anything traps a person into a perpetually childish
    relationship.
    
                                 Patricia

  It was God's *love*..demonstrated by the torture and death of Jesus Christ
 on the cross on my behalf and your's, that led me to Him.  I spent 26 years
 of my life thinking I was a "good" person and that Heaven was for everyone..

 But the question "how good is good enough?" came into play, "by grace we
 are saved through faith", and John 3:16, John 14:6, John 3:3 "Ye MUST (not
 should, not 'it would nice if you were, but',) be born again..


 I can still remember laying awake one night when I realized that God loved 
 me so much that He came to earth and lived and died that I might spend 
 eternity with him...


  Jim

    The title of this base note shows an extreme persecution of Unitarian
    Universalists by this notes file.  I only point this out because of the 
    comments herin that Christians are being persecuted.  I also feel
    persecuted in here for being an Unitarian Universalist Christian
    instead of a fundementalist Christian.  I have also heard negative,
    adverse comments in here about UCC Christians, Methodist Christians,
    and Jehovah Witnesses.  All the while claiming that Christians are
    being persecuted.

> it
>    seems as though most folks here have strictly and 100.0000% identical
>    views on Christianity.)

>it doesn't seem right to try to 
>    push this person away from Christ

Suzanne, I (and others) have answered this accusation before (See note 717
and reply .7 to that note).  You have never responded to that answer, yet you
bring the accusation again.  Could you either respond to that answer or stop
bringing the same accusation?

To reiterate:

There are two possible extremes.  At one extreme is the position you paint -
unless there is 100.00000% agreement, people call each other 'non-christian.'

No one in this file believes that extreme, though you keep accusing us of it.

At the other extreme is a complete inability or unwillingness to identify any
idea as being not of Christ.  At this extreme, it would be impossible to
classify murdering abortionists or other atrocities as 'non-christian.'  The
argument 'who are you to judge?' if absolutized, forces acceptance of
anything and everything.

I would hope that we would both agree that we want to be somewhere in the
middle.  That some actions and ideas, such as murdering abortionists, are
simply not of Christ, and we must declare them so.  And at the other end, we
need to recognize that we are not perfectly formed in Christ's likeness yet,
so we will have disagreements that we should not allow to separate us.

Many of your notes, Suzanne, make you sound like you are all the way at one
extreme.  But I know you are not, and I would not raise accusations that you
are.  Please don't do the same to us.

Paul

     Hi Patricia,
    
       I believe one thing prevents you from seeing the possibility
       that God can be unconditional love AND that a group of people
       can end up unsaved.
    
       And that is that somehow people can choose to not want any part
       of God.
    
       Now I believe in eventual destruction of the lost where that 
       which destroys is the arousal of sin brought on by an unveiled
       revelation of God's love.
    
       Anyway, the fact that some people can reject perfect love may 
       seem unfathomable, but you really do put yourself in a unique 
       position when you cling to universalism because it so clearly 
       rejects so much scripture.
    
       You are kind of giving a message that won't find much appeal here
       because of how we look upon the Bible.  You literally have to just
       consider as dung huge amounts of scripture in order to embrace 
       your position and I'm just not up to doing that as I believe the
       Bible to be the word of God.
    
    							Tony

>    And how would we explain the quotation in 1 John that says
>     In love there is no fear?

Again, Patricia, for you to keep asking "How would we explain this passage?"
when you absolutely refuse to do the same really doesn't go anywhere.

Paul

          
 "There is no fear in love.  But perfect love casts out fear, because fear 
  has to do with punishment.  The one who fears is not made perfect in 
  love."
							1 John 4:18


> - "I fear because I am not like Him." [and I ought to be]
>and
> - "I ache to be like Him." [as I ought to be]

>				- may not be so very different
    
    
    Paul,  I will use Andrew's example to explain how I interprets 1 John
    4:18.
     
    I see Jesus as being the revelation of God's love.  He is the
    incarnation of God's love.  We are told in Paul's letters to the
    Corinthians, the Jesus is the first fruit and each of us can by
    adoption also be the son and daughter of God.  I believe that what is
    needed is to accept God fully into our lives and ache to be like
    Christ.  Ache to live a life of Godly love.  To ache to emulate Christ.
    
    The first example, to follow because of fear is exactly what 1 John
    4:18 preaches against.  To emulate Christ because of the persuasive
    power of Christ's love is what is required.  Christ exibits what is
    currently referred to as "Power with" as opposed to "Power over".  
    Christ's "Power with" is the persuasive power of his personality to
    bring out the best powers of all who come under his influence.
    
    Perhaps there is a limit to how many persons can be attracted by
    Christ's perfect love.  I would still prefer to live my life as if
    there were no limit to the power of God's love in Christ.  The issue
    for each one of us should be how are each of us in our lifes doing in
    mirroring Christ's love for all of humanity.  The test for each of us,
    is not what we say we believe, not what we think we believe, not with
    how certain we are about our beliefs, but how much influence Christ's
    love has on our lifes as reflected in our loving and caring for and
    about others.
    
    I do object to a community of Christ establishing itself as an
    exclusive community setting up its own rules regarding who is in and
    who is out.  Christ's love is for all of humankind and all of creation.
    Even though it can feel more comfortable restricting oneself to an
    exclusive community, it allows a blindness to the inclusivity of God's
    love for all of creation.  I am called by my God, to be the best that I
    can be.  I have been asked by many of you, why I note in here.  I have
    given different answers depending upon what seemed to be the truth of
    the moment.  The real answer is that I do not know why I continue to
    note in her to be attached for my beliefs.  I hope and pray that it is
    because God has something he wants you all to hear.  I also hope and
    pray that I too am open to what God wants me to hear.
    
                                      Patricia
    

    RE: .78  Paul
    
    // it
    // seems as though most folks here have strictly and 100.0000% identical
    // views on Christianity.)

    // it doesn't seem right to try to 
    // push this person away from Christ

    / Suzanne, I (and others) have answered this accusation before (See note 
    / 717 and reply .7 to that note).  You have never responded to that 
    / answer, yet you bring the accusation again.  Could you either respond 
    / to that answer or stop bringing the same accusation?
    
    Let me phrase this a different way:
    
    Would you be offended if I discussed religion with you and then said,
    'Gee, we don't agree on this but I still hope you will learn to accept
    Christ someday' (with the obvious implication that if you don't see
    things precisely as I do, then you cannot possibly be presumed to have
    accepted Christ)?
    
    This amounts to an attempt to push others away from Christ and it
    happens way too often to get dismissed with 'We already explained
    about this.'
    
    Why is it necessary (in a discussion about religion) to tell others
    about the states of their souls (a judgment only God can make)?

To those who believe that God wouldn't eternally punish a person for a finite
number of wrongdoings committed in this life: 

Then do you expect God to eternally reward you for a finite amount of goodwill
performed in this life? 

re .84

;To those who believe that God wouldn't eternally punish a person for a finite
;number of wrongdoings committed in this life: 

;Then do you expect God to eternally reward you for a finite amount of goodwill
;performed in this life? 

Garth,

Ofcourse not, nothing one can do can earn salvation. It is through undeserved
kindness or grace that those who exercise faith have the opportunity of eternal
life. Alternatively, the wages sin pays is death (Romans 6:23). Eternal life is
a free gift from God not something earned. So I'm not sure what point you are
making.

Phil. 

    
    Andrew,
    
    How about Eternal Punishment, Annihilation, Hell.
    
    or is the H* word to strong.
    
    Since Universalism was the denominations name before the merger in the
    USA with the Unitarians to become Unitarian-Universalist, the title
    gives the message that all us Universalists are going to Hell.  I may
    be a little oversensitive there.
    
    I guess I do wish I had more time for this research.  It would be
    interesting to collect all the biblical references to God's universal
    love.
    
    It is even interesting to note that "Orthordox Christianity" itself has
    moved toward a more universalist position which I do believe was the
    issue in the original note.  In the 19th century in the U.S. when
    Unitarians split off from Calvinists, the belief in predestination was
    strong.  The belief was that most of humanity was damned and a small
    segment had been chosen by God and subject to God's grace.  If one was
    not one of the predestined few, there was nothing one could do to
    obtain God's Grace.
    
    It seems to me that a few from this file still believe as the
    Calvanists believed, but most ascribe to the Universal love of God
    poured out to all persons.  It is the persons willingness to accept
    God's love that is at issue, but there is a belief that all persons are
    able to accept God's love.  I have gone one step further in asserting that
    God's love is the most powerful influence in the World and therefore
    no person is able to totally deny that love.  The lost sheep parable
    rings out for me when I write this.  What would prevent our Shepherd
    from reaching out and finding every single lost sheep?

    RE: .84  Garth
    
    / To those who believe that God wouldn't eternally punish a person 
    / for a finite number of wrongdoings committed in this life: 

    / Then do you expect God to eternally reward you for a finite amount 
    / of goodwill performed in this life? 
    
    Personally, I don't think God is limited to these two choices.  How
    about an eternal loss of God (without the fire and brimstone)?
    
    Also, I thought that even Hitler could have gone to Heaven if he had
    been saved before he died (because people don't 'earn' Heaven, but
    receive salvation as a 'gift' for accepting Christ) - not so?

      re: .84
    
      Well, Garth, you did not address any of the scriptures I put forward,
      so whats the use?
    
      Isaiah 33:14,15
      Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?  Who among us shall
      dwell with everlasting burnings?
    
      [The lost...right Garth?]
    
      He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly.
    
    
      And the above is because the fire is God's unveiled presence which
      destroys anyone in whose heart is sin and which is joy to anyone of
      a pure heart.
    
      And again, the lost are not destroyed because God leaves them, they
      are destroyed because God comes near to them and is a devouring fire
      to them.
    
    							Tony

Suzanne and Patricia - could either of you clarify something for me?  This is
a real question, not an attack.  I really don't understand this and I really
want to.

You both use the concept "who are we to judge?" to assert that your position
on particular issues should not be judged.  At the same time, you both affirm
that the shooting of abortionists is not a Christian action.  (Suzanne has
explicitly, I believe you have in the past, Patricia - I assume you'd agree
anyway).

My question is:  On what basis do you assert that the shooting of
abortionists is not of Christ?

It very much appears to be on the basis that Christ said repeatedly that we
are to love all people, including our enemies, that we are to overcome evil
with good.  Shooting people we disagree with just doesn't fit with what
Christ said, and I believe that you have correctly identified that they don't
match.

But I don't understand why the exact same reasoning cannot be used against
other positions that you happen to agree with.

So my second question is:  Whatever basis you use to assert that the shooting
of abortionists is not of Christ, why can't the same reasoning be used to
assert that the concept of universal salvation is not of Christ?

Paul

    
    Suzanne,
    
    I apologize.  I didn't realize you professed Christ as your Savior 
    and Lord in accordance with the gospel.  Is that what you're saying 
    or am I still offbase?  My comment about persecution was because your 
    notes feel to me more like you're on a 'search and destroy' mission 
    rather than just an honest search.  If that is not the case, I 
    apologize again and suggest that a more careful perusal of all
    the guidelines in 2.* might be helpful in finding a more condusive
    style of noting in this conference.
    
    Patricia,
    
    I don't think the title about Universalism is at all referring to
    Univeralists/Unitarians.  It's referring to the concept of whether
    salvation is universal, not the people who subscribe to that
    concept.
    
    Interesting you should mention Hitler in all his evilness...so
    you think God will let him in heaven too because God loves everyone?
    Or are there exceptions?
    
    Jill

      re: .91
    
      Hi Jill,
    
        Correct me if I am wrong Patricia, but I think it is Patricia's
        belief that God's love ultimately must draw everyone on the basis
        of what it is, how good it is.  So even Hitler will ultimately
        be drawn.  Actually, Patricia, _when_ is Hitler drawn by God's
        love?  Just curious.  Does the Bible clue us in as to when?
    
        I don't subscribe to this belief, though the belief that (somehow)
        God's love does not draw everyone may be unfathomable - and I can
        handle that.
    
    							Tony

    Yikes! Blink, and you miss a thread of 90+ notes!
    
    Hell is real.  Very real.  Garth's Rev quote is a good proof passage.
    See also Mat 25:41... no doubt also cited somewhere on this thread.
    
    Fear of Hell is not a motivator for the Christian.  The law does not
    motivate fear. The law exposes sin. The Holy Spirit works
    repentence.
    
    Preaching fire and brinstone (read: all law) is simple.  Anyone can do
    that.  Preaching balanced law and gospel is hard.  Luther once said
    roughly: He who can rightly divide law and gospel should be conferred
    the title doctor of theology.  
    

    I must confess that I don't know how to deal with a figure like Hitler
    who seems to personify evil in every sense of the word.  I do believe
    that we have free choice and it matters what kind of choices we make.
    
    I believe that God is infinitely forgiving.
    
    I believe that our reason, our intuition, our perceptions, and our
    feelings are the greatest gifts that we are given as humans.  I believe
    in a general revelation that is given to all people.  There are things
    that we as humans know are bad instinctively.  Most humans have a
    conscience and feel some semblance of guilt when they do something that
    they instinctively know is wrong.  Killing, harming another, stealing,
    telling lies, are all things that we instinctively know as being wrong.
    
    Christians also have a special revelation which is the scriptures. 
    There is a harmony between the general and the special revelation. 
    There are other sources of special revelation.  If we believe in the
    possibility of God working directly through a specific human being,
    that is special revelation.  I believe other specific revelation
    provide revelation for members of other great world religions.  I guess
    we would test the revelation using the same tools we use to test our
    interpretations.  Mainly, does conformity with the revelation lead to
    lifes that bear Good fruits.  Do the adherence love one another and
    love others, feed the poor, visit the prisoners, help the sick, console
    the grieving.
    
    I do believe that God works differently with different people.  I don't
    now how God finds and works the magic of God's love with every single
    individual.  It is a mystery.
    
                                Patricia

| <<< Note 737.79 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>


| I believe one thing prevents you from seeing the possibility that God can be 
| unconditional love AND that a group of people can end up unsaved. And that is 
| that somehow people can choose to not want any part of God.

	Tony, what you wrote right here is beautiful. I agree with your view
that a group can want nothing to do with God. But you then went on to say
further:

| Anyway, the fact that some people can reject perfect love may seem 
| unfathomable, but you really do put yourself in a unique position when 
| you cling to universalism because it so clearly rejects so much scripture.

	Could you clarify this for me Tony? Are you saying that because she
clings to universalism, that she becomes part of the group of people that are
choosing no part of God? I hope not, as I don't see her doing that. 


Glen

    RE: .91  Jill
    
    / My comment about persecution was because your notes feel to me more 
    / like you're on a 'search and destroy' mission rather than just an 
    / honest search.  If that is not the case, I apologize again...
    
    You did make an invalid presumption about my beliefs, so your apology
    is accepted and appreciated.
    
    My questions were not intended as a request to be converted by someone,
    but rather an attempt to explore the differences which appear to exist
    (between **groups** of devoted Christians) about the definition of hell.
    
    Be careful how you use the term 'persecution' if you want it to be
    taken seriously later.

    I would like to clarify something that was taken from a comment that I
    made a while back about people might not accept Christ if there was no
    hell. A few noters have made comments and I think the context of what I
    said has been misunderstood.
      Initially, the concept and reality of hell DOES scare people. Heck,
    it sure scared me. (But the scared I speak of is for example the scared 
    you feel when you get home and discover you left the iron on all day. The
    realization that hell exists only makes you see that God's anger at sin
    is real and that Christ is the only way to deter God's wrath. But as
    time marches on you realize just how much more Christ is than just the
    duded who saved your butt. 
      The fear I was referring to was the fear you would have for your
    father. You know, the fear that says, if I don't clean my room, Daddy
    will put me in the corner, or if I slap my sister around, Daddy will
    tan my backside. It is the kind of fear that is merged with respect and
    reverence.
      I understand why some people can not see why a loving God would
    subject people to an eternity of firey torment. But the problem is we
    have a very limited understanding of exactly what sin IS. Sure, we know
    that adultery is sin, and we can identify sinful acts, but the reality
    is that we were born into sin and can't see well enough to know the
    extremes of what it means to God.
      Just because we cannot see WHY God would do such a thing does not
    mean that God will not do it and that it does not in reality exist.
    I heard a saying that I heard that fits this very nicely.
    
      " If something in the word of God rubs the fur the wrong way, then
    turn the cat around, beacause God's word is the ultimate law. Not man's
    opinion about God's word."
    
    
    -Joe
    

    When someone comes into this conference asks a question and then
    proceeds to tear apart said answer and explain why its wrong, one must
    question why they are here?  And when one has been hostile towards
    fundamental Christianity in their noting around other conferences I
    really wonder;
    
    Are you here to share, to grow, to learn or to antagonize?
    
    
    

    Glen,
    
    If you have a problem with me, send me mail.  I'll talk with you
    offline.  
    
    God bless you, Glen.
    
    Nancy

    Humans trying to reason God's justice is like a first grader doing
    nuclear explosion analysis.
    
    Read the Word.. Read the Word.. Read the Word..

    RE: .98  Nancy Morales

    / When someone comes into this conference asks a question and then
    / proceeds to tear apart said answer and explain why its wrong, one must
    / question why they are here? 

    Humans have struggled to understand matters of religion for thousands
    of years.

    If questions move on to a discussion (with more questions), it just
    means that the issues are not simple and that the people asking them
    still have issues and concerns about the matters being discussed.

    For the most part, I think the discussion was really interesting today
    and I'm very happy with the variety of answers which resulted (some of
    which turned out to be very, very, very close to my own views although
    they came from folks who do not ordinarily regard themselves as being
    anywhere close to mutual agreement with me about religion, or much of
    anything probably.) :)

    Thank you, everybody.

Re: .85  (Phil Yerkess)
Re: .89  (Tony Barbieri)

Upon review of 94.*, I see that I have already had discussions with each of
you on this subject approximately two years ago.  How quickly we forget.

Please review those dialogues and let me know if there is anything new to
discuss.

If anyone else is interested in my answers to the questions Phil and Tony
posed to me in 737.85 and 737.89, please refer to 94.*.

    Suzanne,
    
    It's good to see you with such a wonderful attitude, I'm sure you'll
    understand why I tread on guarded ground with you.
    
    I hope dialogue of this nature will continue.
    
    Nancy

    
Hi,

For I moment if we all were to put the Bible aside and think about what love 
is. Think about the love we have for our children, our parents, our relatives
and our friends. Think about that love we hold for them. Think about how much
greater GODs love is for all people.

If I was to look for my children in Heaven and could not find them, I would
worry. If I asked GOD where they were and if he said to me they are burning 
in torment forever, I would cry in pain every time I thought of them. 

For me I would not like to think this is how much greater GODS love is. The 
GOD I hold in my heart is a GOD of love, GOD of forgiveness and a GOD of hope. 
With this comes for me a greater understanding of what I mean to GOD. 

GOD be with us all,
Love Don 

    

.36> Paul was going off a while back that you have to show you
.36> love Him by believing His teachings. It doesn't say that above.
.36>
.36>	But I was happy that Paul was upfront about it all.

Glen, you completely misunderstood what I said.

If I thought further explanation would rectify that situation, I would offer
one.

Paul

      re: .95
    
      Hi Glen,
    
        Oh no Glen!  I did not mean that at all!
    
        I take universalism to mean the doctrine that all will end
        up saved.  All I meant to say was to link up with Patricia
        so much as possible...to even acknowledge that maybe this
        idea that some could reject perfect love is unfathomable.
    
        But, then I clarified where I and Patricia see things differently.
        And I merely pointed out that to embrace universalism implies
        (to me) throwing out A LOT of scripture and then to add that
        this is a source of strong disagreement for a community such
        as this.
    
        I meant to imply NOTHING about her heart Glen.  I am sure I 
        am way off-base in certain ways, yet I believe I have a true
        faith relationship with the Lord.  I believe Patricia knows the
        Lord and is a dear sister.  Many here have the pathetic belief
        that God who is love created man in such a way that should man
        reject Him, they would spend eternity in total anguish.  A doctrine
        that paints God as choosing sin and pain for an eternity.  After
        all He could have created man conditionally mortal (which I believe
        He did).
    
        And I even believe these people are Christians!!!
    
        Can you imagine that??!    ;-)
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

Patricia, you said a lovely thing back in .82 that I don't want to let slip
by:

>I believe that what is
>    needed is to accept God fully into our lives and ache to be like
>    Christ.  Ache to live a life of Godly love.  To ache to emulate Christ.

Absolutely.  Complete agreement.  The entire point.  We are to ache to
emulate Christ.  Amen.

Paul

      Garth,
    
        I realize that you are stuck in your paradigm.
    
        You can't see because tradition has strong coils.
    
        I pray the word sets you free.
    
        The fire is God's love.  Just get out that Concordance, read
        ALL the verses on fire, and consider the strong possibility 
        that by far most of them refer to the same thing...and it is
        a challenge to harmonize ALL of scripture.
    
