STT, you seem to be overly preoccupied with giving to the homeless. I don’t think that God expects one to simply give away all of his/her possessions. This would be totally unreasonable. First and foremost, we must be responsible and be able to provide for ourselves. If not, we end up poor and having to throw ourselves on the mercy of others. The example of the rich young ruler was directed at someone whom I would say, had a love for money. The moral of the story is somewhat similar to " A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, in which the Scrooge had no life because he was a miser, and his love for money consumed him.
On another note, I don’t think God instructed Abraham to kill his son upon an altar. This would be murder. I believe the story may have some spiritual significance to it. However, it should not be taken literally.
AND - speaking of interpretation and such - Bob Wilson’s articles are a huge help - here’s one 'Reading the Bible as Jesus Did". You’ll find Bob at the top of the top of the intro page with the other heavies. I say that with respect.
[tag]LLC[/tag]
Well one could argue that I have a love for money because I am holding on to it rather than giving it away and trusting God to provide, something I wish I could do but lack the faith to do so - please pray that I can have that faith.
LUKE 12:31-34:
-31: But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
-32: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
-33: Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
-34: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
I don’t have the faith required for this.
One could argue that the last being first and the first being last is related to all being made alive each in their own order in 1 Corinthians 15:
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22-28:
-22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
-23: But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
-24: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
-25: For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
-26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
-27: For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
-28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
HOWEVER, these verses talks about an enemy being destroyed, granted it’s an entity, but one could see this as the other enemies being put under The Lord Jesus Christ’s feet = the enemies being destroyed (annihilated).
I hope you are not writing off the book of James because of this, James doesn’t contradict Paul, James is not talking about working FOR salvation, but working AS A RESULT OF salvation.
Martin Luther not only tried to remove the Book of James, but also the Book of Hebrews, the Book of Jude and the Book of Revelation, what does the Bible have to say about this:
REVELATION 22:19:
-19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17:
-16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
-17: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Also, Martin Luther was a Calvinist, believed in limited atonement, and denied free will:
MARTIN LUTHER:
-“This error of free will is a special doctrine of the Antichrist”
I do, but my fiancee lives in the United States and I am going over to visit for 6 weeks and 5 days for Christmas, and I am only taking $600 (which will be fine because accommodation is sorted and the only food I need to pay for is when we go on dates), so I fear that if I give away money, I will be detained by US Customs because they will be suspicious of why I am carrying little money. I should be able to be doing this:
LUKE 12:31-34:
-31: But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
-32: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
-33: Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
-34: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
…and trust God to take care of it, but I lack the faith - please pray that I get it (sorry I keep repeating that but you never know what new readers there might be).
Well Robert Morey (the Christian in the YouTube video) said The Lord Jesus Christ wasn’t be loving to the people he was whipping, he didn’t say that Jesus clearing the temple wasn’t a loving act.
-God is Holy, not is not just love
-True
-This is compatible with Annihilationism - not so much Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) because chances are people will be cursing God for eternity.
-True
-True
Well we will leave it at that then, HOWEVER, I will put in that God came down on a cherub in David’s mind, and the earth was laid bare because in a poetic sense because God scattered David’s enemies (Psalm 18:14-15).
Yet Preterism can’t give an explanation for “every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him”.
[tag]DaveB[/tag]
Thank you for the link, I can’t look at it right now, but I will when I get a chance.
God Bless
Christ Be With You All
All of Bob’s papers are worth reading. Time well spent. 
You can actually download a copy here! If you like it, buy a copy and give it to someone 
preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1987_chilton_days-of-vengeance.pdf
Wow - it’s a huge book also, I would never have expected a freebie. 
Thanks much!!!
“Everlasting punishment” doesn’t occur in Matthew 25:46. That is a mistranslation. “κολασις αιωνιος” should be translated as “lasting correction.”
Well, actually it’s “κολασιν αιωνιον” because the words are in the accusative mode, since they are objects of the preposition “εις.”