        Daniel is apocalyptic.  The fire that destroyed the Babylonian
        guards, the friends of Daniel were unhurt by.  The fire is the
        same.  There is something different about the PEOPLE.
    
        Love reveals sin.  In the last days, God's people will be perfected
        and He will unveil His presence.  The saved survive this exp.
        and the lost are destroyed by it.
    
        Life is inherent to righteousness.  Death is inherent to sin.
    
        And when God has a perfectly righteous group to work with, He
        will prove the truth of the above by unveiling His character.
        Isaiah has a slew of unveiling references as do several other
        scriptures.
    
        The brunt of what I am saying here seems to have no part in 
        your understanding of things.
    
        You're locked my friend...
    
    							Tony

      Paul,
    
        Your replies are beautiful.  Good things must be happening
        within you.
    
    						Thanks Brother,
    
    						Tony

Patricia, there was another thing you said in .82 that I wanted to address,
but I didn't want to mix it with the affirmation in my last note.  You said:

>    Even though it can feel more comfortable restricting oneself to an
>    exclusive community, it allows a blindness to the inclusivity of God's
>    love for all of creation.  

You've said similar things other times, about how you pity us that we've
enclosed ourselves in an exclusive community so that we can just sit back and
tell ourselves that we're right.

But that really isn't how we got here, Patricia.  We got here because we
really do believe a really wild and crazy thing, possibly the most wild and
crazy thing that anyone has ever been asked to believe:

   We believe that Jesus really is who he said he was - the actual creator of
   the entire universe, of all that is real, incarnated in human flesh.

*REALLY* accepting that was the beginning of the change for me.  Oh, I said
and thought I believed it for years, but I didn't really, not down on the
level where it could begin to become the driving force in my life.  I went
along in life, making my evaluation of the meaning of life, of what was
right, and quite coincidentally (or so it seemed to me at the time. 
Actually, I didn't notice at all) Jesus seemed to be saying the same things I
was thinking.  When I really believed that God was only loving and forgiving,
Jesus was right there with me.  When I believed that God didn't want
repentance, only praise, Jesus said the same.

Have you ever seen those comedy acts where the person has a dummy on either
side of them, with the hands and feet of the dummy tied to sticks that are
tied to the hands and feet of the performer?  So that every move the
performer makes, the dummies make the same move?  Well, that's was Jesus was
for me.  Jesus was out in front, so I said and so I believed, but he was just
a dummy tied to sticks that I moved.  It looked like he walked before me and
I followed, but I called the shots, Jesus was the Jesus I wanted him to be.

But I started to ask this question of myself:  Do I *REALLY* believe that
Jesus was the creator of the universe, incarnated in human flesh?  And as I
began to answer "yes" to that question on a deeper and deeper level, I began
to see the absolute absurdity of what I had been doing.  I, a mere creation,
had been arguing with the very creator of all that is real, about the nature
of reality.  Surely a more ludicrous thing cannot be imagined.  Actually,
another pretty amazing thing is that He let me win for years, but that's
another tangent.

If Jesus, man of Nazareth, was really, really, truly the infinite I AM
incarnate, then His Word is *THE WORD*.  The last word.  The only word worth
hearing.  If Jesus says one thing, and I believe another - then *I'M* the one
who's wrong, every time.

So my paradigm - my way of looking at reality - has changed drastically.  I
used to make Jesus fit my conception of what is right.  That is now
completely reversed.  I know that I have filters, I know that I have
preconceived notions, but I'm radically devoted to letting the word of Jesus
strip those away.  Jesus spoke in parable and similie often, and his words
are sometimes literal and sometimes figurative.  It requires study to
determine what he actually meant.  And sometimes the things he said seem to
conflict, and that needs to be worked through.  There are some places that
aren't clear at all, and there will be disagreement among those who are
seeking in the same way, to let Jesus be master of their lives.

But when his word is clear, it is the last word.  My conception of reality
must shift to accomodate Him, not the other way around.

It doesn't fit my natural conception of reality either, Patricia, to think of
the possibility of eternal judgement.  But Jesus clearly, repeatedly, and
unequivocally proclaimed that there is.  And I will no longer argue with the
creator of reality, and of me, about what is real.

Paul

.70 (Suzanne)

>    I have a surprise for you, too - I do actually believe that there is
>    such a thing as 'eternal separation from God'.  I believe that this
>    is the depth of spiritual misery that is called 'hell' (and has been
>    described as 'burning for eternity' to give an idea of what this misery
>    is like.)

Then I for one have not the slightest need to pursue further with you the
question of what hell is like.  In what you've written, the very essense of
hell is acknowledged.  Beyond that it's just details.

And I will note too that though I also have had some wariness due to prior
interactions, your approach in this note has been much appreciated.  Thank
you, and welcome.

Paul

    Re: fire is love
    
    Tony, the Bible says God has wings too but that doesn't mean He's a
    rooster.
    
    Mike

      Ok Mike, just read Song of Solomon 8:7,6 (I think it is) and
      consider tying it in to Romans 7 which speaks of the dynamics
      of spiritual reality and how the commandment arouses sin and
      causes death.
    
      Check out also how the Bible says the righteous dwell in the
      eternal fire.
    
      I could go on and on and I think a beautiful pattern emerges
      and one that does not require that God is a rooster, but it
      would show that God is love - in everything He does.
    
      And thats where our views depart.  I'll be blunt.  The popular
      view is nothing short of giving God attributes which are Satan's.
    
      My hands are clean of that blasphemy.
    
    						Tony 

>      Ok Mike, just read Song of Solomon 8:7,6 (I think it is) and
>      consider tying it in to Romans 7 which speaks of the dynamics
>      of spiritual reality and how the commandment arouses sin and
>      causes death.
    
    Song of Solomon is about the relationship between Solomon and his
    Shunamite wife.  Romans is a clear presenation of justification by
    faith and grace.  

      They are about much more than that Mike.  I suppose our differences
      largely lie on how it is we approach the study of scripture.  For
      example, a section of Song of Solomon is quoted verbatim from the
      LXX O.T. in Revelation (I believe its ch. 3).  What does Revelation
      have to do with Solomon and his Shunamite wife?  Nothing, BUT God
      has placed many scriptures which have more than one application and
      I can see how for one to deny multiple applications would cause one
      to miss out on beautiful nuggets of light.
    
      I can't accept your manner of scriptural interpretation based on the
      fact that a part of Revelation quotes from Song of Solomon AND the
      fact that Revelation is not about Solomon and his Shunamite wife.
    
      To pigeonhole passages of scripture as only speaking about certain
      things (and your Song example is an excellent example of this) is
      to suppress studying scripture as scripture tells us we are to
      study it (Isaiah 28).
    
      You in effect are saying, "Well, this scripture is about this so
      I can't apply an Isaiah 28 approach to it."
    
      I reject that.
    
      Psalm 22 is much more than a description of troubles that David
      is speaking about.  What a shame were anyone not to be able to
      give it a multiple application and allow it to speak of other
      things.
    
      You infer that perhaps we must not.
    
      So many blessings are missed with your mistaken concept of how 
      scripture ought be studied.
    
      Isaiah 28 has universal application to the scriptures; one
      application of Song of Solomon not withstanding.  Nothing in the
      context of Isaiah 28 suggests that portions of scripture are to
      not be applicable with an Isaiah 28 method of scriptural study.
    
      Nothing.
    
    							Tony
    
    							Tony

    Tony, I was prodding you to supply more clarification of Song of
    Solomon vs. Romans.  After all I've entered in the "Pictures of Jesus"
    topic you would think you would know better than to pigeonhole me like
    that.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 737.98 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| When someone comes into this conference asks a question and then proceeds to 
| tear apart said answer and explain why its wrong, one must question why they 
| are here?  

	To discuss maybe? I guess for some it may sit well to just accept and
never question, even if ones own views are different, but it doesn't sit that
way for everyone. And as long as they don't go against the premise, what's your
beef?

| Are you here to share, to grow, to learn or to antagonize?

	I think you don't wonder all to much Nancy. You pretty much just tell
the person what they are doing in here, how they feel about things (including
yourself), etc.


Glen

	Thanks for the clarification Tony!


Glen

Re: .110  (Tony)

I have committed enough error in my lifetime that was due to the passion of my
own emotions.  I have also witnessed the error of many others so infatuated by
a love for their doctrines that they were blinded to the truth.  Don't expect
me to be swayed by your emotional appeal. 

      Garth and Mike and Everybody Else,
    
        I ask forgiveness for my recent caustic replies.  There is no
        excuse for sin although this doctrine tempts me like no other.
    
        HOWEVER, my appeal to you was not meant to be emotional.  I see
        it that you do not bring all pertinent scriptures to the table
        and thus you arrive at an erroneas conclusion.
    
        For example, you give 'forever' the definition of infinite time
        in the future.  Now, I have found too many instances where
        scripture has used words with a meaning different than Webster's.
        Two examples are the word _fear_ and the word _destroy_.  If you
        check out Job, Satan does a number on him.  Right after that, God
        says, "You incited ME to DESTROY him."
    
        Did God really destroy Job?  No, Satan was doing the damage.  Sure,
        God was implicated, but nevertheless, we are confronted with a
        use for the word destroy that we would never have thought of.
        I just did a fear word study through Psalms.  I believe that word
        fear is being packed with a meaning quite different than we would
        expect.  The same can be said for wrath as Romans 1,2 and other
        texts would indicate.
    
        My point is that the Bible itself, if used as a guide, tells us
        that words are given a different shade of meaning than we might
        expect.  And if this is the case, it cannot be correct to univer-
        sally necessitate that forever has the meaning we expect.
    
        The Bible might tell us more.
    
        Which it does.  Just check out its uses in the O.T. and its use
        in Philemon.  The O.T. has many example where forever is describing
        events of obviously finite time duration.  Coupling this with the
        Jude text that says that Sodom and Gommorah serve as an EXAMPLE
        of eternal punishment is quite significant.  Pretty pathetic
        example, I think, if the time aspect differs by over a zillion 
        times a zillion years.  Ahhhh, but if we study like Isaiah 28 
        tells us to and incorporate all those forever texts...not a bad
        example at all!
    
        Now, I support an Isaiah 28 method of study.  Is it irrelevent that
        Daniel 3 (or is it 2) has a story of three men thrown into a 
        fiery furnace and they survive, but the BABYLONIAN guards do not?
        And include in this, the apocalyptic nature of this book AND Paul
        saying all things serve as examples (types) for the end of the
        ages (paraphrase, but you catch my drift).
    
        On thinking of Daniel and fire, and furnace, COUPLE them with 
        Matt. 13:42-43.  Wow, a group of people is thrown in a furnace.
        Gee, that word sounds familiar!  And in the very next verse, the
        righteous are said to shine like the sun!
    
        ON WHAT CONTEXTUAL BASIS ARE THE FIRES DIFFERENT?	
    
        Couple also Isaiah.  The RIGHTEOUS (not the unrighteous) dwell
        in the everlasting burnings.
    
        Things are really starting to CLICK.
    
        There is a reality here.  It is described in so many ways and it
        is a reality you fail to incorporate in your view of fire.  That
        reality is well expressed by the mirror in James which is the 
        law which equates to righteousness (Isaiah 51:7,8 I think or there-
        abouts) which equates to agape.
    
        "But when the commandment [the law, righteousness, agape] came, 
         sin revived, and I died."  Rom. 7:9
    
        Look at Isaiah 51.  Israel drinks the cup to its bitter dregs.
        Just before that, Isaiah 50, allusions are made of the law coming
        like MAD.  Its like expanding on this principle of the mirror.
    
        It exposes all that sin and the righteous survive because instead
        of turning away from the mirror like the natural man does (see
        James), they turn away from the sin.  Israel drinks the cup and
        survives.  The lost drink it and are destroyed (see rest of
        Isaiah 51).
    
        Birth pangs is another excellent illustration.  All the nations
        are judged and all experience birth pangs, travails like a woman
        in labor.  Even Jacob (Jer. 30).  One difference with Jacob.
        "But, he shall be saved out of it."
    
        The principle is everywhere.  Isaiah 6.  Ezekiel all over the
        place.  Starts with throne room scene and just keeps coming with
        God's glory revealing sin and pain being a part of the process.
    
        Fire is merely one of many scripturally given modes of illus-
        tration.
    
        Now, Garth, you can call all of this emotion, but I think I've
        contributed far more than that.
    
        I call it an Isaiah 28 method of Bible study and I believe that
        if one puts all related texts to the table, your view cannot
        survive, but mine will.
    
        The eternal burnings is the love of God.  It reveals sin and if
        sin is held onto, the sinner is consumed with the sin.  The right-
        eous survive the fire, yea they shine like the sun (Matt. 13:43).
    
    						God Bless,
                                             
    						Tony

      Hi Mike,
    
        Thanks for the clarification.  It appears it was just a communi-
        cation disconnect.  I really saw in your last reply that you
        pigeonholed yourself.  I actually still fail to see how your
        last reply accomadates what you are saying your own view of
        method of scriptural interpretation, but I accept your version
        of its intention.  After all, you wrote it!  ;-)
    
        I believe the vast majority of scripture has an apocalyptic
        application.  I expect scripture to have it and I base it on
        Paul's statement about all these things serving as types, on
        Isaiah 28's treatise on how to study scripture, and on the many
        times I feel I have been blessed to see nuggets of light by seeing
        stories speak not only of the apparent, but of the apocalyptic.
    
        Anyway, Mike, thanks for the clarification.
    
    							Tony

>        Now, I support an Isaiah 28 method of study.  Is it irrelevent that
>        Daniel 3 (or is it 2) has a story of three men thrown into a 
>        fiery furnace and they survive, but the BABYLONIAN guards do not?
    
    The Babylonian guards were *KILLED*!  Sounds like God's Fire, as you
    put it, judged them.
    
    Mike

    
    It is evident from notes in this string that people are falling into
    the trap of refusing to accept God's Word just because it is beyond
    human comprehension.  They refuse to believe that a just God would
    condemn souls to eternal torment merely for rejecting Him in this
    earthly life.
    
    The answer to this is perfectly and succinctly summed up in Nancy's
    .100.  The wisdom of God's justice is far too much for puny human
    intellect to ever grasp.  God has explained through the Bible that
    some will go to heaven and some will go to hell.  If we presume to
    ask God, "Why must some people go to hell?", then the only answer we
    can expect to get back out of the whirlwind is "Where were you when
    I made the world?"  In other words, the answer is too big, too profound
    for our human brain to handle.
    
    God has shown his love for us by explaining what lies on the road
    ahead.  No matter whether we choose to believe in heaven or hell
    or not, the reality is that both are out there waiting for us.
    It is our choice, made from our own free will, which one we choose
    to go to after death.
    
    
    Rob
    

    I haven't had time to read all the entries here so if I'm repeating
    somebody elses words please forgive me.
    
    I read a book a while back called "How can a God of love send people to
    hell"?
    
    The answer is - HE DOESN'T  - they go of their own accord. God has done
    all He can to save everyone - He went to the cross that "whoever
    believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life". But the
    choice is down to the individual, we have to receive this gift.
    
    An analogy which I have found useful in witnessing to computer users is
    the following:
    
    Imagine one of those clean development labs, where everyone has to put
    on a white dust suit to ensure no dust or contamination gets in and
    ruins the lab. One speck of dust could destroy the whole setup. Now
    compare that to the Earth before the fall. There was no sin and so it
    was perfect. But once sin came into the world it started it's work of
    destroying the perfection. Today we see the terrible results of sins
    influence on this world and it intensifies every day. Now Heaven is a
    sinless environment and if God allows sin into heaven then it, too,
    will start to fall apart the same way as the world does. So in order to
    allow as many people into Heaven as will come God sent Jesus to shed
    His blood, that whoever 'clothes' themselves with Him can enter Heaven
    (i.e. Jesus becomes their dust suit). Now those who regfuse Gods offer
    of salvation have to go somewhere if they can't get into heaven and
    seeing as we're made in Gods image, it means our souls are not
    biodegradable - they will never rot, they will go on forever. So the
    souls of the lost have to go somewhere, and anywhere that has got not
    even a tiny sense of Gods presence sounds like Hell to me.
    
    I pray that anyone who hasn't yet seen the need for salvation in this
    conference will see it now and escape the hell that awaits them.
    
    Love
    Ben

2Peter 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count 
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance. 

    Where is the scripture that says, My thoughts are not your thoughts and
    My ways are not your ways.
    
    Nancy

Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the LORD."

    I for one refuse to accept an image of God that is sadistic.

    .131
    
    AMEN!!!  So do I!

 Same here!

Sadistic, according to your definition and understanding.

This morning, my four-year-old poured herself a bowl of cereal.  She often
gives herself too much, then won't finish it because it's soggy.  So I told
her we had to put some back, but that she could fill up her bowl again 10
times if she wanted more cereal.

She was incensed that I could be so unfair and unreasonable.  I tried to
explain, but she didn't listen, she insisted on her own understanding.  She
was absolutely sure that I was being mean to her by not letting her have a
larger bowl of cereal.

Was I, really?

The difference between my understanding and Rebecca's understanding is many
orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between God's understanding
and ours.

You are (we all are), of course, free to refuse to accept God has He presents
Himself.  Who God is is not altered by that refusal.  The Truth of His ways
are not lessened by our failure to understand them.  And there may be (will
be) consequences of varying degree for our refusal to accept God.

I was reading in Matthew this morning.  After spending most of chapter 24
telling his disciples of signs of the end times, and warning them repeatedly
not to be deceived (vs 4-5,10-13,23-24,26) Jesus tells his disciples *SEVEN
TIMES* about being ready for his return, and the consequences of not being
ready.

1) In 24:31, He says that His angels will "gather the elect."

2) In 24:37-41, he compares that day to the time of Noah, when no one was
   prepared as God suddenly saved Noah and destroyed everyone else.  He says
   "Two will be [there]; one will be taken and the other will be left."

3) In 24:42-44, Jesus says that if the owner of the house knew when the thief
   was coming, he would not allow his house to be broken into, so they must
   keep ready.

4) In 24:45-51, he tells the story of the servants left in charge of their
   master's household.  When the master returns, the faithful servant "will 
   be put in charge of all his possesions."  The unfaithful servant will be
   "cut in pieces, and assigned a place with the hypocrites, where there will
   be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

5) In 25:1-13, Jesus tells the story of the ten virgins waiting for the
   bridegroom.  To the five who were not prepared when He arrived, Jesus 
   shuts outside, and says: "I tell you the truth, I don't know you."

6) In 25:14-30, Jesus tells the parable of the talents.  Of the unfaithful
   servant Jesus says: "Throw that worthless servant outside, into the
   darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

7) In 25:31-46, Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and the goats.  To the
   goats, who did not serve the least of their brothers and sisters, Jesus
   says: "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared
   for the devil and his angels."

Was Jesus really God in human flesh?  If He tells His disciples four times to
be careful not to be deceived, and then immediately tells them *SEVEN TIMES*,
including four elaborate stories one after the other, that the unfaithful
will be cast out, should we believe Him?  

Paul

>    I for one refuse to accept an image of God that is sadistic.


   That humanity steafastly refuses to heed God's clear warnings in Scripture,
   and moves farther and farther away from Him in their persuit of self, despite
   God's warning of judgement, is not a reflection on God.  The course is
   laid out, the warning signs are clear and around us even today. 

   "Choose this day whom ye will serve", and choose your eternal destination.




 Jim

| <<< Note 737.135 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| That humanity steafastly refuses to heed God's clear warnings in Scripture,
| and moves farther and farther away from Him in their persuit of self, despite
| God's warning of judgement, is not a reflection on God.  

	This is very true Jim. It is NOT a reflection of God. Of course there
is also those who give what God's clear warnings are that have interpreted the
meanings to be something they are not. This is done by those who you might
consider non-Christians, as well as those who you might consider Christian. I
believe it is the human factor. While there are many who are in persuit for
self (both non & Christian), I'm hoping by the above you don't mean if someone
has a different interpretation on certain parts of Scripture than you have,
that you aren't automatically throwing all of them into the "self" catagory.
That i believe would be wrong to do.

| The course is laid out, the warning signs are clear and around us even today.

	If it were so clear Jim, then all those who you would perceive to be a
Christian would believe the same, on everything. But we're human, so that isn't
likely to happen.



Glen

    If one of my children were falling into fire and I was able to rescue
    them, then I would be guilty of child abuse and sadism if I let the
    child burn themself.
    
    When Jesus tells us we can pray to Abba, Daddy, the image of the love
    and kindness of the Parent child relationship is fully evident.  For
    what child would ask a parent for Bread and be given stone.  So too our
    heavenly parent will protect, nurture, and love each one of us.
    
    Our heavenly parent does not torture, nor allow those whom he has
    created to be tortured.  Phil does a much better job than I to cite the
    scriptures that support this perspective.
    
                                Patricia

Why won't you answer this question:

What was Jesus talking about when He listed seven consecutive images of
selective salvation?

Paul

>For what child would ask a parent for Bread and be given stone.  So too our
>    heavenly parent will protect, nurture, and love each one of us.

What about the child who says "Keep your bread, I don't want it."?

Paul

>What about the child who says "Keep your bread, I don't want it."?




 You force it on them....oh, can't force it on them..what about free will?





 Jim

    re: .124
    
    Hi Mike,

>        Now, I support an Isaiah 28 method of study.  Is it irrelevent that
>        Daniel 3 (or is it 2) has a story of three men thrown into a 
>        fiery furnace and they survive, but the BABYLONIAN guards do not?
    
    *The Babylonian guards were *KILLED*!  Sounds like God's Fire, as you
    *put it, judged them.
    
     Yes, Mike, I would agree, but I am pretty sure our notions of what
     constitutes judgment, in this respect, are not at all the same.

     The first thing I'd like to say about judgment is that I openly shared
     my personal conviction that judgment is a deep study that requires A
     LOT of line upon line, here a little there a little study.  I labored
     for several hours in order to produce Topic #681, a topic which I felt
     might spark some interest, but which volunteered zero replies.

     Given the effort I used and the lack of replies to the position it
     espoused, I don't have any expectation to defend judgment as I under-
     stand it.  Not after how I labored with #681.

     So, Mike, if you want to discuss judgment and expect any kind of
     response from me, maybe you could first read 681 as I know that it
     addresses the nature of all your judgment discussions with me anyway.

     But, I'll summarize a couple things...

     681 showed quite scripturally how it is that...

		The Father commended judgment to the Son.

		The Son said that in the last days He will NOT judge,
		but rather the word would judge.

		That there are different aspects of judgment.

		That Satan's brand of judgment is of the accusing and
		condemning variety.

		That Jesus has no part in Satan's brand of judgment, that
 		it is satanic.

     So, Mike, what do you mean by judgment?  Do you mean that God carries
     forth the kind of judgment that He actually says He has no part in and
     that is Satan's manner of judgment?  Is that the one Mike?

     Scripture says that man looks on the outward act while God looks on
     the heart.  Others might consider this audacious, but I will do the
     same with God.

     God will demonstrate in the last days that death is inherent to sin and
     life is inherent to righteousness.  Because of sinful flesh, when God
     unveils His love, the perfected last generation will experience the 
     behind the veil event.  Jesus is the Forerunner behind the veil and
     this implies that some follow after.  When they do, they will see the
     full enormity of sin and will feel to be that sinner and thus will
     experience the fulness of, "But when the commandment came [a revelation
     of God's love, fully unveiled behind the veil], sin revived [a full
     revelation of sin and feeling to be that sinner]. and I died [experienc-
     ing all the alienation associated from this experience]."

     But, they will endure by faith.  They will believe God is still with
     them.

     The lost meanwhile, will eventually endure the exact same experience.
     But, as they lack faith, they will respond to the Romans 7:9 exp. by
     despairing and this will destroy them.

     The same fire that the saved survive, the lost are destroyed by.  This
     of course harmonizes well with the Isaiah text that states quite clearly
     that the righteous dwell in the everlasting burnings.

     Thus it will be seen how good God is and how bad sin is and this 
     testimony will forever safeguard God's followers from ever choosing sin
     again.

     So, does God judge?  Yeah sure, but actually, as Jesus said, its His word
     that judges.  A revelation of His love.  The fire of His love.

     What is the motive?  Is it to just have to HAMMER the lost?  No, it is
     to safeguard those that have chosen His way.  I believe He aches over the
     lost, but they have sealed their own probation.

     All God does is allow the lost to see who they are.  This revelation
     destroys them.

     Its my guess that you see the fact that God does perform some aspects of
     judgment to mean that He has a condemning nature.  But, when I look into
     the heart of God and study the scriptures thoroughly (as in #681), I see
     a very different picture of God and a rather simplistic notion of judg-
     ment being volunteered by some here.

						God Bless,

						Tony

      Hi Paul, Jim, etc.
    
        Why don't you freely extend your logic a little further?
    
        And please, my position is based on scripture.  This logic
        runs parallel to what the Bible clearly says.  (In other
        words, don't accuse me of using logic because I refuse to use
        (defend) with the scriptures.
    
        You speak of God's love, but also of His inability to save
        everyone as some can (and do) reject Him totally.
    
        Fair enough.  But, you haven't explained everything that your
        belief system needs to explain.
    
        Why does God desire to perpetuate sin and sinners forever?
        Isn't the death of the cross enough?
    
        Why forever???
    
        And remember, Timothy says that only God has immortality.
    
        My explanation is that God cannot circumvent the reality that
        death is inherent to sin.  In fact, His Son submitted to this
        reality thus proving that He couldn't detour around it.
    
        God cannot help the fact that death is wrapped up in sin.
    
        But, you have a strange thing to explain and I'd like your
        explanation and my EXPECTATION of your explanation is the folowing.
        You have volunteered that same expectation to Patricia.
    
        Now its your turn!
    
        God is omniscient.  Therefore He knew by foreknowledge that 
        some would be unsaved.  Therefore He had a choice to make...
    
        Create them immortal and thus perpetuate misery and sin forever.
    
        Create them mortal and thus perpetuate only joy and sinlessness
        forever.
    
        Why would you say He chose the former?  And if you won't answer,
        on what rational basis do you expect reason from Patricia?
    
        On what rational basis do you expect to reason at all?  After all,
        you have stated quite clearly that His justice is irrational to
        us, i.e. we can't reason it.
    
        And please, one thing.  Don't say that a finite time duration is
        insufficient fear motivation.
    
        Don't demean the cross that way.
                                    
    						Tony

 Tony, please explain Luke 16:24.




 Thanks

  Jim

    re 737.137
    
    Patricia,
    
    It is of note, that in ancient times the burning of children was something 
    practiced by worhippers of Molech. This disgusting form of worship was
    even conducted by some Israelites. Jeremiah 7:31 KJV gives us God's
    viewpoint on this vile practice, "And they have built high places of
    Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their
    sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither
    came it into my heart."
    
    It is interesting to note that such a practice never came into God's
    heart unlike the what is implied by the hellfire teaching.
    
;    Our heavenly parent does not torture, nor allow those whom he has
;    created to be tortured.  Phil does a much better job than I to cite the
;    scriptures that support this perspective.
    
    Agreed, God does not torture. Unfortunately, man influenced by Satan
    does inflict gross attrocities. Once this world and it's system has
    passed away (1 John 2:17) then such practices will cease for all
    time, there will be no one causing harm or ruin in God's holy mountain
    (compare Isaiah 65:25). The only ones who gain a perverted pleasure from
    seeing creatures suffering pain are Satan and his demons. This can be
    seen by looking at the gospel accounts of those who were possessed by
    the demons.
    
    Like you I have a revulsion to any teaching that endeavours to paint
    God in the same light as such demonic practices.
    
    Thank you for the compliment, but the credit should go to those who
    have helped me to Bible study and ultimately my God. It is good that
    you have not lossed sight of the image of love "God is love". God is
    certainly a God of justice but the main quality that he has is love.
    Even those that belief in hellfire, find the doctrine disturbing but
    many are not willing to openly admit it. The following discussion helps
    to show that it's a disturbing doctrine:
    
    "I hear you dismissed your pastor. What was wrong?"
    "Well, he kept telling us we're all going to hell."
    "What does the new pastor say?"
    "The new pastor says we're going to hell, too."
    "So what's the difference?"
    "Well, the difference is that when the previous pastor said it, he
    sounded like he was glad about it; but when the new man says it, it
    sounds like it is breaking his heart."
    
    Further, a Canadian theologian Clark H. Pinnock once commented "The
    idea that a conscious creature should have to undergo physical and
    mental torture through unending time is profoundly disturbing, and 
    the thought that this is inflicted upon them by divine decree offends
    my conviction about God's love."
    
    It is a doctrine that most would willing remove if they could. Though,
    it is an appalling doctrine many keep to it because they feel or think
    that it is what the Bible teaches (I say think because many don't study
    the Bible but just accept what their church teaches). This theologian
    further notes "By admitting its unpleasantness, they hope to prove
    their unswerving fidelity to the Bible and a certain heroism in their
    believing such an awful truth just because scripture teaches it. They
    make it sound like the infallibility of the Bible were at stake. But is
    it really?"  And that is the reason for me noting here, and discussing
    what the Bible really has to say.
    
    Phil.
    
    References taken from a Watchtower dated April 15th 1993 titled "Were
    You Told the Truth About Hell?" 
    

>     The first thing I'd like to say about judgment is that I openly shared
>     my personal conviction that judgment is a deep study that requires A
>     LOT of line upon line, here a little there a little study.  I labored
>     for several hours in order to produce Topic #681, a topic which I felt
>     might spark some interest, but which volunteered zero replies.
    
    Tony, I'd like to apologize for this because I know how frustrating
    this can be.  I was just thinking about this last week and meant to put
    in a reply but it eventually slipped my mind.  It's been "in the queue"
    for months, I haven't even read it.  There's just so many topics I can
    give honest and diligent attention to at once.  I will get to it
    eventually.
    
    Mike

    Phil, we agree that Arminianism is a terrible doctrine.  Neither is 
    its opposing extreme Biblical.
    
    Mike

    
>        You speak of God's love, but also of His inability to save
>        everyone as some can (and do) reject Him totally.
    
 
  Tony, Romans 10:13 says "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord
  shall be saved" John 3:16 says "whosoever believeth on Him"..what does
  Whosoever mean?  God has the ability to save everyone..not everyone wants
  to be saved..  If you come upon a person in a river carried by the current
  towards a steep fall and reached out your arm to save them, would that act
  save them?  No, its the act of the person reaching and taking your arm
  that saves them.  The ability for them to be saved is there.  They need
  to take it.  Unfortunately many continue to float towards the falls ignoring
  the loving arm that's there to save them..Who's fault is that?



    
 >        Why does God desire to perpetuate sin and sinners forever?
 >       Isn't the death of the cross enough?
  


    To many the cross is foolishness.


  
 


 Jim

      Hi Jim,
    
        I'll explain some of Lazarus eventually.
    
        BUT, are we barking up the same tree???  I agree that there
        will be a group who will be unsaved.  They will suffer some-
        thing even WORSE than the cross experience (I believe), but the
        duration will be finite.
    
        So are we even talking about the same thing?
    
        Do you agree with the concept of fair play?  I'll reply to 
        something of yours, but, in fairness, I would expect the same
        treatment.  You reply to questions I ask as well.
    
        Do you believe it is scripturally acceptable to incorporate
        the fact that scripture often uses 'forever' to describe time
        events of obviously finite (i.e. not infinite) time duration?
    
        How do you explain scripture stating that the righteouss dwell
        in the everlasting burnings (NOT the unrighteouss)?
    
        What of the 'rational' question I posed to you?  You guys started
        that stuff!  At least play by the same rules you ask us to play
        by!
    
        One thing about lazarus...it refers to the time between death and
        resurrection.  NOT to eternal punishment, but I'll still reply if
        you would like.
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

Actually, the eternal vs. finite question isn't one I've given much thought
to.  One of my cardinal rules in doctrinal questions is "Will the resolution
of this question effect my actions or effect the essence of the gospel?"  If
the answer is no, then I don't give it much more thought.  You'll note that I
never get involved in the questions about exactly what hell is like, or what
form the Millenia will take (pre-,post-,a-,misc-), or what happens to the
bread and wine when we eat it.  These sorts of doctrinal questions are the
ones which unnecessarily divide us, and I try to avoid them as much as
possible.

Whether failure to follow Christ means finite suffering and then a permanent
end to existence, or eternal suffering, as an alternative to eternity with
God, I don't want it.  Whether there's a literal eternal fire, or the fire is
just a poetic description of the agony of being apart from God, is of purely
secondary importance.  I don't want to go to that place, whatever it is like.
If God created humans as always eternal, indestructable spirits, who thus
have the possibility of living apart from Him forever, or as conditionally
eternal spirits, who may be subject to the 'second death' if they reject God,
again, that's of secondary importance.  For me, Suzanne's recognition that
the possibility exists that we could, from our choices, NOT be with God for
eternity, is the only essential recognition.

In all of these possibilities, the cross is still paramount.  Whatever
horrible thing happens to us as a result of sin, they all amount to the same
thing: we are not with God eternally.  And Christ's atonement saves us from
that horrible future and reunites us with God.  Exactly which of those
horrible futures is really true doesn't matter much to me, and though I might
have my own belief about what the Bible says on this issue, I don't need to
insist on it.

So my response to your question is:  I'd prefer not to argue about it.  I
don't believe that ANY of the possible answers is an essential tenet of the
faith.  A saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is not endangered by any one
of these beliefs, so I'm one short step short of ignoring the question
altogether.

It is when a doctrine changes the essentials of the gospel that I enter the
fray.  When God becomes a God who will allow everyone into heaven eventually
out of His compassion, regardless of whether they want to go or are willing
to undergo sanctification, then the cross is declared null and void.  Jesus
is made superfluous.  It's at that point that I have to jump in.

Paul

      quick replies...
    
      Mike,
    
        I really appreciate your reply.  Thanks.
    
      Paul,
    
        What matters a lot to me is an intelligent understanding of
        God's character of love.  I believe that some things are 
        even more important than our own salvation.  Moses (Ex. 32:32),
        Paul (Rom. 9:3), and I believe Christ expressed a willingness 
        to relinquish even salvation for the sake of other things.
        Moses wanted God glorified.  Paul said his blessing was seeing
        others at the resurrection of the just (this included his kinsmen
        according to the promise).
    
        There is something about wanting to be saved that can imply
        (not to say that you did) egocentric motivation, i.e. "I want
        MY slice of the pie."  Some have been willing to give up a slice
        of the heavenly pie.  Who knows what Moses was thinking during 
        the only hyphen in all the scriptures (Ex. 32:32)?  Maybe what 
        an offering it is to be willing to give up eternal fellowship
        with Jesus?
    
        Love bears all things.  Maybe if we had enough of His love flowing 
        through us, it would be worth the loss of our own salvation if
        that would somehow show people God's character in a much more
        truthful, intelligent, and loving light, i.e. He couldn't bear to
        perpetuate agony and sin forever.
    
        Not that any would actually lose it.  To demonstrate something and
        to actually have to do it are two different things.  Paul and Moses
        did demonstrate it though.
    
        There's something to simply wanting to exalt what God is like -
        no matter the personal cost.
    
        As what happens to the unsaved says something about God's character
        and assuming that painting God's character in pure and accurate 
        lines is important, I would beg to disagree tremendously with you.
    
    							Tony
                                 

    I don't see anything in scripture that implies that hell or the
    punishment of its residents is finite.

    To me it is an essential doctinal question.
    
    It is a question about the character of God, God's self.

     Re: <<< Note 737.152 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

> To me it is an essential doctinal question.

Agreed.
    
> It is a question about the character of God, God's self.

Yes. It is certainly true that God is Love and is Merciful. Also, God is Just, 
God is a Covenant-Keeper, God values His Word above *all* things, even 
His Name.

Brian

    Re: Note 737.137 by POWDML::FLANAGAN
    
>   If one of my children were falling into fire and I was able to rescue
>   them, then I would be guilty of child abuse and sadism if I let the
>   child burn themself.
    
    If a child were handling a small pin, about to prick their finger, and
    I was able to rescue them, then I would be guilty of child abuse and
    sadism if I let them prick themselves.
    
    Tough.  In this case I'd rather be guilty of those things than guilty
    of not educating the child that pins are sharp.
    
    James

    And yet...

    there are times when the child so willful and stubborn that you just
    have to let them take their lumps.

    e.g. last week Nathan was playing near the fire (oil burning) and has
    been told *repeatedly* that he 'mustn't touch - it's hot!'. Before I
    had a chance to get to him this time, he touched.

    After putting his hand under cold water for a while, and cuddling him,
    he is now keeping a more wary distance between him and the heater ;')

    Sometime, when God is dealing with me, I get so willful and disobedient
    that He lets me 'take my lumps'.

    Does this mean that God is malicious, or vindictive, or a sadist? No,
    it mean He Loves me so much that He allows me to learn the lesson the
    hard way, because I'm too thick to learn the 'easy' way.

    There are others who don't *ever* learn the lessons.

      Isaiah 28 related texts coming soon.  (Jim, not ready for Lazarus
      yet.  But, you can reply to my direct questions.   Please.)  
    
     Hi Mike,
    
        Several texts refer to finite duration.  Even the forever texts
        do when you take them all into account.  NEVER is it said that
        the lost LIVE forever.  He who has the Son has the GIFT of
        eternal life.  I really wish others would be willing to accomadate
        the many scriptures that use the word forever to describe time
        durations that are obviously finite.   This is probably the 4th
        time (at least) I have explicitly mentioned this.
    
        WHY THE SILENCE REGARDING THIS?  Don't you want to incorporate
        the whole word?
    
        Only God has immortality (Timothy somewhere), but the gift of
        salvation is the gift of eternal life.  The lost lack the gift
        of eternal life.
    
    
     Hi Brian,
    
        What you have said is a PILLAR parting of the ways. 
    
        You imply that God's love and justice are like oil and water,
        i.e. when God exercises justice, He cannot possibly be also
        exercising love within that justice.
    
        I believe that God's justice is 100% in harmony with His love.
    
        When the earth is filled with a revelation of the love of God,
        your theology will be overwhelmed with the truth.  Your concept
        of how good God is will give way to a much more clear, better
        understood, and lovely concept of how good God is.  The seeming
        contradictions between God's love and justice will evaporate.
    
      Hi James,
    
        If I can follow your chain of logic...so the PURPOSE, then, is
        for the lost to learn something.
    
        What do they learn?
    
        How do they learn without faith?
    
        How are they benefited by what they learn?
    
        If you think it through, your point is 100% invalid.  The lost
        would learn NOTHING.  They have no faith and thus no discernment
        and thus cannot learn in the only way it counts.
    
    						Tony
                                                  

RE:                     <<< Note 737.148 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
                          -< Lets Be Fair!!!     ;-) >-

       
   >     Do you believe it is scripturally acceptable to incorporate
   >     the fact that scripture often uses 'forever' to describe time
   >     events of obviously finite (i.e. not infinite) time duration?
    


         Please explain.  I interpret "forever" and "everlasting" to mean
         forever and everlasting.


>        How do you explain scripture stating that the righteouss dwell
>        in the everlasting burnings (NOT the unrighteouss)?
    
 
         Please post the scripture(s) and context.  I believe you are 
         referring to Isaiah 33:14 (or is it 16).


      
>        One thing about lazarus...it refers to the time between death and
>        resurrection.  NOT to eternal punishment, but I'll still reply if
>        you would like.
    
          
         Note how many times Jesus uses "everlasting" and "unquenchable"
         when refering to the fires awaiting those who reject Him.



   JIm

    I have seen commentaries discussing the word Eternal and implying that
    eternal did not necessary mean forever.  It was one of those tidbits of
    information that I recall without having really pursued the argument.
    
    I also remember hearing that some classical Universalists came to the
    conclusion that the wicked would spend a limited time in hell before
    being saved.
    
    My personal theology is more concerned with how I live my life on this
    side of death trusting that whatever happens on the other side will be
    planned by God and therefore is not to be feared or cause concerned.  I
    take 1 John seriously.  In love there is no fear!
    
    
                                       Patricia
    
     

 Patricia, why is it that you take 1John seriously, yet dismiss most other
 scripture?  1John 2:4 says if we love Jesus, we will obey His commandments?
 Do you take that seriously?




 Jim

    I can't help but recognize a very common thread of selective processing
    regarding God's word in your notes Patricia.  You choose to follow 1
    John but dismiss the parts of the Bible that you find impalatable.  
    
    And others use human reasoning to reason away the parts that they find
    impalatable [wd/sp].  
    
    I am one who'd very much like for spirituality to be the way you
    espouse it, but I cannot let my sensitivities and emotional responses
    cloud the truth of God's word.
    
    I do believe like you in many ways that the Bible was used to elevate
    males and demoralize females, but I also believe that there is truth to
    Godly Biblical submission as declared for all to read.
    
    Remember there was a time when scriptures were scarce to the common
    church person and a few elect men were leading the congregations
    blindly for the most part.
    
    Trust... and innocence allowed abuse and misuse of the Word.  That is
    why it is *so* important to read the Word as a Whole not in part.  
    
    Nancy

    NOTESCRASH! :-)

      Well, Jim, there is the text in Exodus that speaks of the slave
      who shall have an awl put into his ear and shall serve his master
      FOREVER.
    
      Does that mean infinite time in the future?
    
      Jim, just grab your concordance for cryin out loud!!!!
    