While I disagree with Chilton’s overall interpretation, I found his book to be the most interesting book on the Apocalypse that I’ve ever read. His footnotes are particularly fascinating.
I adopt Eugenio Corsini’s interpretation of the Apocalypse: Virtually all of the book is the history of the Old Testament more deeply revealed in light of Christ’s Incarnation. (“The revelation of Jesus Christ” = revealing Christ’s presence from before the beginning of the world.) The great white throne of chapter 20 represents Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father at His Ascension in A. D. 30. Chapters 21 and 22 describe Christ’s Church in this world. Nothing in the book is a prophecy of anything later than the Church’s first Pentecost in Acts 2.
I believe In sum:
- All Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled no later than the Church’s first Pentecost in Acts 2.
- All of the prophecies in the Gospels were fulfilled no later than Acts 2. (The sole exception being Christ’s prophecy of Peter’s death at the end of the Gospel of John.)
- The entirety of the Apocalypse was fulfilled no later than Acts 2.
- The Second Coming is announced only in Acts and in the Epistles. It is still future. It could happen at any moment. It could happen billions of years in the future. We can never have the faintest inkling of a timetable. We can’t even intelligently place bets on whether it will occur within the next 10 billion years, or sometime after that.
- The Second Coming will be utterly glorious and joyful. No gloom or doom whatsoever. Even Satan himself will be returned to the angelic being he was created to be.
- I consider the Second Coming to be the beginning, not the end. I adopt Tor’s words from the last chapter of one of C. S. Lewis’s two masterpieces, Perelandra: “It [the Second Coming] is but the wiping out of a false start in order that the world may then begin. As when a man lies down to sleep, if he finds a twisted root under his shoulder he will change his place–and after that his real sleep begins. Or as a man setting foot on an island, may make a false step. He steadies himself and after that his journey begins. You would not call that steadying of himself a last thing?”
Getting point 6 firmly in my mind even more firmly cemented universalism in my heart. So many of those who say they believe in Hell place a huge emphasis on human sinfulness and say it has to be everlasting. Not only is wickedness not everlasting, it can hardly be said to exist (though it does, barely). It exists only inside this weird little parenthesis of our false start. The creation hasn’t even really begun yet. Satan and others at the starting line jumped the gun. We’re all being called back to the starting line so our run can really begin. The end is not nigh. There is no end (except of sin and its progeny). Let us say rather that the beginning is coming, when we know not. When Christ returns, then creation properly begins. 
Waiting to see the finished product brother 
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. (Genesis 19:11)
‘Brothers and sisters, do you know what “smote” means? It means to go up side the head! Because sometimes it’s the only way.’ 
Geoffery said:
Well, it was the beginning of a new covenant but the end of the old. The scriptures were (are) about a covenant relationship between God and Israel.
You might consider:
Max King’s ‘The Spirit of Prophesy’ and ‘The Cross and the Parousia’ (which I am currently reading) 
Also you may consider Gary DeMar’s 'Last Days Madness and his ‘End Times Fiction.’
Good Luck
Peace
Chad
Well it was in terms of its historical narrative and did indeed find prophetic fulfillment in THEIR day… the “every eye” being the language of hyperbolic inclusion relative those to whom these words were given. For example:
The “coming on the clouds of heaven” is the language of eschatological judgement straight out of the OT where Yahweh literally came in power by way of invading military force; as I noted up the page via… the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser III (1Chron 5:25-26), the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar (1Chron 6:15; Ezra 5:12) and thus, the Roman Titus (Lk 21:20-24). Again the “every eye” would be inclusive of those mentioned here:
CLEARLY some would live to see the Parousia (AD70)… whether those surviving fully grasped what they witnessed might be a different matter, but see it they did, as prophesied. This was their Day of Clouds…
THIS above IS what Christ’s parousia in the power and glory of the Father was all about. Jesus’ “2nd Coming” as it is popularly called was NEVER about Jesus doing a final lap around the globe on a few clouds with a final touch in Jerusalem where shazaam poof the time-space universe dissolves in a flash and we all start again … that is the fanciful ‘readers digest’ type of interpretation that totally fails to grasp the idioms of biblical prophecy.