      What of Jonah in the belly of the whale FOREVER???
    
      How is it that your preconceptions can't allow you to simply
      do a line upon line study of the scriptures???
    
      I don't understand Jim.
    
      I reason that slaves will not serve their masters forever and
      that Jonah was not in the belly of a whale forever and thus
      I reason that the word forever, as scripture utilizes it (and
      HOW I CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT, I.E. BY SCRIPTURE) is such that
      it cannot necessarily be taken to mean forever.
    
      The credibility of your view is destroyed (to me) by reason of 
      the inability to study in an extremely simple manner.
    
      What I asked you to do I consider to be the beginnings of
      studying this doctrine and you didn't do it nearly to what
      I would call an acceptable fashion.
    
      You didn't pick up your concordance and apply Isaiah 28.
    
      Thus the support I see for your view is nil.
    
    						Tony

re: Isaiah 28

Hi Andy,

Is it that big a surprise that we don't see things quite the
same way???

The first point of disagreement is over the application of
Isaiah 28.

1 Corinthians 10:11 
11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they
were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages
have come.

And of course we probably disagree on how universal this
application is.  But, lets look at some surrounding text...

Isaiah 26:17-21 
17  As a woman with child Is in pain and cries out in her pangs,
When she draws near the time of her delivery, So have we been in
Your sight, O LORD. 18  We have been with child, we have been in
pain; We have, as it were, brought forth wind; We have not
accomplished any deliverance in the earth, Nor have the
inhabitants of the world fallen. 19  Your dead shall live;
Together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you
who dwell in dust; For your dew is like the dew of herbs, And
the earth shall cast out the dead. 
20 Come, my people, enter your chambers, And shut your doors
behind you; Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment,
Until the indignation is past. 21  For behold, the LORD comes
out of His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for
their iniquity; The earth will also disclose her blood, And will
no more cover her slain.

Notice the allusions to birth pangs.  Notice also that the Lord
comes to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity.
Jeremiah 30 depicts a birth pang like experience (the same one
I believe) for birth pangs is constantly related to judgment
which is an apocalyptic event.  The end of Jeremiah 30 says...

"In the LATTER DAYS you will consider it."

I'll continue...

Continuing on...

Isaiah 27 opens with an allusion to the slaying of Leviathon;
clearly a last day application of the slaying of Satan.  Look at
the following verse...

Isaiah 27:6
6  Those who come He shall cause to take root in Jacob; Israel
shall blossom and bud, And fill the face of the world with fruit.

Clearly a text whose most accurate application is endtime.  The
whole face of the world is filled with fruit.  This has not
happened yet.  

And we come to Isaiah 28...

Isaiah 28:5-6 
5 In that day the LORD of hosts will be For a crown of glory and
a diadem of beauty To the remnant of His people, 6  For a spirit
of justice to him who sits in judgment, And for strength to
those who turn back the battle at the gate.

"To the remnant of His people."

So, again, it looks to me like at least a dual application.  And
I know we'll disagree with who Israel is apocalyptically and
while I don't want to maintain that God will not do marvelous
things through Hebrew persons or even (perhaps) the physical
nation of Israel, Abraham's seed is a spiritual seed and God's
word is spirit and not flesh and blood.

These are spiritual applications that apply to those of faith. 
Israel is a corporate body that includes the professed faithful.

But, there is a problem with Israel...

Isaiah 28:7-8 
7 But they also have erred through wine, And through
intoxicating drink are out of the way; The priest and the
prophet have erred through intoxicating drink, They are
swallowed up by wine, They are out of the way through
intoxicating drink; They err in vision, they stumble in
judgment. 8  For all tables are full of vomit and filth; No
place is clean.

And this is the state of Christianity today.  Our table is
vomit.  We err in vision.  This sounds a lot like the counsel to
Laodicaea.  We are wretched.  There is so much for the Lord to
tell us and if we could begin to realize our condition, that our
table really is full of vomit and that we are full of
intoxicating drink, at least God could begin to work with us.

I'll continue...

Continuing on...

Ok.  With this backdrop (the backdrop being that Isaiah
obviously supports an apocalyptic application and that the
spiritual condition of Israel mirrors our own), I'm ready to hit
on the real pertinent verses.

Isaiah 28:9-12 
9  "Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to
understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just
drawn from the breasts? 10  For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a
little, there a little." 
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to
this people, 12  To whom He said, "This is the rest with which
You may cause the weary to rest," And, "This is the refreshing";
Yet they would not hear.

What I see in this passage is God opening a window as to how He
has veiled His word and also a partial explanation of WHY He has
done so.  Somehow God has veiled His word in such a way that if
you are not like one of these:

Proverbs 2:1-5 
1  My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands
within you, 2  So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply
your heart to understanding; 3  Yes, if you cry out for
discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, 4  If you
seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5  Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the
knowledge of God.

You're not going to understand it well.  God is basically saying
that we have to thirst for His word, cry out for discernment and
the diligent seeker of truth will just drink it in.  He will
search and search and search and search.  Line upon line,
precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.  Chain
studies.  Word studies.  Phrase studies.  With a heart that
cries out in faith, "I NEED TO KNOW!"

And God has provided His word in such a way that the lazy and
uncaring browser cannot see, but the true seeker of wisdom can.

In other words, God purposely did not lay out His word with
clear lips and a straight tongue.  He did speak to us with
stammering lips and another tongue, but (again) the diligent
seeker of truth will find it AND the casual reader will not.

I'll continue...

Isaiah 28:13-15 
13  But the word of the LORD was to them, "Precept upon precept,
precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a
little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward,
and be broken And snared and caught. 
14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who
rule this people who are in Jerusalem, 15  Because you have
said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are
in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It
will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under
falsehood we have hidden ourselves."

So God repeats how it is we need to approach His word.  

If we are diligent and faithful seekers of the truth, we will
find our reward.  If we are scornful men and make a covenant
with death, our house will not be built on the rock (and I
believe the building of the house has an application to the
building of the gospel in our hearts).

In other words, the person with that posture, who casually reads
the word is under the following description....

God provided the word in such a way that FOR ONE SUCH AS YOU,
you "might go and fall backward, and be broken and snared and
caught."

So, yes, Andy, God did have His word be this way and your
interpretation of this text, with its overlooking of any
apocalyptic application and of the fact that the casual reader
will not find the  truth, is quite wide of the mark.

Finally, He did provide His word in such a way that the manner
of study He suggests to is to do precisely what it says, i.e. "Line
upon line, etc."  Since you suggested the KJV may have mistranslated,
I used the NKJV.  But, the KJV sounds good to me.

					God Bless,

					Tony

                 re: <<< Note 737.156 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>

Tony,
    
> What you have said is a PILLAR parting of the ways. 

I agree, but my words seemed to have imparted a meaning I did *not* intend.
    
> You imply that God's love and justice are like oil and water, i.e. when 
> God exercises justice, He cannot possibly be also exercising love within 
> that justice.

Boy, oh boy! that is the exact *opposite* of what I meant to say!
    
> I believe that God's justice is 100% in harmony with His love.
    
I am in *violent agreement* with you on this, Tony! If my previous words 
gave *anyone* the opposite impression, let me repent in sackcloth and ashes, 
here and now!

Regards,

Brian

Tony,

One thing you are good at is multiplying words!  If you feel that God is
saying something specific to you from scripture, which is outside the
direct application of the verse, this may well apply to you personally. 
However, you should not expect it to be a general instruction.  The volume
of your replies does not validate taking the interpretation out of context.

The undoubted apocalyptic content of Isaiah in general, and aspects of
Isaiah 28 in particular, aren't license to reinterpret verses to suit any
idea. 

Now, the method of progressive study is good, but that is not my concern.
My point is that it is not good to force fit a personal idea into a passage
which is not teaching it.  The passage has a very significant meaning of
its own.  I have often heard sermons where a passage is used to illustrate
a principle it is not really teaching, and such an approach detracts from the
Word of God, and undermines the integrity of what may really be a valuable 
principle in itself.  Find a passage that clearly does teach the point, 
rather than one which has another primary significance.


					God bless
							Andrew

      Hi Andy,
    
        Are you saying that Isaiah 28 is not informing us that a
        line upon line, etc. etc. study of the scriptures is a
        way that God wants us to study the scriptures?
    
        I don't understand.  Proverbs says that God spoke in riddles,
        enigmas, etc.  We are to search the word as for hidden treasure
        and in Isaiah 28, we see a people who do not _really_ seek
        the Lord.
    
        Well, we can (once again) agree to disagree.  But, I think
        I volunteered a fair interpretation.  Simply that the word
        has been furnished in such a way (riddles, enigmas, parables,
        etc.) that a casual browse will not do the trick.  But, a
        diligent search will.  And a God-given mechanism is line
        upon line, etc.
    
        I have had tremendous blessings doing word and phrase 
        studies.
    
        Gee...maybe my logos Bible software is demonic!  It actually
        seems to promote this type of study.  It actually allows
        word and phrase searches!
    
        Anyway, when God says how one can profitably study His word,
        I find the application to be universal.     
    
    						Tony

 2Timothy 2:15

 15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to 
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 



 I was just thinking about this one this morning..

    Jim
    
    re .159.
    
    I take all scripture seriously.  I just don't accept all scripture as
    being equally revelatory.   Obeying Jesus' commandments especially
    those which he emphasises as being the most important, are the
    cornerstone of my Faith.  The two commandments that Jesus tells us
    summarizes all the laws and all the commandments!.
    
    

>    Jim
    
>    re .159.
    
 >   I take all scripture seriously.  I just don't accept all scripture as
 >   being equally revelatory.   Obeying Jesus' commandments especially
 >   those which he emphasises as being the most important, are the
 >   cornerstone of my Faith.  The two commandments that Jesus tells us
 >   summarizes all the laws and all the commandments!.
  


     So, where does John 3:7 fit in your acceptability scale "Marvel not that
     I say ye MUST be born again"?




  Jim  
    

    John 3:7  fits well within my personal theology.
    
    It is very consistent with Paul's theology of the New Creation in
    Christ.
    
    I may identify born again differently than you do, but I do believe that
    each person, when they accept the relationship with God as the primary
    relationship of their lifes, then they are new creation-they are born
    again.

>        WHY THE SILENCE REGARDING THIS?  Don't you want to incorporate
>        the whole word?
    
    Tony, sounds like your interpretation of Luke 16.

>    My personal theology is more concerned with how I live my life on this
    
    what about God's theology?
    
>    side of death trusting that whatever happens on the other side will be
>    planned by God and therefore is not to be feared or cause concerned.  I
>    take 1 John seriously.  In love there is no fear!
    
    1 John also addresses the fallacies of Gnosticism, Antinomianism,
    Perfectionism, as well as Confession of Sin, Spiritual Maturity, Assurance 
    of Salvation, Testing Doctrine/Spirits/Cults, The New Commandment, and
    Idolatry.  
    
    As Tony has been trying to say, context is the whole book.
    
    Mike

>    I take all scripture seriously.  I just don't accept all scripture as
>    being equally revelatory.   Obeying Jesus' commandments especially
    
    If you take 1 John as serious and revelatory, you should study/heed all of
    what 1 John says and not just what you want to read.
    
    Mike

      Hi Andrew,
    
        I accept 100% the principle you are saying.  I guess we 
        disagree as to whether or not the method of studying scripture
        as given in Isaiah 28 is a (relatively) unimportant part of
        the overall message of the overall text.
    
        The main point I get out of that section of Isaiah is that
        the people being addressed had a sense of spiritual satisfaction
        when in reality they were spiritually in a pathetic state and
        were very rebellious.  I also get from this that God is saying
        they won't really understand what the scriptures are telling 
        them; it'll be like stammering lips.  This (to me) finds ful-
        fillment at the time of the 1st Advent and (I believe) will
        find no less fulfillment just before the 2nd Advent.  I also
        get from this passage God saying a method of how one ought to
        approach a study of the word and how its a practical litmus for
        indicating the 'casualness' of the person who is really rebellious
        as well as the diligence of the sincere and zealous seeker of the
        word.
    
        Andy, I guess while I agree with you in principle, I honestly
        don't see how I have misused the text.
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        I'll reply to Lazarus.  I've only so much time you know!
    
        I have seen, in the past, the general tenor of this 'debate' being
        that of the eternal torture camp continually throwing volleys of
        texts that they seek the conditionalist camp to offer explanations
        for.  One time I actually counted the following:
    
        1) The number of texts brought forth by unconditionalists for which
           they requested explanation.
    
        2) The number of times conditionalists have tried to respond.
    
        3) The number of texts brought forth by conditionalists for which
           they requested explanation.
    
        4) The number of times unconditionalists have tried to respond.
    
    
        The numbers (the statistics) were overwhelming.  Numbers 1 and 2 
        far outweighed 3 and 4 and this takes into account normalizing 
        per number of people involved.
    
        My conclusion is that if discussions are so out of balance such
        that the frequency of 1 and 2 far outweighs the frequency of
        3 and 4, that the mode of the discussion, in general, of the
        unconditionalists is lacking (in some respect) the spirit of
        Christ.
    
        The main thing that got me was the unfairness in that the people
        that expected the most often volunteered the least, i.e. the
        frequency of #1 was extremely high while the frequency of #4
        was extremely low.
    
        Such a mode of dialogue is not of the Lord.
    
        But, anyway, I'll reply to Lazarus...
    
    							Tony
                                               

                 re: <<< Note 737.178 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
    
>        I have seen, in the past, the general tenor of this 'debate' being
>        that of the eternal torture camp continually throwing volleys of
>        texts that they seek the conditionalist camp to offer explanations
>        for.  One time I actually counted the following:
    
>        1) The number of texts brought forth by unconditionalists for which
>           they requested explanation.
    
>        2) The number of times conditionalists have tried to respond.
    
>        3) The number of texts brought forth by conditionalists for which
>           they requested explanation.
    
>        4) The number of times unconditionalists have tried to respond.

Hi Tony!

Please help me by defining your understanding of the terms conditionalist and 
unconditionalist, as used above. 

adTHANKSvance,

Brian

RE: .174     Amen to that Patricia!!! GREAT note! As Meatloaf once said,
	     "You took the words right out of my mouth!"

      Hi Brian,
    
        By conditionalist, I mean _conditionally immortal_ which implies
        that eternal life is a gift of God to man and is not something
        we innately have (John 3:16).
    
        By unconditionalist, I mean _unconditionally immortal_ which
        means that man (or at least some component of man) simply cannot
        die.  It is, by very nature, immortal.
    
        I reread my reply and erred in one part.  The frequency of #3 was
        fairly high as it should be should one expect responses to them
        (#4 in the reply).
    
        Anyone can peruse these discussions and find the same trend.  For
        whatever reason, the unconditionalists engage in what I would call
        unfair mode of dialogue.  Requesting explanations at a far greater
        rate than being willing to respond to explanations requested of
        them.
    
        By the way Brian, thanks for your recent reply viz a viz justice
        and love.
    
        I don't understand that God can be loving while exercising the
        justice as you believe He exercises it, but that has nothing to do
        with your heart!
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

    Interesting views here in this note. I have often wondered about this
    myself. I'd like to think that those who do not make the requirements
    to get into heaven (belief in the sacrificial work of God on the cross)
    do not suffer (as in pain and suffering) for all eternity, but actually
    cease to exist. Only scripture I can think of right now to support this
    is from Revelation, where death and hell are thrown into the lake of
    fire, which is the second death. (This is NOT necessarily the correct
    interpretation.) The eternal suffering will be a state of non-existance, 
    and would miss out for all eternity what God will do after the destruction 
    of heaven and earth.
    
    However, there are scriptures that do support eternal torment, and this
    has been a point of trouble for me, and for many others. How can a
    loving God allow...how will beings in heaven, where there is no pain,
    or sorrow, NOT feel pain and sorrow for those who are in permanent
    torment? Perhaps God will allow those in heaven to be aware of the 
    goings on in hell, as a eternal reminder of the fall of Lucifer, and
    the consequences thereof, and yet still cause those to be perfectly 
    content and in eternal heavenly bliss regardless of that knowledge?
    
    This just might be another one of the questions that God has decided 
    there is no answer on this side of eternity. The speculation could go
    on in here until the end of time. Many times in asking God the "big"
    questions about life, death, and reasons for things we don't understand
    I seem to get the quiet answer...
    
    "Even if I did take the time to explain these things to you, you do not
    have the capacity to understand." The limitations we have as humans is
    a hard thing for me to accept. I often "complain" to God about this. The 
    scripture "we shall know as we are knwon" means to me these limitations 
    will be lifted, and our understanding shall be at a much greater level.
    Whether or not God will permit us to understand this question, and many
    others about interpreting the word, at this point I don't know. We can
    ask, but not always do we receive, at least on this side of eternity.
    
    Bob

    re: .138
    
    Disturbing statement:
    
    > Our heavenly parent does not torture, nor allow those whom he has
    > created to be tortured.  Phil does a much better job than I to cite the
    > scriptures that support this perspective.
    >
    >                             Patricia

    I take great joy daily in knowing that Jesus suffered and died for my sins. 
    Patricia, your statement cannot be substantiated by scripture, no
    matter how humany appealing it may seem.
    
    Is 53:4-5
    
    Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we
    consider Him stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted. But He was
    pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the
    punnishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we
    are healed.
    
    You might also read the account of Jesus' crucifixion - the realization
    of this prophecy.
    
    You might also read the accounts of the martyrdom of the apostles in
    the book of Acts.
    
    You might also read the account of the flood.
    
    I am, of course, assuming that scripture is considered the inerrant,
    authoratative, complete, and inspired Word of God.  
    
    To deny that God punnishes sin cannot be substantiated by scripture,
    and is a dangerous teaching.  To imply that God cannot both love and
    punnish his children also cannot be substantiated by scripture.  To
    imply that there will be a sudden conversion at the end time of all
    unbelievers and God will issue a big 'Aw never mind what I said about
    the wages of sin...' or something to that effect cannot be
    substantiated by scripture.
    
    dp

      re: -1
    
      Hi dp,
    
        Say, might you give 681 a read?  I think it would be quite
        illuminating.
    
        I'm not saying God doesn't punish, but I am saying that the
        _ultimate_ punishment that befalls the unsaved IS NOT external
        to that punishment that is inherent to sin.
    
      							Tony

>      I reason that the word forever, as scripture utilizes it (and
>      HOW I CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT, I.E. BY SCRIPTURE) is such that
>      it cannot necessarily be taken to mean forever.
    
 
       So, we can toss out the last verse of the 23rd Psalm as we
       can't expect to dwell in the house of the Lord forever, right?
       Are you then saying that those who are saved (or otherwise
       get to heaven however you determine one gets there), can't
       expect to dwell in the house of the Lord forever?  How long
       will they dwell there, and after that, where?

       

      Jim




 

   



   
   

      Hi Jim,
    
        No, I am not saying that at all!
    
        I have come to believe that the word aion/aionios (from which
        the English forever is rendered in the N.T. is much like the
        English word ALWAYS.  (And by the way, in the LXX, the words
        aion/aionios are rendered in the O.T. where the English forever
        is found - at least in most all cases.  The LXX being the Greek
        version of the O.T. which was around and read during the time
        of Christ.)
    
        What I have come to believe is that the words aion/aionios are
        dependent on the nature of the object they describe.
    
        For example, I might say...
    
        I will always live in Massachusetts.
    
        And even were one to believe I will live forever they would know
        what I mean - that while in this earthly life, I am saying I will
        always live in Massachusetts.
    
        One might say...
    
        God will always be love.
    
        And because a part of the nature of divinity is immortality, it
        would mean that God would be love forever in the future.
    
        Now in reference to the saved...
    
        Lets couple two truths.
    
        The saved will always live with God.
    
        For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
        that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have 
        eternal life.
    
        We see that the saved will be given the gift of eternal life.
        Thus we know that when aion/aionios describes the saved in their
        future state, it describes something that will go on for eternity.
    
        Again, NOT BECAUSE OF THE POWER OF THE WORDS AION/AIONIOS, but 
        rather because of the nature of the nouns which they are
        describing.
    
        Now, we can also say...
    
        The lost will always burn in hell.
    
        And we can couple this as well with John 3:16, i.e. the lost,
        instead of having eternal life, PERISH.  Thus aion/aionios are
        describing objects that do not have the quality of eternal life.
        Thus they burn until they perish.  (And by the way the Psalmist
        tells us that when one dies, thoughts are no more.  I mean, they
        are really dead.)
    
        Jim, whether or not we agree, its important that I have made my
        point well enough so that you understand it - and I know I'm not
        the best communicator in the world.
    
        Again, whether you agree or not...do you see my point?
    
    						God Bless You,
    
    						Tony
                                            

      I used a poor example when I said...
    
      The saved will always live with God.  Because I believe
      that if aion/aionios describes the word LIFE, it then 
      means forever.
    
      Maybe if I said instead...
    
      The saved will always enjoy God's company.
    
      This could be taken to mean until they die or (if they never die)
      forever in the future.
    
      Coupling with John 3:16 and finding that the saved are given the
      gift of eternal life, we then conclude that the statement about
      the lost always enjoying God's company means they would do so
      forever in the future.
    
      Again, not because of the power of that LONE statement, but 
      because of the nature of the object which that statement describes
      and finding elsewhere that the object (the saved) is given the gift 
      of life eternal,
    
      The lost are NEVER said to be given eternal life.
    
      The Psalmist does describe death as including cessation of
      consciousness.
    
    						Tony
             

    Tony,
    
    That reply makes perfect sense to me.  What I hear you showing biblical
    support for is that there are some words, in English, Greek, Hebrew,
    and Aramaic that have different meanings in different contexts. 
    Eternal and Forever are two such words.
    
                                             Patricia

Hi Tony,

I would question your diagnosis of your perception in .181.
The rate of your stance is questioned, is because it violates the general
understanding of language, so makes the scriptural promises fo eternity 
 (a) Of private interpretation, rather than according to the written word,
and
 (b) Considerably meaner in fulfillment than the words would seem to suggest.

And this is just to satisfy *your* perception of what you think God's 
attitude should be, in an area which lies beyond human comprehension.

While the Old Testament perception of life outside mortality is generally
more limited in spiritual terms than is the full revelation of the New 
Testament, this does not mean that we reduce the clear teaching of the 
gospel to the lowest common denominator.


							Andrew

      Hi Pat,
    
        Thank you very much.  Your reply is encouraging.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

Hi Andy,

>I would question your diagnosis of your perception in .181.
>The rate of your stance is questioned, is because it violates the general
>understanding of language...

 When I read that a slave shall serve his master forever, I came to realize
 a deeper study of the uses of these words was needed.  Violation of general
 understanding of language was not done.  Attempting to accomadate all of 
 the word was done. 

 I eventually bothered to consult an LXX to find if the same Greek used in
 the N.T. was used in the O.T.  I didn't know what it would say, but I 
 strongly suspected what it would (based on the conviction of my belief in
 this matter).  And it turned out the same Greek was used.

 Do you call this "violating the general understanding of language?"  I call
 it researching language and making all accomadations for it.  I mean to even
 research the Septuagint in order to better understand...that is paying heed
 to the understanding of language, not violating it.

 >so makes the scriptural promises fo eternity 
 >(a) Of private interpretation, rather than according to the written word,
 >and

  Not true.  It is not a private interpretation to accomadate the fact that
  slaves were said to serve their masters forever.

  Rather, I believe the private interpretation belongs to those who would
  come up with a doctrinal stance based on reliance on some of the word
  rather than all of it.

  As an example, I offered some fire texts.  Daniel 3 with the fiery furnace.
  Isaiah stating that the RIGHTEOUS would dwell with the devouring fire and
  everlasting burnings (33:14-15).  My observation would be that it would
  be quite a private interpretation to try to make these fires say some-
  thing other than what Isaiah clearly says they are.  Song of Solomon 8:6-7
  stating that God's love is an unquenching fire.  That is CLEAR language 
  describing the everlasting fires - God's love.

  One person said the following...

  If you cling to self, refusing to yield your will to God you are choosing
  death.  To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire.  If you choose
  sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes
  sin, must consume you.

	Mount of Blessings, p. 62.  Ellen White

  and also said...

  It is no arbitrary decree on the part of God that excludes the wicked 
  from heaven; they are shut out by their own unfitness for its companion-
  ship.  The glory of God would be to them a consuming fire.  They would
  welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who
  died to redeem them.

	Steps to Christ, p. 18  Ellen White

  I think the author is accurate regarding what the unquenching fire is.
  "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died.  (Rom. 7:9)"  This process 
  will destroy the unsaved.  As Solomon said, God's love is the unquenching 
  fire.  The mirror of James, that perfect law of liberty will reveal every 
  defect of sin in its fullest light, and sin will do the rest.  Destroy.

  I am not denying there won't be a physical fire that will cleanse physical
  things, but the above is the big thing (imo).

I'll continue...

Continuing...

> (b) Considerably meaner in fulfillment than the words would seem to suggest.

  I don't understand this Andy.

>And this is just to satisfy *your* perception of what you think God's 
>attitude should be, 

 Yeah, here we go again.  Judgment time.  Why don't you save that for God
 because He's the only one fit for the work?

 You simply don't know which came first.  Did I come to believe as I do
 on the basis of prayerful study and have my reasonings followed what the
 word already showed me?  Or did I reason the doctrine and then study with
 biased glasses?  

 How do you know whether or not the word GAVE ME MY PERCEPTION first?
 How do you know?

 I advise you not to judge.

 >in an area which lies beyond human comprehension.

  Did you get this from scripture?  Has scripture explicitly stated that
  what eventually befalls the unsaved is an area beyind our human compre-
  hension?  I'm open to the scriptural support.

  Oh, I know full well that there are things beyind our comprehension.
  The incarnation, the inception of sin, perhaps the initial conversion
  experience itself. but I don't see where the admonitions that our thoughts
  aren't His thoughts are explicitly said to refer to this topic, although
  I am eager to see your scriptural support.

  Hebrews does say to go on to perfection and says to leave the discussion
  of the elementary principles of Christ and then goes on to mention, among
  other doctrines ETERNAL JUDGMENT (Hebrews 6:1-2).

  I take it that God is looking for a last generation to probe it much 
  deeper than its been probed.

  Anyway, the following is probably an incomplete summary of why I think
  yours is the private interpretation:

  	o it does not accomadate all of scripture.

	o it is more flesh and less spirit (I believe), i.e. fails to see
	  that the eternal fire is God's love.

	o Says we cannot fathom one of the most foundational themes which
	  is why and how it is that the saved have the afterlife they have
	  while the lost have the afterlife they have.  What you insist we
	  can't know, I insist God must reveal to the entire universe before
 	  the controversy is settled.
  
							Tony

> When I read that a slave shall serve his master forever, I came to realize
> a deeper study of the uses of these words was needed.  Violation of general
> understanding of language was not done.  Attempting to accomadate all of 
> the word was done. 


  Please quote the passage you are talking about, and a few verses of surround-
  ing context.


 
  

      Please just look it up for yourself Jim.
    
      Haven't I written enough???   ;-)
    
      Just look up forever in the Concordance!!!  You'll find
      plenty of examples of it referring to obviously finite
      time durations.  Esp. concerning the Israelites performing
      rites of the sacrificial system which was done away with
      at the cross and will not be performed forever into the
      future.
    
      There won't be any death at some time.
    
      Small, btw, I misspelled beyond as beyind in an earlier reply.
    
    						Tony

    Tony, quoting a false prophetess isn't helping your case.

      Hi Mike,
    
        I anticipated this.  One is a fool if they insist that 
        everything White wrote is necessarily incorrect.
    
        I just think she concisely echoed a thought I agreed
        with.  I would place the estimation on the content of
        the words.
    
    						Tony

      Thanks Andy,
    
        I appreciate your words.  As Patricia said in an earlier
        reply (perhaps some other topic), you're as gentleman.
    
        I feel my use of scripture is fair and also that popularity
        of any view lends no credibility to it.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony 

>        I anticipated this.  One is a fool if they insist that 
>        everything White wrote is necessarily incorrect.
    
    If she and Hinkle were OT prophets, they wouldn't get a second chance.
    You could say faithful in the small things, faithful in the big things.
    
    btw - even the "prophets" and teachings in other cults share a fraction
    of truth.  Partial truth is not our concern here.
    
    Mike

                     <<< Note 737.202 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
    
>      Christ's cross doesn't take away our guilt.  It enables us to bear
>      it.  That is the bitter aspect of the bittersweet process of being
>      purified by fire.
 

      Tony, you are sadly mistaken. Col 2:13-14 clearly speaks of our sins
      being taken out of the way and NAILED TO THE CROSS!  IT IS FINISHED.
      complete..done.





 Jim

   
         
        
    

 I don't understand, Tony, and I apologize if this sounds judgemental or
 overly critical, how you can ignore clear passages of scripture, and yet
 have to come up with all sorts of twists and turns to substantiate what
 you want us to buy.  




 In Christ


 Jim

      Hi Jim,
    
        No...try coupling that text with Hebrews 10:1-4.
    
        The context says nothing about the penalty for transgression.
        It says EVERYTHING about shadows which were not profitable.
        Jesus nailed the shadows to the cross.
    
        He did so because the problem is our sin and shadow cannot
        cleanse the conscience from sin - only very image can.
    
        Seriously, please read all of the surrounding text and couple
        that passage with Hebrews 10:1-4.  Context will not allow the
        conclusion you draw.
    
        Again, I am not talking about a legal pronouncement of guilt.
        (Not that we aren't guilty in that sense, I just don't believe
        God condemns us in that sense.)
    
        The guilt I am talking about is the mental pain we experience
        as we behold our sin.
    
        Well, I have experienced it.  That is for sure.  Its an inescapable
        part of the process of God showing us our sin and leading us to
        repentance.
    
        I replied to Bing on this.  I'll post the reply numbers.  (On
        Collosians I mean.)
    
    	Have a blessed weekend brother.
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

      I don't think there's anything for you to apologise for!
      I for one have been discerning a very sweet spirit within
      you as of late - in this and other conferences (such as
      soapbox).
    
      I don't mean to be twisting.  I don't even believe in
      dancing!!!   ;-)  (Ask my wife!)
    
      I truly don't think I'm twisting with the forever evaluation
      I have done.
    
      The thing that mainly grips me Jim, regarding much of this,
      is the meaning of the scripture "But when the commandment
      came, sin revived, and I died."    And really all of the 
      meaning of Romans 7, which IS the context for Rom. 6:23.
      JIM, HONESTLY LOOK WHO IS DYING!!!  IN THE CONTEXT OF SIN
      AND DEATH.  ITS PAUL!!
    
      That long reply I did was done very quickly, but it was simply 
      meant to illustrate an example of the many ways God symbolizes
      the proces of unveiling (sword, birth pangs, deep waters, storm,
      fire) and to show how the experiences are shown in scripture 
      to happen to last generation and the lost.  And is it surprising
      that all of these are said to be symbols of a revelation of
      God?
    
      All of them echo the reality behind the scripture, "But when the
      commandment came [deeper revelation of God's love], sin revived
      [deeper revelation of exceeding sinfulness of sin], and I died
      [accompanying experience of psychological pain as a result of
      'feeling' to be that sinner]."
    
      Every Christian has tasted that experience, just not the fulness
      of it.  We have all tasted guilt as we saw our sin.  At least I
      have.
    
    						Have A Good One,
    
    						Tony
                                                     

      Hi Jim,
    
        Please give 551.198 and 551.199 a good read.  I hope I was
        fair (i.e. contextual, exegetical) with the scriptures.
    
        I'd also urge everyone to please consider reading all of
        681.  See how judgment dovetails so beautifully with all
        of this.
    
        Well, just a couple more hours till God's Sabbath...
    
    						Signing Out,
    
    						Tony

    I  still don't see your point about Romans 6:23 talking about paul's
    death, it is clearly saying, that you earn death from sin, but God's
    gift is eternal life through Christ.
    
    Slightly Confused,
    
    Joe
    

    I've skipped through the last 100 notes and seen a load of philosophy
    and workings out done on Gods loving character. I even saw the phrase
    "my own personal theology" mentioned. Well my "personal theology" is
    the same as "Christs universal theology". Some of Christs teaching is
    hard (John 6:60) and some of it I wish Jesus hadn't said 'cos my carnal
    man hates following those rules (Romans 7). The fact is, whether we
    like it or not, Jesus' words are the TRUTH, and if He has said it is so
    then it is so. There is no point searching through other scriptures and
    working out a theology of a loving God. A personal theology will not
    save you, only the Truth will save you, and the Truth is Jesus. Jesus
    is God, if He were not God then He would be either a liar or a lunatic.
    If He were not God then He would not have been able to change the law
    or forgive sin. If He were not God then all He said was probably either
    sadly misguided or a blatant lie. Decide now if you believe Jesus'
    claims about Himself and that all He said was the truth. If it is the
    truth then Hell is eternal because Jesus said many times that it is so
    (Matthew 25:46, Luke 16:23-28). Why did Jesus preach more about Hell
    than He did about Heaven? It was because He knew the reality of it. If
    hell simply meant annihilation then why be concerned about those who
    face it? they won't know anything about it so they won't care. But
    Jesus made it clear that Hell was a place of torment and pain which
    means more than just annihalation. 
    
    God has done all He can, by the cross, to prevent anyone going to Hell
    but we also have our own will and our own freedom of choice. We have a
    great commission to fulfill - go and preach the gospel to all nations.
    If I knew that my friends who weren't saved would only face
    annihalation when they died I would not have a burden for them, but I
    know what Jesus has said about the reality of Hell so I will try and
    bring people to Jesus that they may be saved. Our motive for preaching
    Hell must be one of love - not condemnation or leagalism, but love.
    William Booth had a vision of Hell which changed his life - I pray that
    each one of us will have a vision of Hell that we may all do our utmost
    to prevent people going there.
    
    Love
    Ben

    
    
    A great big
    
    
    
    
                                                       !!
                                                      !!!!
          A        M       M  EEEEEEEEE  N      N    !!!!!!
         A A       MM     MM  E          NN     N     !!!!
        A    A     M M   M M  E          N N    N     !!!!
       A      A    M  M M  M  EEEEE      N  N   N      !!
      A        A   M   M   M  E          N   N  N      
      AAAAAAAAAA   M       M  E          N    N N      !! 
      A        A   M       M  E          N     NN     !!!!  
      A        A   M       M  EEEEEEEEE  N      N      !!
    
    
To the last note (.209)
    
                -Joe
    
    
    

 Mega Dittos!

Pointer:  I have listed all the N.T. passages that employ the phrase
"for ever and ever", as in "...they will be tormented day and night
for ever and ever" (Rev 20:10) in note 94.208

    re: .208
    
      Excellent reply.  First, be true to context and see who is dying.
      It is Paul.
    
      How is this reconciled with what you said?  Romans 7 gives us a
      definition of death which is experiencing the alienation that
      results from facing your sin.  THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS ETERNAL
      DEATH.
    
      Part of the efficacy of Christ's cross is the love revealed as
      well as the power of Example revealed that enables us to follow
      in His steps.  He learned obedience by sufering (Hebrews) and so
      it is with us.  We are enabled to 'die' as Romans 6:23 says and
      as Romans 7 expounds and to survive that death.  The lost will 
      not survive.
    
      The cross was an experience of enduring all the psychic pain that
      results from facing the full enormity of sin.  Christ conquered
      this.  He commended His Spirit to the Father.  Faith won the 
      victory; His righteousness was intact.  His real death was facing
      that alienation.  His real resurrection was overcoming the temptation
      to despair by faith.  His physical death and resurrection were
      schoolmasters.
    
      And so it is with us.   So, if you separate _two deaths_, the first
      one of facing that alienation as a result of beholding sin and the
      second the death of responding to that experience with unbelief/
      despair and thus being destroyed, Christ and the faithful die the
      first death and resist the second.  The lost die both kinds of 
      death and the latter is eternal.
    
    re: .209
      If it was I who said "my personal theology", I was WAY IN THE 
      WRONG.  That is a grave sin.  I am sorry for that!
    
      I have two problems with your reply.
    
      One, IT DEMEANS THE CROSS.  The lost will die the death of the 
      cross, only worse for they will respond to that full revelation
      of their sin by despair and that experience of despair will be
      utterly terrifying.
    
      There is ONLY ONE WAY TO WATER DOWN ETERNAL DESTRUCTION as being
      'not such a big deal' and that is TO DEMEAN THE CROSS.
    
      To put another way, it is possible that the lost could suffer
      the torments of the cross.  Why would anyone want to make light
      of that?  Does that not then imply making light of Christ's 
      suffering for us?
    
      So, it follows that the entire scope of your reply is meaningless
      for me unless I choose to water down the sufferings of Christ.
    
      This I will not and cannot do.
    
      My second point is that your belief in what happens to the unsaved
      is _unscriptural_ and so why should I believe it?  I mean, we should
      abide by the Word, right?
    
    
    re: .212
    
      Garth, pointer from me.  A reply to your forever and ever reply.
      Emphasis is another possibility.  I believe language, when repeating
      words, generally implies emphasis and not the words 'suddenly'
      taking on a whole other meaning than they had without repetition.
      Aion means the same thing, the repetition of its use implies
      emphasis.  Aion _does not_ suddenly take on a different meaning.
      This is linguistically rare; if it ever occurs at all.  But,
      emphasis by repetition is not linguistically rare at all.  Quite
      a common practise actually.
    
      My reply is immediately after yours in Topic #94.
    
    						Tony
                                 

    Hi Tony
    
    I'm sorry but I'm not too sure I understand your reply to .209. I
    Certainly have not intended to play down the work or suffering of the
    cross and I don't feel my note implied that, sorry if it did. Please
    can you re-word your reply so that I can understand what you are
    saying.
    
    Thanks loads
    Ben

      Hi Ben,
    
        You stated...
    
        "If hell simply meant anihilation then why be concerned
         about those who face it?"
    
        "If I knew that my friends who weren't saved would only
         face anihilation when they died I would not have a burden
         for them."
    
         I felt you demeaned the cross when you wrote the above.
         My reasoning is as follows...
    
         I believe the lost will experience a cross-like dying exp.
         They will be weighed down with the full force of sin.  Their
         sufferings will be awesome.
    
         Christ's suffering was temporary.  He was not on that cross
         forever.  
    
         So why be concerned about Him?  After all Ben, the entire 
         force of your argument is the time duration of the suffering.
         You said you'd have no burden for the lost if their suffering
         were to be finite, if they'd be anihilated.
    
         So whats the big deal about the cross of Christ?  It was
         finite as well.
    
         My belief is that suffering need not be infinite in time duration
         in order for it to be overwhelming and in order to want to 
         relieve anyone from it.  My belief is that to not have a burden
         for anyone that might undergo the sufferings of the cross is to
         demean the cross, for the cross is temporary in time duration.
    
         None of this speaks of the burden to save the lost because of
         the fact that forever they will miss out of unspeakable joy.
    
         How on earth could you (to use your own words) "not have a burden"
         for anyone who would suffer as Christ did and then would miss
         out eternally on the joys of eternal fellowship with Christ?
    
         Thats where I was coming from Ben.
    
         Do you see my point?
    
    						Tony

I came to the office yesterday to read all the notes that have been written 
during my holiday.Some very judgmental, some seem to question the integrity and 
mercy of God and some fanning the fire on which fat has been spread.
My reaction was to reply to all those I felt were in some way unchristian in 
nature.
This morning I was awakened with the following words strongly in my thoughts:
"Be still and KNOW that I am God". When reflecting on these words I realized 
that I should not reply and that God had the power to change man's hearts and 
thoughts.
Instead I wish to share a thought with you on life on earth and in eternity.

"We on earth are on a pilgrimage going home. A pilgrimage where we learn about 
our Heavenly Father and learn to love our brothers and sisters as our selves.

It has become obvious to me that I cannot face the might and mercy of God when
I die if I have not learnt to accept Him in my limited human understanding.
His brilliance would be too overwhelming to receive all at one time. I also 
cannot enter paradise with less than love for all there present. One unkind 
thought against a fellow brother can not be possible in this perfect place.

I assume therefore that there must be a place for purification that prepares me 
for heaven, cleansing me of all my faults that I have not learnt to shed in 
this life and where I learn to know God in His magnificence which I have failed
to do in this life.
If in this life I have refused to accept the basic reason for being on earth 
then the purification phase would be endless with no hope of entering heaven.
      

      Hi Ben,
    
        An addendum to my reply.
    
        What of the many people who never heard of the Bible and
        thus (assuming your view) lacked the oppurtunity to ever
        find out about eternal burning in hell?
    
        On what basis does your logic have any reasoning whatsoever
        if even a single soul that ever lived on this planet was
        unable to receive a message that this is what happens to
        the unsaved?
    
        I'd stick to Romans 1.  He has sufficiently revealed Himself
        such that to not accept Him is inexcusable.  Even His creative
        word is sufficient revelation.  
    
        One necessary basis for your reasoning is that every person
        that has ever lived on this planet has received sufficient 
        revelation of what takes place for the unsaved.
    
    						Tony

Hi Tony,

Psalm 19 also powerfully underlines that the evidence of God's character is 
displayed to all mankind, so that no-one can say that they never knew.  
ie - In the wisdom and knowledge of God, Jesus' salvation is available and
can be applied to those who never heard of His Name or of His work 
directly - including those who lived before Him.  That, of course does not 
remove from us the responsibility of the Great Commission.

But this is a totally different question, which we have covered elsewhere
at various times.