Again… these types of uncritical blanket statements aren’t that useful… see above.
This is pretty cool to anyone who will take the time to investigate
As I mentioned before, the only other time ‘κόλασις [kolasis] (Strong’s Reference Number G2851)’, is only ever used one other time in the Bible, and that is in 1 John 4:18:
1 JOHN 4:18:
-18: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment [kolasis]. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
I asked how does the fear that perfect love casts out relate to pruning for correction?
And you gave me an answer that involved the love casting out the ‘κόλασις [kolasis]’ which would be correction, but for that to be true, it would be love doing the pruning, not the torment.
[tag]Geoffrey[/tag]
This alone disproves Ultra-Universalism.
Revelation 20:10 does not just say Satan is in the Lake of Fire for “aiOnas tOn aiOnOn”, I don’t know what this means (both ‘aiOnas’ and ‘aiOnOn’ have the Strong’s Reference Number (G165) for ‘αἰών [aiōn]’) but it does prove that Satan is in the Lake of Fire for at least 2 ages, Ultra-Universalism is not compatible with this at all.
You do realize exactly who was smote here right? it was the Sodomites on the night of Sodom’s destruction.
Actually I’m saying the saying that the last being first and the first being last could teach universal salvation.
The ones people think will go to Hell will actually be saved, take the words of The Lord Jesus Christ here:
MATTHEW 21:31:
-31: Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
…and those who people think will go to Heaven will actually be lost, but not hopelessly, as they will be “the last” to be saved.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22-28:
-22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
—>SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, EVERYONE WILL BE RESURRECTED, WHETHER IN THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION.
-23: But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
-24: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
-25: For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
—>CHRIST PUTS ALL ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET, READ NEXT VERSE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO ENEMIES
-26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
—>THIS VERSE REVEALS THAT THE ENEMIES ARE DESTROYED
-27: For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
-28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
I would say that Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is not the worst enemy to Universalism, Annihilationism is.
Those whoes works are wood, hay, and stubble are saved through fire.
1 CORINTHIANS 3:10-15:
-10: According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
-11: For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
-12: Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
-13: Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
-14: If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
-15: If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
HOWEVER, since the “gold, silver, precious stones” and “wood, hay, stubble” are being build oh the foundation of The Lord Jesus Christ, how could one see these verses to talk about the salvation of non-Christians?
Again, Paul gave lots of instructions on how to live properly to members of some of the earliest churches. Giving away all one’s possessions and voluntary poverty was not among his instructions.
Even if we don’t have to sell all of our possessions, I still lack the faith to give any money away right now, and this is contrary to what The Lord Jesus Christ said:
LUKE 12:31-34:
-31: But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
-32: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
-33: Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
-34: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Point taken.
Point taken.
I also have a question for [tag]JasonPratt[/tag], I know you appeal to Mark 9:49-50:
MARK 9:49-50:
-49: For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
-50: Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
Everyone being salted by fire hints towards a refiners fire, HOWEVER, could it be seen like this:
Salt is good for the believer, but for the unbeliever, salt has lost it’s saltness?
Lastly I will put a nail in the coffin for Preterism - as I quoted before to Geoffery:
REVELATION 20:10
-10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Has this happened yet?
God Bless
Christ Be With You All
I never thought that I would come, to the rescue of Preterism. But see:
The Serpent is in the Lake of Fire
[list]Consistency in Preterism: Annihilation and Revelation 20:10[/list:u]
I’m not a preterist (either full or partial), mind you. But I am very good at academic and keyword research. As well as being a Holy Fool and P-Zombie. 
I really detest it, when folks try to put nails in coffins. Especially in the month of Halloween. I prefer to use superglue myself.