								Andrew

      Hi Andy,
    
        I agree and am aware that Romans 10 quotes from Psalm 19.
    
        The point I am making is Ben's basis of WHY eternal conscious
        torment.  His basis is that it is required in order for one
        to be burdened for someone's salvation.   (To which there
        were a couple of "AMEN" replies.)
    
        The sole purpose of my reply was simply to state the obvious
        that his basis is completely nullified provided there be even
        one single person who was prevented from having a revelation
        if the 'horrors of eternal consciouys torment'.  And in fact,
        I believe millions have been prevented from this knowledge
        (which as you all know, I don't believe is truth anyway).
    
        So, Andy, I appreciate your reply and more than this, I agree
        100% with it.  But, it doesn't address the intent of my reply
        which was an addendum to how I felt Ben's 'philosophy' for why
        there ought be eternal conscious torment, i.e. so that he would
        be burdened for their salvation, is irrational and groundless.
    
        I hope to hear from ya Ben.
    
    				   		    Tony

    Tony
    
    Sorry for the delay - herds of work going on.
    
    My philosophy of being burdened for souls going to hell being the proof
    of hell is not the basis for my belief in the eternity of hell. My
    proof is that Jesus has said it is eternal, the bit about being
    burdened was just an added extra at no extra cost ;-)
    
    I can see where you are coming from but until I see something in favour of
    annihalation that is as black and white and obvious as the words Jesus 
    said about hell being eternal then I dare not believe (or even try to
    believe) something else.
    
    I want to stress this - my only proof of hell being eternal is also the
    same proof that heaven is eternal 
    
    JESUS SAID IT SO I BELIEVE IT!!!!!!!
      
    I'm afraid this is only a flying visit and may be my last again for a
    few days - please be patient if you want a reply.
    
    Love
    Ben

      Hi Ben,
    
        Thanks for your reply and I've appreciated our discussion
        offline as well.
    
        I can only say that the same Greek word is also used in
        scripture to describe events of finite time duration, i.e.
        I believe the KJV blew it on this one.
    
        Or to put another way...Jesus really didn't say it.
    
        He said aion/aionios, not forever and as I have tried to do,
        aion/aionios don't have quite the same meaning (as forever).
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    .222
    
    From what are you judging that the KJV blew it?  What are your
    references and what is there date?

    Nancy,

    my Sweet Sister, *please* don't get so 'het-up' about a little
    criticism of your favoured translation of the Bible. There has been
    *much* discussion about the various translations of the Bible, please
    please please don't start us down _that_ particular rat-hole here.

    FWIW, my preferred option is a number of translations (incl. of course,
    the AV), and if I really am not sure about what is being said, dig out
    the Interlinear Greek and a good Lexicon and also Vine's. That way, you
    can produce your _own_ translation ;')

    Now back to our regularly scheduled rat-hole ;')

 I think the question was "where did the KJV blow it"?  I'm interested
 in that one myself.




  Jim

    Thank you Jim, I'm waiting too.

      Hi Nance and Jim,
    
        The KJV 'blew it' when they rendered the english 'forever'
        for the Greek 'aion' unless in the time of its writing
        forever did not necessarily mean for infinite time in the
        future.
    
        The basis for the above are the several texts that use forever
        (most in the OT) which obviously refer to events of finite
        time duration.  I include the fact that the LXX (Greek O.T. =
        Septuagint) renders aion in those same O.T. texts.
    
        I've been through all of this before so if you're just going
        to tell me that forever has to mean infinite time in the future
        all the while the O.T. sacrificial rites were often said to
        be performed forever and a slave would serve his master 
        'forever'...
    
        ...if you're gonna say it must mean forever even in consider-
        ation of the above,
    
        then there is too large a disconnect and I apparently am not
        capable of satisfactorily explaining a very important concept.
    
        Try as I might.
    
    						Tony
        

    So the bottom line Tony is that *you* are saying the KJV blew it.  You
    have nothing other than your own doctrine to secure and of course you
    must allow that doctrine to be backed up by the greek, though you
    are not a greek scholar?
    
    Tony, I think you are the one who blew it.
    
    Nancy

    
    
    
    
      Hi Nance,
    
      I don't see any reason to get personal.  We all have doctrines
      we hold to be near and dear.  Yes, I do hold this doctrine to
      be near and dear to me.  But, I am going to try to be civil with
      those who hold a contrasting view though I admit to failing in
      the past.
    
      Clearly you seem to hold to some belief that the KJV is 100%
      accurate.  I do not.
    
      I think it is possible to not be a Greek scholar and to simply
      study Greek words by looking into all their occurances in the
      Bible.  Thats really all I did.  I also did ask a person with a
      Septuagint what the Greek word was for several O.T. texts rendered
      forever in the KJV english.
    
      The KJV clearly says that a slave will serve his master FOREVER.
      It also says of many sacrificial rites that the priests would
      perform them FOREVER.
    
      Assuming forever must mean infinite time in the future...
    
      I see 2 possibilities...
    
      1) The KJV is 100% accurate and slaves will serve their masters
         forever and the O.T. sacrificial system will be performed
         forever.
    
      2) The KJV is not always accurate and slaves will not serve 
         their earthly masters in heaven and Levitical priests will
         not perform earthly sacrificial rites in heaven.
    
      If I blew it Nancy, I believe where I blew it has to do with
      something from the above.  I invite you to show me what is 
      incorrect from the above.
    
      I do not believe earthly slaves will serve their earthly masters
      forever nor do I believe Levitical priests will perform sacrificial
      rites in heaven (or in the earth made new).  
    
      Thus I believe the KJV 'blew it' as it has the english 'forever' in
      those verses.  
    
      I think they should have used 'always.'
    
      I consider the KJV to be the most accurate Bible by the way and I
      believe God can perfect a person's character partly as a result of
      the KJV as a Guide.  
    
      (Though I believe such a person would come to realize it is not 
      100% accurate.)
    
      Nance, I hope you might consider abstaining from personal criticism.
      I mean...my only purpose in this life is not to be concerned about
      my salvation, it is to glorify God and the best way to do that is
      to uplift His character both in telling of it and in demonstrating
      what His love has done in my life.
    
      I am here to show people what God is like.  I believe the popular 
      belief gives God attributes that are utterly satanic and yet I 
      believe I ought not personally criticize a single adherent of this
      doctrine I despise.
    
      Can't you do the same for me regarding my KJV beliefs???
    
    						Tony

	Gee Nancy, you're jumping on everyone today. 

	No, Nancy is just being blunt about stating her opinion.

>	Gee Nancy, you're jumping on everyone today. 
    
    What do you mean ? Huh ?
    
    

| <<< Note 737.231 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| No, Nancy is just being blunt about stating her opinion.
| -< Gee, Glen, maybe you're getting oversensitive... >-

	Considering I wasn't the only one who said something about it, I might
not be alone in this thinking. 

	How come Nancy can be blunt about her replies and not be called an
antagonist? 

      To All (Including Myself Especially),
    
        Lets turn the other cheek, ok?
    
        					Tony

| No, Nancy is just being blunt about stating her opinion.
| -< Gee, Glen, maybe you're getting oversensitive... >-

|>	Considering I wasn't the only one who said something about it, I might
|>not be alone in this thinking. 

|>	How come Nancy can be blunt about her replies and not be called an
|> antagonist? 
    
    Glen,
    
    What's your point ? Are you trying to say that because you might not
    be alone in this thinking that there is something here ?
    
    Are you trying to say that Nancy is an antagonist also, because
    your not alone and she was blunt ?
    
    Help me to understand....
    

    Tony,
    
    I find GREAT offense in your words the KJV blew it.  What you do with a
    statement like that is basically fan the flame of the liberal agenda
    and moral relativism.
    
    
    I think the Bible should mould you, not you mould the Bible to fit a
    doctrine that you have come up with.  I find no discrepancy in your
    studies regarding forever.
    
    Slaves and Masters can be compared to Digital and you.  Employer and
    employee.  The rules surrounding the slave and master should apply to
    your work ethics.  The forever is simply that as long as this
    relationship is in place, then these are the rules.
    
    You want to nitpick over forever... in text that is easily understood
    without trying to find some "deeper" meaning.  Being a deep thinker is
    one thing, but being shallow to get to the deeper meanings is a
    travesty to the spirituality of the individual.
    
    God's message of love is simple, it doesn't require any deeper
    understanding than that.  
    
    I find your writings to confuse not enlighten.  I find your writings to
    be lose to hypocrisy... and I cannot support you in those postings.
    
    I don't have the time unfortuantely to put into pointing out each flaw
    of thinking, I wish Mark were here.   But Tony, inspite of my
    disagreement, I *know* you are one man who diligently seeks God and I
    give you a lot of credit for doing so... even if I disagree with your
    deeper understanding.
    
    Nancy

    In addition to what Nancy says, we might as be like the cults that
    write their own bibles if we can't reconcile our theological view with
    God's Word.
    
    Time for us to choose God's Way or the highway as far as translations
    go.  I'll stick with my KJV and NAS, thank you.  They're the most
    accurate translations we have.
    
    Mike

      Nancy,
    
        I am not sure if the word forever carries the 'latitude' of meaning
        that you maintain it carries, HOWEVER, if it does not necessarily
        mean _infinite time in the future_, than I agree that the KJV did
        not err in using the word forever as it has.
    
        I still believe it has erred in some instances.
    
        But, as is relevent to this topic, I have a question for you...
    
        As you have just agreed that the word 'forever' does not
        necessarily mean 'infinite time in the future', what do you feel
        about anyone taking any text with the word forever in it AND
        ON THAT BASIS insisting that it must mean 'infinite time in the
        future'????
    
        Do you see what I am saying?
    
        That is the extent of the crux of my 'deep thinking' which I 
        don't think is that deep.
    
        If the Bible says the unsaved will suffer "forever", how can you
        necessitate that such a verse requires that it must be infinite
        time in the future?  If the unsaved are given immortality, the
        conscious suffering must be forever.  If they are not given
        immortality, they fall under the same classification as does the
        slave.  They suffer until they die.
    
        If one did require that the unsaved are in conscious torment for
        an infinite time ON THE BASIS OF THE USAGE OF THE WORD
        FOREVER, then we are back to square 1.  We must then say that the
        slave will serve his master forever (infinite time in the future).
    
        That is all I'm saying Nancy.  I am simply asking people to be
        consistent with what that word is saying.
    
        Now, you may brand my efforts in as dark a light as you desire,
        but if it gets even ONE person to realize that it is not proper
        to defend the popular view with the forever texts, I will feel
        satisfied.
    
        The forever texts don't carry that kind of punch and it is 
        a mark against proponents of the popular position to seek to 
        defend their view with the forever texts.
    
        In fact, I have found the forever texts to be their PRIMARY 
        defense!!!
    
        I am sorry I sometimes don't convey what I am trying to communi-
        cate in a simpler manner.  But, even in light of this, better 
        that people are honest to the word and defend their beliefs with 
        the honesty that the word deserves.
    
        For every five times someone has told me I am wasting my time,
        I would have hoped at least one soul would have been able to 
        openly admit in this Conference that the espousers of the popular
        belief misuse the forever texts.
    
        We must look elsewhere and find out about the nature of the objects
        so described by the word forever.
    
        ****************************************************************
    
        Getting back to the KJV, as an example, God will not spew Laodicaea
        out of His mouth.  That verse in Rev 3 was mistranslated.  A more
        accurate intepretation, to use today's vernacular, would be,
    
        "You make me so sick that I feel like throwing up!"
    
        Christ would not throw up a church He would next admonish to
        be zealous therefore and repent.
    
        Regardless, I do not defend liberalism or the other thing you said
        and I believe that the KJV has erred a few times.
    
    						Tony

Nancy,

The Greek Church tends to use "throughout the ages of ages" in those
contexts where 17th century English says "forever and ever".

This should be a clue to you that what the bible means is "for all time".

On the last day, time ends, the ages of ages come to an end, there is no
more time as we know it, but only eternity.

/john

    re: .237
    
    Agreed.  I prefer the NKJV, but prefer the KJV to all other
    translations - save the original Greek and Hebrew to which
    I confess to have relied upon.
    
    I noticed you said "most accurate."
    
    Is that synonymous with "perfectly accurate"?
    
    						Tony

>	How come Nancy can be blunt about her replies and not be called an
>antagonist? 



 Um, because her replies are in agreement with the basis of this conference?

| <<< Note 737.235 by YUKON::GLENN >>>



| What's your point ? Are you trying to say that because you might not
| be alone in this thinking that there is something here ?

	I am saying the possibility exists. It does not mean it is so.

| Are you trying to say that Nancy is an antagonist also, because
| your not alone and she was blunt ?

	I am saying that one views her as being blunt, another something else.
Either or both interpretations could be wrong, but only one has the possibility
of being right. If you turn it around to others, you would see what one sees as
an antagonist, could really just be someone being blunt. If people tell others
they are, "<insert label>", it does not make it so.



Glen

| <<< Note 737.241 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| >	How come Nancy can be blunt about her replies and not be called an
| >antagonist?

| Um, because her replies are in agreement with the basis of this conference?

	So if her "blunt" replies are stated towards any one individual(s)
constantly, then it is just bluntness and not her being an antagonist? Her
replies may fit the premise Jim, but then so don't mine. Neither of them are
going against it. Yet both are viewed differently. Why?

 why is it, Glen, that we who believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of
 God, and who wish to share in discussion of those beliefs and share in the
 joy of knowing Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior can't be left alone to
 do just that?  Why?  Why do you, who does not believe the Bible to be the
 inerrant Word of God come in to a conference that does and challenge that
 belief? Why?  Can't we be left alone to share?  Fine, you learn things in
 here..wonderful.  But you don't share the beliefs of 99.9999999% of the 
 participants here, so why do you not just leave us alone????



 Jim

	Tony, you have hit the nail on the head! If there are any notes of the
"a" catagory, they would have been deleted. 

	I'm glad you were able to see what I was trying to say Tony.


Glen

This note is in danger of being universally annihilated for going off
topic.  It has been pointed out that we should be sticking to the subject,
and certainly not discussing individuals... 

						Andrew

      Hi,
    
        Ok, back to the topic at hand.
    
        I'd sure like a reply to .238 Nancy.  And I'd like for you
        to tell me exactly what it is I am seeing (regarding forever)
        that is 'deep' and exactly how it is that what I wrote is
        shallow and close to hypocrisy.
    
        Hi Karen,
    
        Could you please cite for me where I have attacked the gospel
        (as relates this string...not that I would ever want to attack
        the gospel!)
    
        Could you also explain to me _how_ it is I have attacked the
        gospel?  (I am assuming you believe I attacked it as you
        stated that Nancy is defending it.  It only needs defense if
        it is attacked, right?)
    
    						Thanks and God Bless,
    
    						Tony
                                          

      Another question...
    
      In referencing 94.231-240 (Lazarus and a couple other things) 
      and 94.276-278 (worms response)...
    
      Were the Lazarus and worm replies fair to the Bible?  In the 
      case of the worm response, was it not better to cite Isaiah and
      add pertinent scriptural context?
    
    						Tony

    Hi Again,
    
      Sounds ok by me Karen, although I reread Nancy's reply which
      labeled my inputs as "shallow" and "close to hypocrisy" and
      unenlightening and I did not see a shred of objective evidence
      supporting the observation that I was attacking the gospel.
      So, I'm kind of in the dark on that one!
    
      Maybe someone could point it out to me?
    
      I (presently) just want to focus on one point...
    
      Nancy has acknowledged that the Greek from which we render 
      'forever' does not necessarily mean 'infinite time in the future.'
    
      She applied a very useful practical illustration, i.e. myself
      and my employer.
    
      I think it was an excellent illustration as it SUPPORTS MY
      CONTENTION that the meaning of the forever descriptions are bound
      by the nature of the objects which they describe.
    
      In the case of the analogy, the object being dewscribed is a
      working relationship between employee and employer and (thus) is
      something that is temporal.
    
      All I am saying is that it is the same word which describes the
      unsaved.  All I am saying is that I believe we need to study about
      the nature of the lost.
    
      For example...
    
      1) Only God has immortality.  (According to Timothy.)
    
      2) The words soul and spirit, as applied to man, are in the
         scriptures ~1600 times.  NEVER are they described as immortal.
         
      3) The lost are never described as having eternal LIFE.
    
      4) The saved are described as having eternal life (as a gift).
    
      I understand the argument set forth that the word forever means
      infinite time in the future because of the time period, but I
      don't see the scriptural necessity of this.  I believe that in the
      fullest sense, time is no more when death is no more, i.e. when 
      death is cast into the pit or wherever its cast.
    
      At which time Revelation says that all creatures on earth, in the
      sea, and in the heavens (this constitutes the whole universe folks)
      worship God.  (Don't know where the verse is.)
    
      Now, I do believe the punishment is eternal and that part of the
      punishment is eternal loss of life (not just the conscious torment
      part).
    
      Given all of the above...why would I believe that the lost suffer
      eternal conscious torment for infinite time into the future?
    
      (Again, I am reliant on Nancy's own acquiesence regarding flexibility
      of the meaning of the word 'forever.')
    
      To put it simply, no creature inherently has immortality.  Only God
      does.  It is a gift conferred upon the saved.
    
      Thus the lost are ultimately destroyed.  Just as Lot and Sodom,
      scripturally given examples of eternal destruction (See Jude), 
      were.
    
      And here eternal means forever.  They are destroyed forever.  They
      will never be 'undestroyed.'
    
      Where's the flaw in my reasoning?
    
      How do the forever texts ALONE necessitate the lost suffer eternal
      conscious torment?
    
      Or is it wrong to maintain as such from the forever texts alone?
      (All the while this is the major plank of the popular position.)
    
    						Tony

    
            XXXX    X    X    XXXXX    XXXXX     XXXXX     XXXXX
           X        X    X    X   X    X   X     X         X
           X        XXXXXX    X   X    X   X     XXXXX     XXXXX
           X        X    X    X   X    X   X         X     X
            XXXX    X    X    XXXXX    XXXXX     XXXXX     XXXXX
    
    
                XXXXX     XXXXX      X      XXXXX     XXXXX
                X   X     X         X X     X         X
                XXXXX     XXXXX    XXXXX    X         XXXXX
                X         X        X   X    X         X
                X         XXXXX    X   X    XXXXX     XXXXX
    
          PSALM 34:14   "Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and
                            pursue it."
    

            XXXX    X    X    XXXXX    XXXXX     XXXXX     XXXXX
           X        X    X    X   X    X   X     X         X
           X        XXXXXX    X   X    X   X     XXXXX     XXXXX
           X        X    X    X   X    X   X         X     X
            XXXX    X    X    XXXXX    XXXXX     XXXXX     XXXXX
    
    
                XXXXX     XXXXX      X      XXXXX     XXXXX
                X         X   X     X X     X         X
                X  XX     XXXXX    XXXXX    X         XXXXX
                X   X     X  X     X   X    X         X
                XXXXX     X   X    X   X    XXXXX     XXXXX

      I appreciate what you guys are telling me and perhaps it
      is well past the time to dust of the scandals and let go
      of this discussion,
    
      BUT
    
      My salvation is LESS IMPORTANT than God's honor and glory
      and I believe God's glory is His character of agape.  Though
      perhaps misplaced, my motivation is to uplift a clearer and
      deeper revelation of God's character.
    
      As I said in 751.36, my desire is in this area.  To uphold
      what God is about.  As I have stated a few times before, I
      believe the traditional view drastically reduces a right
      conception of God's character.
    
    						Tony

    I heard a praise song that keeps coming to mind. This could be relevant
    to this topic. God works in His ways not ours;
    
    God will find a way where there seems to be no way
    He works in ways we cannot see He will make a way for me 
    He will be my guide and hold me closely to His side
    With love and strenght from Him today He will find a way
    
    Praise God for His wisdom
    
    Peter
    

    >I think it was an excellent illustration as it SUPPORTS MY
    >CONTENTION that the meaning of the forever descriptions are bound
    >by the nature of the objects which they describe.
    
    Wellllll, not quite it only supports half of your contention. :-) :-) 
    
    I don't believe that you can take one scripture and build a doctrine
    around it and what it appears to me is that you have decided that a
    doctrine that is based on the entirety of the Bible is wrong, due to
    the context of verses such as the slavery which in fact do mean always
    for as long as the relationship is in tact.
    
    If you wish to bring that same application of the greek to the verses
    about eternity, then I'd have to ask you, doesn't one always have a
    relationship with God, either as a believer or an unbeliever?
    
    Nancy
    
    

      Hi Nance,
    
        I don't think so because unbelievers do not receive the gift of
        immortality.  Thus when God unveils Himself, they are destroyed
        by His brightness.  Isaiah says the righteous dwell in the 
        eternal burnings.
    
        Nance, the thing I don't understand is how you (and others)
        necessitate that _forever_ cannot possibly mean FINITE time
        in the future as regards the conscious suffering of the lost.
    
        Why do you insist it must be infinite time in the future?  
    
        The following is a summary of why I believe the conscious 
        suffering is finite...
    
        1) Forever does not necessarily mean infinite time in the 
           future.
    
        2) The nature of the object tells us whether or not forever
           does mean infinite time in the future.
    
        3) Only God has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16).
    
        4) The words _soul_ and _spirit_ when describing man are
           never described as being immortal though they are rendered
           ~1600 times in the scriptures.
    
        5) The saved are said to receive immortality AS A GIFT
           (John 3:16).
    
        Nance, from the above, I conclude the following...
    
        1) Forever as used in the scriptures can connotate either 
           finite or infinite time in the future depending on the
           nature of the object which it describes.
    
        2) The lost are mortal (not immortal).  This is the status
           of the object described by 'forever' when the word 'forever'
           describes them.
    
        Conclusion: The lost suffer conscious torment until the suffering
          	    causes them to cease to exist.
    
        Nance, I cannot use language more plainly than to cite things
        like 1 thru 5 above (please reread).  Those are not 'deep' or
        'shallow' or 'close to hypocrisy' kind of statements.  They are
        very plain notions critical to this study.
    
        I don't know how I can possibly conclude otherwise!
    
        Can I suggest that we look at the coin from the other side?
        
        As in: Can you prove to me out of scripture that the lost
               are immortal?
    
        (And remember, we agree that the forever texts cannot prove
        so as they can connotate finite or infinite time duration 
        depending on the object they desire.)
    
        BTW, Nance, were the Lazarus and 'worms' contributions in
        Topic #94 fair to the scriptures?
    
    			  			Thanks and God Bless!,
    
    						Tony

      Hi Nance,
    
        A second reply to .258.
    
        I think I took much more than one scripture as re: -1 suggests.
    
        For example...
    
    		There are several forever texts I brought up and which
    		Jim so generously supplied (many from Exodus).
    
    		I brought up Jude which states that Sodom and Gommorah
    		serve as examples of the eternal suffering of the lost
    		(again that word can mean finite or infinite).  I would
    		say that the Jude text certainly points strongly to
                finite time duration.
    
    		There is the Isaiah text that states that only the 
    		righteous dwell in the everlasting burnings.
    
    		There are Ecclesiastes and Psalmist texts that state
    		that the dead have no consciousness.
    
    		There are several texts that describe what happens to
    		the lost as total destruction such as Malachi 4:1-3,
       		Psalm 37 (such as verses 10, 20, 36).  There are so 
    		many texts like these, but we haven't discussed them.
    		Check these texts out.  "The wicked shall be no more."
      		(Ps. 37:10), "they shall perish, they shall vanish away"
    		(Ps. 37:20).  The wicked shall be burned up and shall
    		be ashes under our feet.  (Malachi 4:1).
    
    		These verses are never really discussed.  They are given
    		a meaning other than what they clearly say.  And I think
    		the reason is the misunderstanding behind the forever
    		texts.
    
    		There is the Revelation text that pictures the entire
    		universe and says that all creatures worship Him day
    		and night.
    
    		There is 1 Timothy 6:16 (only God has immortality).
    
          	There is John 3:16 and others like it: life is a gift
    		given to the righteous.
    
       	Its not a one text thing.  I am building this doctrine around a
     	lot of texts and I acknolwedge that the 1st and most necessary
    	plank is to correctly understand the latitude of meaning of the
    	word rendered as forever.
    
    	Once that is done and a few somewhat isolated passages such as
      	Lazarus and the worms texts are analyzed in context, THEN
    
        ****THEN****
    
    	when we roll in the enormous number of texts that so clearly
        point to total destruction, cessation of any consciousness
    	whatsoever,
    
    	its a done deal.
    
    	Its not even close.
    
    	But, the position requires looking at all the texts, not one text
    	as you suggest.
    
        I hope you can take this nicely Nance, but for you to think the
    	conditionalist 'argument' is based on a single text is powerful
    	proof to me that you never really studied out the conditionalist
    	position.
    
    	If you had ever given it any chance of possibility, you would have
    	had to know it is built on far more than one text.
    
        This is my discernment and (as such) subject to being wrong, but
        I don't think you have ever given this doctrine any chance.
    
        Neither did Fudge...until he finally honestly looked at it.
    
        I urge you to read the forward of his book (which I supplied
        in 94 somewhere).  The guy is no dummy and is a genuine Christian.
        He had no reason to 'switch views.'  He grew up an evangelical
        Christian and always held to the traditonalist position.  Look at
        his accounts of Lazarus and the worm texts.  This is an honest
        man.
    
    	He came to the conditionalist view based on honest, exegetical,
        and thorough study of the entirety of the word of God.
    
    						God Bless,    
    
    						Tony

      Correction to .259
    
      2nd last paragraph...
    
      should be "object they DESCRIBE"
    
      not
    
      "object they desire."

    Hi,

    I've _deliberately_ steered away from this. Mainly 'cause I'm chicken,
    but also, I'm still trying to clarify in my own mind just where I think
    I stand.

    But...

    It seems to me, that we have, what, 260+ replies here, and there seems
    to be a _lot_ more heat than light being generated :(

    What I want to know is "What does it ultimately matter?"

    If I die without accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Saviour - I'm
    toast. Whether it's for Eternity, or for a very long (but finite) time
    - I'm _still_ toast!

    I don't wanna be toast! And anyone with 1/2 an ounce of sense would
    want to stay away from that situation as well! "Now choose life, so
    that you and your children may live...but as for me and my household,
    we will serve the Lord." (Dt 30:19b, Josh 24:15b)

    God Bless,

	      Harry

    Hi Harry,
    
      Please read .256.  That would summarize why it matters to me.
      I want to uplift a right conception of God's character which
      I believe is terribly warped by the popular belief.  And it
      is a revelation of His character which leads to conversion
      so I think the popular view stunts the potential for conversion
      as it warps a right conception of that love which converts.
      (It is by beholding that we are changed and we should all want
      to allow for people to behold God's character in clear lines.)
    
      BTW, I feel a need to clarify what I meant by my salvation not
      being as important as God's honor and glory as Nance, I think,
      took what I said wrong and so I am open to the possibility that
      others have as well.
    
      Here's what I wrote Nance...
    
    Hi Nancy,

    I think you didn't take what I said about my salvation not mattering
    in the way that I meant it.

    If you would, check out Exodus 32:32 and Romans 9:3.  Moses and Paul
    expressed a willingness to relinquish their own salvation.  This is
    not indicative of apostasy, it is indicative of maturity (not to say
    this is me).

    I believe it is extremely important to God that I am saved.  And I
    want to be saved, BUT I believe a more mature and loving experience
    is one wherein God's honor and glory and anyone else's salvation is
    more important than your own.

    THAT'S what I was referring to.  And that is much of the esence of 
    the cross and "I am crucified with Christ."

    The degree to which our thoughts and concerns are centered on our
    own salvation and not on the salvation of others and the honor and
    glory of God is (I think) roughly proportionate to the extent of
    one's spiritual immaturity.

    To me, the fullest possible experience of Christlikeness is when
    thoughts of personal security are totally lost sight of because the
    entire inward experience is obsessed with laboring for the salvation
    of others and of seeking to honor and glorify God.

    These were the concerns of Moses and Paul who were willing to let
    go of their own salvation.

						God Bless,

						Tony
                                                                    

	Well, nobody asked me, but I look at this question as follows...
The time line is finite.  It has a starting point, and an ending point.
It is one-dimensional, at least for all practical purposes, on this earth.
The good Lord set it up so that we can have a common frame of reference,
and straightforward understandings of cause and effect, actions and their
consequences.

	Meanwhile (:-) the Lord IS, always HAS BEEN, and always WILL BE
existing in the ETERNAL realm.  He created time and space as narrow
specializations.  As many dimensions of time and space as He chooses
to create, He apparently moves freely within, and occupies/transcends
completely.

	This doesn't fully answer the question, but it does highlight
the fact that, for everyone, eternity "resumes" where the time line ends.
Does our time line end when we die?  No, because we can all anticipate
standing before the judgement seat of Christ, whether we are sheep or
goats (redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, or not).

	But after the judgement, the lost are thrown into the lake of
fire with the devil and his angels.  The old heavens and earth are
destroyed and replaced with new heavens and earth.  The time line ends,
and eternity resumes everywhere, for everyone.

	At that point, whoever we are, whatever we have become, during
the time line, is who and what the Lord judges us to be for all eternity.
The lost may hope for total annihilation and oblivion, but would such
concepts actually make sense in eternity?  The Lord knows.

	What He has revealed in His written word is that the punishment
is forever, not temporary.  Will the echos of torment ever die away in
eternity?  I don't think so, and I really don't want to find out for myself.
If He had intended to, he could have explicitly stated that the lost will
be punished for a definite amount of time, then their consciousness and
existence totally destroyed before their eternity can begin.  But, He never
said that.  In fact, in my view, He stated the opposite.

      re: .266
    
      Actually, the Lord did say so in several places.  I gave the
      texts, but perhaps they have not been regarded.  (Such as
      Malachi 4:1-3 or Ps. 37 or Jude 7 and several others.
    
      I think the position of some state of existence where time is 
      no more is 'deep' and exotic and actually not even worthy of 
      contemplation.
    
      True it is that it is important to understand the latitude
      of meaning of the word rendered forever.  It is also true that
      to lack life forever is an eternal punishment.
    
      So the Lord NEVER said the lost would experience conscious
      torment forever, but rather He said that only He has immortality,
      that He gives immortality as a gift to the lost, and that the
      lost eventually will be no more.
    
      Another interpretation to time being no more would seem to 
      accomadate the scripture that says that from one new moon to the
      next and from Sabbath to Sabbath we would worship the Lord.
      Those are examples of measured time.
    
      To necessitate exotic descriptions based on a single text that
      says "time is no more" is to diminish its possibilities especially
      in light of the fact that the text is from Rev. and thus probably
      symbolic.  I happen to believe it simply means that time is no more
      in that it takes on a whole new perspective, i.e we don't die.  
      Death is no more.
    
      Finally, God can do what He wants with the lost regardless of our
      own fanciful ideas of what constitutes the future.  To describe the
      future in a certain way and (because of that description) to require
      that all beings are eternal because of that 'point in time' and the
      charecteristics we might attach to it, is to limit God.  If it is
      His will that the lost are ultimately destroyed and that sin is not
      an eternal presence in His universe, then it'll take place -
      regardless of the human constructs we place upon that time and place.
    
      God will preside perfectly over the entire universe, i.e. sin will
      no longer exist and thus neither will sinners.  
    
      Revelation describes the future state as a time when all creatures
      worship God.
    
      And yes, I know, this text as so many others I have brought forth
      will either be completely ignored or given some interpretaion other
      than what it so clearly says.
    
      Such as "Well, all creatures really doesn't include the unsaved
      because [whatever]..."
    
    		       					Tony

Tony,

I spent about 40 minutes yesterday with the online Bible looking up 
verses with the world Hell and as well looking up verses that had both 
the words spirit and soul in them.

But I also have to ask does it really matter?

If hell burns up, there is punishment.
If hell burns forever, there is punishment.

To say that one punishment is unloving and the other loving 
is ludicrous; a value based on duration.  Would 100 years of
torment be more loving than 100 years and 1 day?  How fast
would the heathen be consumed in the fire?  How conscious will
they be when tossed in the fire?  Will they feel anything at
all or does God simply "unmake" them (as some people think).

Hell is described *BY JESUS* in the story of the rich man and
Lazarus.  Even presuming this story to be a metaphor (which I
do not hold - I believe Jesus was telling actual people - but
even if a metaphor) - the story shows that consciousness exists,
torment (or bliss) exists, and understanding exists AFTER DEATH.

Tony you I often feel as though you make the FALSE assumption that 
    evangelical Christianity
converts people by scaring them into the kingdom (under threat of
hellfire) instead of  "God's contraining love" which draws us towards 
[actual-absolute] perfection.  While the fear of God is spoken of in the 
Bible, I do believe it is a holy reverence that each human must come to 
in order to know God fully.

There is a God of wrath, but human reasoning rejects that a God of wrath 
and a God of love is the same being.

Nancy
    

Mark 9:
 42  And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in 
me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he 
werecast into the sea. 
 43  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to 
enterinto life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire 
that never shall be quenched: 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Looking up some comments in Spiros Zodhaites' commentary, he points
to Matthew 8:11-12, which at first doesn't seem to speak about Hell,
at least not in reference to the terminable-interminable debate.
Here's what he says, which is long, but I'll key it in.

--

Jesus had just commended the great faith of the Roman centurion, a
Gentile, who came seeking healing for his servant.  The "children of the
kingdom" in this instance, refers to unrepentant Jews who thought that
their ancestry automatically entitled them to the kingdom of God (see
John 8:31-59).  In reality, however, these were false children of the
kingdom (Matt 7:21-23; 13:38; Luke 13:22-30).  Those who come "from the
east and west" are gentiles who, like this centurion, exercise personal
faith in Jesus Christ.  the Jews thought that they were assured of
special favor by God, but the Lord reminded them that they could be
"last" in the kingdom of God who those who thought themselves "last."
such as publicans and prostitutes, would be "first" if they exercised
faith in Him (Matt 21:31).  Furthermore, the unrepentant Jews would be
"cast out" because of their hypocritical claim that they were the
children and followers of Abraham.  Abraham was the father of the
faithful, and although these men were physical descendants of him, they
were not part of the family of faith.

The expression "outer darkness" occurs three times in the Bible (Matt
8:12; 22:13; 25:30) and is always preceded by the definite article in the
Greek.  It seems to have denoted an area outside a well-illuminated
banquet hall where there was darkness (see the parable of the wedding
feast in Matt 22:1-14).  The person who managed to sneak into the
banquet hall with the proper garment was cast into "outer darkness,"
separated form the ongoing feast.  In the first two instances, "outer
darkness" refers to the place of suffering for the unbelievers and is in
contrast to the light where the believers dwell (see 1 John 1:5-7).
Unbelievers will be thrown into the furnace of fire, whereas believers
will shine as the sun in the kingdom of the father (Matt 13:42-43).  The
"outer darkness" in Matthew 8:12 and 22:13 is referring to _Ge'enna_
(1067), the "place of burning" (Matt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9, cf. note
on Joshua 15:8).

The expression "outer darkness" in Matthew 25:30 occurs at the end of
the parable of the talents which emphasizes the necessity of serving
Christ faithfully.  However, the "outer darkness" of Matthew 25:30 may
not refer to _Ge'enna_.  Those who say that is does refer to the
"place of burning" are persuaded that the servants mentioned here are
members of the visible church, and therefore are not necessarily
believers.  Hence, those wicked servants who "hide their talents," are
in fact unbelievers, who are cast into hell (John 15:6; James 2:14-26).
Others say that this parable does not refer at all to unbelievers or
hypocrites but to the believers who neglect to exercise their God-given
talents.  The Lord calls such a servant _ponere'_ (4190), "wicked" (Matt
25:26), and _hoi_katerame'nol_ (2672), "cursed" (Matt 25:41), despite
the fact that he is one of the Lord's servants.  This is similar to the
instance where the Lord called Peter "Satan" (Matt 16:23).  Hence, these
terms may also be applied to believers who have failed the Lord in their
service.  The words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 are in full support
of the fact that the works of faith as servants will be tried as by
fire.  Therefore, in this instance, the "outer darkness" may be a
reference to a place or position of far less rewards for the servants
who proved themselves less diligent than those who used and exercised
their talents to the fullest.  The expression would then refer to the
degrees of enjoyment of heaven rather than referring to hell.  This
teaching of varied rewards is part and parcel of the inherent doctrine
in the NT that neither heaven nor hell are experienced equally by all
because this would annul the justice of God.  Entrance into heaven is
gained by accepting Christ's sacrifice for justification, but a person's
rewards in heaven will be determined by what he did for Christ on earth
(Matt 5:3-12; 7:21-23; 10:15; Luke 6:20-26; 12:47-48; Acts 10:4, 31; Rom
2:1-16; 14:10-23; 1 Cor 3:13; 4:5, 2 Cor 5:10; 1 John 4:17; Rev
20:11-15).  The Christian's faithfulness to his tasks and
responsibilities in the world is considered of such paramount importance
that the same metaphor, the "outer darkness," that was used by the Lord
to indicate the punishment of the unbeliever for his rejection of God's
salvation is used of the believer who does not live in obedience to the
light he has received.  In the case of the non-believer, it will be a
punishment of fire and burning (Matt 13:30; John 15:6).  In the case of
the believer, it will be weeping or expressing sorrow over not having
used the opportunities God provided.  Though his tears will be wiped
away (Rev 7:17; 21:4), he will nonetheless suffer the loss of reward.
The phrase "gnashing of teeth" indicates anger at oneself for ignoring
the marvelous opportunities that he had on earth.  The same emotional
attitude will be expressed by the unbeliever, but in this case, he will
be weeping about the lost opportunity of genuine and true repentance
followed by the works of repentance.  "Gnashing of teeth," in the case
of the unbeliever refers to being angry at oneself because he did not
decide to go through the narrow gate and live in the straight way when
he had the opportunity.

This commentary avoids quibbling over the details of the 
characteristics of hell but instead focuses on the state or position of
the person who has been obedient or disobedient.  The Bible is clear
that the unbeliever will undergo a burning and will "gnash their teeth"
at themselves for their foolishness.  Whether this regret will continue
forever and ever and ever doesn't matter a whole lot.  The concept of
varying rewards (and punishments, I presume) lends a bit of weight to
the imaginations of Dante - and if you've never read Inferno, you ought
to!   The bottom line is that there is irrefutably an "outer darkness,"
a "place of burning," intense regret and therefore "consciousness" of
some form after death - or at judgement (splitting hairs over when this
consciousness occurs - "soul sleep" - doesn't matter to me nor the
doctrine of salvation, nor even the doctrine of hell). ]

    Tony,

    love ya Bro.

    This may well spin off to another topic, who know. But a minor tangent.

    I happen to agree with you about re: God's Glory and Honour. Amen. I
    _can't_ see why, but if God were to receive greater Glory and Honour by
    removing my Salvation - I am (willing to be made) willing.

    It scares the willies out of me that that would be a possibility. And I
    am confident that it wouldn't. But, if He said to me 'Harry. Sorry
    mate, but you gotta go.' I would be incredibly sad. But *He* is the
    Creator. I am but the created being, the pot, the lump of clay.

    I pray to His Glory that it would never come to that. His Will be done.

    Harry

      Harry,
    
        BEAUTIFUL!!!
    
        What do you think could be the very greatest demonstration of
        the honor and glory of God?
    
        It would have to be to EXPRESS a willingness to relinquish 
        your eternal salvation for someone who wants you eternally
        lost.
    
        And isn't that what Paul expressed a willingness to do?
        (Rom. 9:3)  Here were the people who crucified Christ and
        didn't care a bit for Paul either and he says he'd be willing
        to be accursed for the sake of his kinsmen, his brethren 
        according to the promise.  Look at what the camp was up to
        when Moses expressed a willingness to be blotted from the 
        book which God had written.  They had just done up the golden
        calf and God offered to basically nuke them.
    
        I personally believe that in the midst of Jesus bearing all
        of the alienation that sin could throw at Him, that part of
        the temptation that took place in His mind was the thought that
        He could not see life beyond.  And I believe that in the midst
        of that, His mind thought, "Well, if it be that I am eternally
        lost, I would gladly go through with this if it would but draw
        one single lost person from sin to My Father."
    
        To express that wilingness and to actually end up being lost
        are two entirely different things.  I happen to believe that
        somehow the last generation will express that willingness.
    
        And NOTHING could glorify God more than that kind of remaking
        of a sinful human heart - to go from the pinacle of selfishness
        to the pinacle of _selflessness_!!!
    
        Bless you for your reply!
    
        What does it really mean to eat the Passover WITH Him?  What
        does it really mean to partake of the marriage supper of the
        Lamb?  To drink of the cup?
    
        By God's grace, may it be me.
    
    					Love, Thanks, and God Bless,
    	
    					Tony                  

      Hi Nance,
    
        It'll be awhile before I reply, _but_ I have a pretty strong
        conviction that (given your posture on Lazarus), it might be
        a waste of time.
    
        I don't understand how a story that was well-known folklore
        between the testaments (with names given in the story) could 
        be required, when told by Jesus, to be an actual event.
        Quite a coincedence that a tale of folklore actually ends up
        happening!
    
        Coupling the above with a study of sheol/hades and with the
        context surrounding the Lazarus account is such strong
        evidence to me that Lazarus and the Rich Man was a parable used
        by Christ to convey other things.   The surrounding context is
        not at all about the state of the lost, BUT IS very much about 
        the message of the parable.
    
        This weekend, I typed out every scripture that contains the
        words sheol and hades.  Lazarus essentially contradicts what all
        the other accounts seem to be saying.  The O.T. had already 
        provided so much as to what sheol/hades really mean.
    
        I cannot call the descriptions attributed to sheol/hades FROM
        a known intertestamental tale of folklore powerful enough to
        essentially nullify all other accounts of sheol/hades.  To
        insist as much (to me) is unsatisfactory use of the holy
        scriptures.
    
        Given all this (and there is actually more such as the
        impossibility of a 'spirit' to have a physical tongue with which
        to thirst), if you necessitate that the Lazarus account is 
        absolute authoritative proof that the state of the dead is as
        you believe it is, leaves me with the following thought.
    
        Flesh and blood cannot reveal the truth to you; only the Spirit
        can.  To maintain Lazarus has the strength it does to defend 
        your position tells me that a thorough study of the matter with
        you is a waste of time.
    
        I truly believe that any unbiased heart, after all that has been
        shared in Topic #94 about lazarus, could not possibly give it the 
        strength of argument that you give it.
    
        But, I have some things to say about your punishment thoughts
        as to (does the length matter) and about the unquenching fire.
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

=>       Hi Nance,
=>     
=>         It'll be awhile before I reply, _but_ I have a pretty strong
=>         conviction that (given your posture on Lazarus), it might be
=>         a waste of time.
=>     
=>         I don't understand how a story that was well-known folklore
=>         between the testaments (with names given in the story) could 
=>         be required, when told by Jesus, to be an actual event.
=>         Quite a coincedence that a tale of folklore actually ends up
=>         happening!


           *Who* determined this was folklore?
           It seems the lazarus story was pretty original and had
           specific application to whom Jesus was speaking.
     
=>         Coupling the above with a study of sheol/hades and with the
=>         context surrounding the Lazarus account is such strong
=>         evidence to me that Lazarus and the Rich Man was a parable used
=>         by Christ to convey other things.   The surrounding context is
=>         not at all about the state of the lost, BUT IS very much about 
=>         the message of the parable.


           The message is the point of the story but does not nullify
           the truths contained therein
           
           Why would Jesus use a story, full of "FALSE" notions about
           the state of the dead?  Even for illustrative purposes?

=>         This weekend, I typed out every scripture that contains the
=>         words sheol and hades.  Lazarus essentially contradicts what all
=>         the other accounts seem to be saying.  The O.T. had already 
=>         provided so much as to what sheol/hades really mean.

           It appears as though you are saying,
     
             " I've done the studying for the both of us."

           Lazarus contradicts no one; you mean the story 
           contradicts what all the other accounts **SEEM** to be 
           saying.  Therefore you are  accusing *Jesus* of contradicting
           the other accounts????????
           
              (1) If Jesus is contradicting previous notions, then the
              OT people didn't have sufficient light to know better
              
              (2) If Jesus does not contradict previous notions, but
              it seems to you that the OT notions and Jesus' parable
              are in conflict, then maybe your understanding of OT 
              notions are in opposition to Jesus' teaching on the
              matter????? 

=>         I cannot call the descriptions attributed to sheol/hades FROM
=>         a known intertestamental tale of folklore powerful enough to
=>         essentially nullify all other accounts of sheol/hades.  To
=>         insist as much (to me) is unsatisfactory use of the holy
=>         scriptures.

           There are many allusions to death.  Referring to another
           Lazarus, Jesus said that Lazarus was sleeping, but when 
           his disciples didn't understand his use of the word, he 
           was more blunt by saying, "Lazarus is dead."
           
           The grave, hell, gehenna, the lake of fire are mixed up 
           by us, but it does not nullify plain teaching in Scripture.
    
=>         Given all this (and there is actually more such as the
=>         impossibility of a 'spirit' to have a physical tongue with which
=>         to thirst), if you necessitate that the Lazarus account is 
=>         absolute authoritative proof that the state of the dead is as
=>         you believe it is, leaves me with the following thought.

God is Spirit and there are scads of references to God's body parts. 
Is it impossible for God to have these attributes?  

=>         Flesh and blood cannot reveal the truth to you; only the Spirit
=>         can.  To maintain Lazarus has the strength it does to defend 
=>         your position tells me that a thorough study of the matter with
=>         you is a waste of time.
    
Do you really mean to imply that I am incapable of understanding?

           This is different than "you disagree out of a different 
           understanding."  

=>         I truly believe that any unbiased heart, after all that has been
=>         shared in Topic #94 about lazarus, could not possibly give it the 
=>         strength of argument that you give it.

A faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion.  Tony, I get many ideas 
and thoughts about what I think God meant about different aspects of 
life or doctrine.  But I must not search the Bible to prove my ideology, 
I must search the Bible to define my ideology.  I often times wonder 
about the egg question as well.. "What came first?" the thought or the 
Bible? :-)  

Nancy
    

    Hi Nance,
    
      The Lazarus story was stated to be folklore in Fudge's book
      of which I quoted from.  He mentions at least 7 versions of
      this story being around in the period between the Old and 
      the New Testaments.
    
      Its ok if you refute (without evidence) the above.  We can 
      agree to disagree.
    
      I don't see any problem with Jesus taking a story that is
      folklore in order to drive a message.  The way I see it, the
      hearers knew it was folklore and so did He.   Jesus' parables
      sometimes contained tidbits that were obviously not applicable 
      to the message He was conveying.  For example, in Matthew 18,
      the parable of the talents mentions the man owing much needing
      to go to prison WITH HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN.  Extending this to
      the spiritual would be tatamount to implying that one man's 
      salvation is required in order to have it obtained for his wife
      and children.
    
      So we see that Jesus' parables sometimes do contain pieces that
      do not intend to have a spiritual application.
    
      Incorporating this _fact_ onto Lazarus implies that we cannot 
      require that the whole story have spiritual application, but rather
      suggests that we hold closely to the context surrounding the story.
      Coupling this with the fact that it was a well-known intertesta-
      mental story leads me to conclude that it is improper to REQUIRE
      that the hades aspect of it have spiritual contribution.
    
      I appreciate the distinction you make about 'notions' and the
      actual scripture themselves, but when I meant sheol/hades, I
      meant what they clearly seem to be saying.  So often, they speak
      of nothingness and they refer to the abode of both saved and 
      lost.  They refer to complete lack of consciousness.
    
      I believe the Lazarus description of hades to be in contradiction
      to the rest of scripture's descriptions where the words sheol/
      hades are used.  For example, the saved go to hell (sheol/hades)
      after death.  Do you deny this?
    
      I think you err in necessitating that gehenna=sheol/hades.  That
      to me is incorrect.  sheol/hades would seem to talk only about
      the time between death and resurrection.  Gehenna would seem to
      talk only about time after the lost are resurrected and then 
      suffer whatever they suffer.
    
      I notice that you have not volunteered a single interpretation 
      for a single verse I have offered as support for my view.  We
      are sticking with the texts you feel support your view.
    
      This is par for the course, but its a rigged game.
    
      If you necessitate that Lazarus must refer to an actual story all
      the while I have quoted a source who states that at least seven 
      versions of it existed during the time between O.T. and N.T.,
      I really see no reason to continue this discussion.
    
      I just know that one would have to see Lazarus as having other
      possibilities and as you don't see it, whats the use?
    
      I do want to discuss two things you said though.  One was on what
      does the length of punishment matter and the other was on the
      unquenchable fire.
    
    						See Ya,
    
    						Tony
                                                         

      Hi Nance,
    
        Fudge cites the story being well-known folklore and its mentioned
        in reply #94.237.  94.238-.240 are also about Lazarus.
    
        Maybe a reading would be relevent?
    
    						Tony

    I'd say Fudge, fudged to make his point. :-) :-) :-) :-)
    
    Can we add a little levity here, Tony.  I feel the intensometer going
    off the scale.
    
    I don't have time right now to respond in all seriousness.
    
    Nancy

      Thanks Nance, I appreciate that.
    
      I'm actually pretty relaxed.
    
      In all serioussness, I have absolutely no problem with Jesus 
      using a story of folklore if it was well known at the time.
      And if Lazarus is, to you, proof positive that what befalls
      the unsaved must be as you believe it to be, well then I think
      we've hit an impasse.
    
      The only other thing to add is that I have previously stated
      my view that a more 'fair' mode of dialogue would be one wherein
      there is equal discussion on the number of texts which seem to 
      support one position as there is on the number which seem to
      support the other position.
    
      I really think that not discussing the passages I bring up which
      I believe support the position I hold while focusing only on the
      passages which are offered in support of your view is uncourteous
      dialogue.
    
      I just don't think its right.  In fact, I think its wrong!!!
                                               
    						Tony

    >      I really think that not discussing the passages I bring up which
    >      I believe support the position I hold while focusing only on the
    >      passages which are offered in support of your view is uncourteous
    >      dialogue.
        
    >      I just don't think its right.  In fact, I think its wrong!!!
    
    If this is relaxed......

Hello Tony,

I'm not sure whether I shuold put this response in 94 or here.  Maybe I'll 
try both ;-)

Last night at last I managed to run through your quotes from Fudge et al, 
expecting to find some meat there to support your case, but in spite of a 
lot of words, I found negligeable substance.  In fact, all it had to build on 
was the presence of parallel narratives in Pharisaic tradition.

The fact that there are Pharisaic stories around that period which concern
those who die is hardly surprising.  They had a heavy tradition of acceptance
into the Kingdom of heaven for Jews, which did not allow room for banishment
of a child of Abraham.  A later exception, I understand, is for those who are 
baptised (tradition only - no need to be concerned! ;-)

Although there are a number of traditional stories, none of them corresponds 
to Jesus' instruction Luke 16.  This is hardly surprising, for Jesus shows the 
rich, respected Pharisee as exiled from paradise, while the despised beggar 
Lazarus is honoured and blessed with Abraham.  This cut right across 
everything the Pharisees believed and taught.  The understanding of the 
day - fostered by tradition, and the self-interest of the Pharisees (see Luke 
16:14) was that personal wealth was a mark of God's favour - and even now, we 
sometimes refer to someone who is encumbered financially as 'blessed' ;-).

There are many examples of this attitude, but perhaps the clearest is in
Matthew 19.  A young man of the nobility (we gather from parallel accounts)
approached Jesus, asking how to obtain righteousness.  Normally he would be
considered as 'safe', because of the evidence of his wealth and position in
Israel.  Jesus cut through these assumptions in v21 by saying that if he
really wanted to be perfect, he should dispose of his goods to charity, and
then follow Jesus. 

This was a wipe-out to the disciples - let alone the rest of the populace.  
Throw away 'God's blessing'?  So Jesus underlined that yes, this was exactly 
what He meant, by saying "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."  The disciples 
reaction was :-
	If it's so hard for the rich man to enter heaven, surely there 
	isn't much hope for anyone else 

 - "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus' teaching here, and in various places emphasises that worldly wealth and 
esteem is an actual hindrance to spiritual growth.  "Where your treasure is, 
there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:21).

Now, in the traditional life after death stories of the Pharisees, there was a 
basic understanding of the afterlife.  Their failure was in confidently 
assuming that they had a reserved seat next to Abraham.

So in Luke 16, Jesus filled in the traditional picture with an actual example.
He wouldn't use a false framework, because that would throw His integrity into 
doubt, as well as undermining the point of the narration.

To a large extent, whether he referred to actual known (not 'living', but
'formerly living'!) people is not so relevant to us now, who would not habve
known either of them.  But in view of Jesus direct methods and teaching, I
rather suspect [personal opinion here] that the characters could be readily
identified from the name 'Lazarus', and that this gave the crowd an immediate,
individual, personal awareness of precisely the situation to which Jesus was
referring.  Meanwhile, in the background, those Pharisees who 'loved money'
(v14) and honour from men (John 12:43) would be livid at this dismissal of the
worldly values they treasured.  Exciting! 

So - the events of Luke 16:19-31 were not in folk-lore.  Similar stories,
based on the factual framework were put about to boost the leaders'
reputation, but these could not affect either the error of the false
assumptions, or the truth of the basis.  Jesus took the latter, discarding the
former. 

Tony, I don't know whether you want to go on to discuss the characteristics of
the regions of hell/hades/sheol and their relation to the lake of fire?  We
have covered these a number of times in the past, but something in one of your
notes seemed to indicate that you feel some confusion or at least lack of
clarity there.  Similarly with our characteristics in such a state, linked 
with the physical references to God.  But I think I've entered enough here 
for now!  I hope it helps some.

					God bless
							Andrew

      Hi Andrew,
    
        What you entered sounds really nice except that I don't see
        any substance to your assertion that Lazarus and the Rich
        Man was not folklore.
    
      Hi Nance,
    
        I just wanted to state what I thought.  I don't find it to be
        right.  How else should I say it?
    
        Should I not say it?
    
    							Tony

Hi Tony,

It sounds as if you're using a rigidly western concept of 'folklore'.
You have to remember what nation we're talking about here, and their 
history.  Forget the 'folklore' tag, and remember that it originated 
'somewhere', not just in being passed down!

							Andrew

	I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the term
	"folklore" in reference to bible passages.

	It seems to border on the edge of conference guidelines.

	Karen

      Hi Andrew,
    
        I think another part of the reason Fudge (and myself) see other
        possibilities is our submission to all of scripture.  I have just
        started reading the Psalms and the number of times it speaks of
        total destruction, i.e. the lost no longer ARE is numerous.
    
        But, I just thought of something concerning Abraham.
    
        Remember when Jesus said to the Sadducees (I think it was) that
        God is the God of the living?  And He referred to Abraham, Isaac,
        and Jacob?
    
        The Sadduccees (I think it was them) did not believe in life
        after death.
    
        My question is...
    
        WHY NOT???
    
        And the answer is...
    
        BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION.
    
        Scripture is saying there that it is resurrection that provides
        the characteristic we know as LIVING.
    
        Abraham is dead.  But, the Sadducees were wrong.  Because there
        is a resurrection.
    
        Thats the reason.
    
        And Jesus is such a Guarantee of the promise that it can be said
        of Him, "who calls those things which be not as though they were",
    
        i.e. "God IS the God of the living."
    
        Anyway, check that account out.  Clearly, the reason scripture
        says the Sadducee's did not believe in life after death is because
        they did not believe in resurrection.
    
        AND JUST AS CLEARLY...
    
        The reason Jesus says there is life after death is because of
        His power to resurrect.
    
        Thus, life comes at the ressurection.
    
        Which is what ressurection means.
    
    							Tony
                                                                  

	Tony, I didn't see anything wrong with you stating your position. Maybe
it was the !!!! that threw Nancy off to think you weren't being calm. But I did
notice she didn't address what you wrote though. I think the question is a very
valid one.


Glen

Tony,

As Karen pointed out, it is not 'submission to scripture' to denigrate it 
as 'folklore'.  This is the inspired Word of God we are discussing.  Not 
the opinions of men.

I'm not sure what you're saying in 737.285 to add to the dialogue here.
I do not believe that anyone in this string has implied in any way that
there is not a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. 

						Andrew

Hi Tony,

The critical point was your implication that scripture was just folklore.
I don't think you necessarily meant to imply this - I hope not - but that
was how it came over.

It is not appropriate to broadcast our intimate times with the LORD.  As He
said, 'they have their reward'.  Not trying to get at you, but to paraphrase
your prayer time in an effort to display your reverence shouldn't be needed -
it should be evident in your conversation.  Where it isn't, the conflict
between the two leaves a worse taste than if the foremer had never been 
mentioned.

By your point 4), are you trying to suggest that people are unconcious between 
death and the resurrection at the LORD's return?   I'd forgotten you held to 
soul sleep, and didn't realise you were bringing it in to this note.  That's 
another aspect we have gone over many times before.  I know you find other 
ways to understand Jesus' words to the thief on the cross "I tell you today 
you will be with me in paradise", and Paul's comparison, whether to continue 
down here, or to be with Christ, "which is far better..." as direct 
alternatives.  However, to date the clear Word of scripture has been 
understood as stated, and we have not been convinced it says otherwise from 
your arguments.

							Andrew

    >The critical point was your implication that scripture was just
    >folklore.
    >I don't think you necessarily meant to imply this - I hope not - but
    >thatwas how it came over.
    
    that's how I read the original statement that got my dander up.  

| <<< Note 737.290 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| >The critical point was your implication that scripture was just
| >folklore.
| >I don't think you necessarily meant to imply this - I hope not - but
| >thatwas how it came over.

| that's how I read the original statement that got my dander up.


	That is why one should ask what one means, and not tell them. I knew
what Tony meant when he was talking about folklore. It does not mean everyone
will though. But you could have saved yourself a lot of problems if you would
just ask, and not tell. I wonder why telling is such a common theme with many
Christians? 


Glen

    Glen,
    
    This is not soapbox, if you are really wondering take it to the Things
    to Wonder About Today, topic in there.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    
    Actually, you're correct Tony.  They did not believe in the
    resurrection.  That's why they were SAD U SEE.  ;'D

      Hi,
    
        I deleted .288 because of the personal part I added about
        private prayer.  Andrew that was VERY well taken and I
        really appreciate it.  In my desire to defend how I personally
        feel about the Word, I *completely* lost sight of what you
        brought up.
    
        I am saddened that anyone could possibly even suggest I
        could think any such thing about the Word.  I would that
        other's had the discernment Glen had.  (Thanks Glen.)  To
        have checked with me first in light of the magnitude of what
        was being said, I would hope, would have been involuntary.
        Well, I'm glad one person would have done so.  May we learn
        from him.
    
      as pertains doctrine...
    
        The resurrection text along with many others needs to be
        accomadated.  As pertains death, I believe it is the opposite
        of life.  The main quality of life (without getting into the
        more spiritual and no less valid application) is conscious-
        ness.  The main quality of death is complete lack of any
        consciousness.
    
        Just like the worm response I gave in 94.  When the allusion
        to worms was made, dead corpses were brought to view; not living
        people in conscious torment.
    
        Psalm 6:5
        For in death there is no remembrance of You;
        In the grave who will give You thanks?
    
        Psalm 9:5-7
        You have rebuked the nations,
        You have DESTROYED the wicked;
        You have blotted out their name forever and ever.
    
        O enemy, destructions are finished forever!
        And you have destroyed cities;
        Even their memory has perished.
    
        [note the contrast that follows]
    
        But the Lord shall endure forever.
    
        
        I wasn't stretching to find these verses.  I am presently
        studying Psalms and I read them this morning.  
    
        These verses are everywhere.  They are just given so little
        weight.  Certainly no one here has brought them up.
    
        And the thing is...
    
        I acknowledge 'apparent' tension with this doctrinal question.
        But, I have found that for every one text of apparent tension
        in support of the popular view, there are MANY MORE in support
        of the conditionalist view.
    
        They are either disregarded entirely (as in this string) or 
        they are given subordinate weight with respect to other scripture.
        That is, texts which _seem_ to support the popular view are
        given more weight.
    
        But, if you took the texts that seem to support the conditionalist
        view at one side and the texts that seem to support the popular
        view on the other...
    
        There would be MANY more on the conditionalist side.
    
        It really isn't even close if aion/aionios are understood.  But,
        you guys can't see that because these texts are never discussed.
    
        Its like they don't exist.
    
        Just like the resurrection verse.  I gave the most apparent
        interpretation for that verse.
    
        The popular view has to give it a tense interpretation like it
        must for so many others.
    
    							Tony
            

      I really wish people here would give Glen a break.  I'll admit,
      I sometimes disagree with what he says, but I happen to believe
      that he is treated badly here.  Sort of like it is presumed
      that
    
      agape = 'an eye for an eye.'
    
      I believe it = 'turn the other cheek.'
    
      Jill,
    
        Thanks.  And thats why they didn't believe in life beyond
        the grave [hades].  And scripture concurs with what their
        theology lacked - a right understanding of the resurrection.
    
        Which is something the popular view and the Saduccee's have
        in common.
    
    						Tony

| <<< Note 737.292 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| This is not soapbox, if you are really wondering take it to the Things
| to Wonder About Today, topic in there.

	It is something that is happening in here, which is why I addressed in
in here. 

    Tony,
    
    Glen is not treated badly here.  He treats this forum badly.  He defies
    what its premise is and then wants to prod and poke at those of us who
    have chosen to be here based on the premise.
    
    If you and Glen agree so much create your own conference, or go to CP.
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 737.297 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Glen is not treated badly here.  He treats this forum badly.  He defies
| what its premise is and then wants to prod and poke at those of us who
| have chosen to be here based on the premise.

	Nancy, please show me the notes where I have defied the premis. Please
consult with your moderators and let us know when was the last time a note of
mine had been set hidden, or deleted, for going against the premise. If you can
not do this, then you have no reason to state the above. 

| If you and Glen agree so much create your own conference, or go to CP.

	Nancy, I sense anger from the above statement. Are you angry?


Glen

 This topic is write locked for a while.





 Jim Co-Mod