And what’s even worse, I have to put aside all the horror, zombie and monster movies (during the month of Halloween)…the Cubs playing in the World’s Series…And the comedy team of Hillary and Donald…to help folks out here.
I’ve been lax keeping up with much in this thread out of fear of swamping the thread with posts (and also because I’m naturally lazy, mustn’t leave that out of the account. ) I’m pretty sure this means I’ve inadvertently skipped over at least one tag request for discussion already, maybe two. But I did notice the latest one!
First, this would necessarily refer to the lapsed believer, not simply to the unbeliever – which fits the context of the warning, since this was aimed directly at the apostles and chief disciples (and also fits a similar warning from Christ about how they, being the salt of the world, should not lose their saltiness.)
Second, the salt in this case (and in a parallel statement reported by GosLuke if I recall correctly) refers not to the believer per se (that’s in a related but different saying), but to the unquenchable fire of Gehenna, “the fire the eonian”. That’s what Jesus says shall be salting everyone. (The second half of verse 49 is about equally attested as the lack of it, with a small but solid weight toward the lack of it in earlier texts; but its inclusion, whether original or not, picks up the Temple imagery of salting meat for sacrifice after being cleaned in the “sea of fire”, the basin of washing before the throne-symbol which being mirrored with glass on the inside reflected the light of surrounding torches so as to look like a pool of fire. The point was to make unclean meat clean and acceptable to God.) The KJV is actually a bit weak on translating salt being “good”; in Greek the term is stronger, like “ideal” or “the best of things” in English. That could admittedly be used as casual hyperbole, but being at peace with one another under God doesn’t seem to me like less than the best of things or the ideal result!
So what Jesus is warning about here, is not (directly though indirectly) the believer becoming unsalty, but about the fire of Gehenna becoming unsalty.
But how could “the fire the eonian” itself ever become unsalty? Especially if there is only one “the fire the eonian”, namely the Holy Spirit?!
I don’t think it can – especially not in trinitarian theology, the Holy Spirit couldn’t be retracting the intention to bring those who dishonor the Son and the Father to honor the Son and the Father. But Christian teachers (like the apostles and chief disciples) could teach that the Fire either stops salting everyone or never even had the intention to salt some people at all (roughly Arm and Calv soteriologies, with variations). They would be making the salt unsalty, or making it out to be unsalty rather. This has pretty huge topical relevance for how Matthew reports the end of this scene, with Simon Peter coming back to Jesus and whining about looking for limits to how far he must forgive his brother and being hit with the parable of the unforgiving chief servant.
Such a teaching (to borrow from one of Jesus’ parallel statements on the topic), of the salt becoming unsalty, would be worthy only of being thrown out to be trampled underfoot by men!
In summary, it’s a statement about the purpose of the fire of Gehenna and the scope of that purpose, to salt everyone in such a way that they will be at peace with each other, plus a warning that this shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that the purpose will ever change. It is not, strictly speaking, testimony that the purpose shall be achieved – when I first noticed it long ago, after discovering that trinitarian theism necessarily involves God intending and acting to save all sinners from sin and persisting originally at this until He gets it done, I thought it could still fit an ongoing stalemate. That would still, technically speaking, be Christian universalism in the most minimal possible sense, since God wouldn’t be ceasing to act toward leading all sinners to repent and come to properly honor justice and love (even to honor the justice of their own whole-ruination); He wouldn’t be succeeding for some sinners, but not from ceasing to act and not from having never acted. Many years later I was ironically amused to see Rob Bell take basically that position in Love Wins – his final position in the book isn’t that Love will surely win, but that Love will surely not ever finally lose. It’s a half-step beyond Lewis’ position, because Bell doesn’t turn around at last and claim that Love ceases to keep acting toward saving some sinners from sin. Rob affirms the scope and the persistence continue, but doesn’t affirm that God will surely succeed in the continuing scope and persistence. (In that book; he might have changed his mind on some point since then.)
There is, however, direct testimony nearby in the scene, in Matthew’s report (which Luke connects to topically, too, later in another scene with many calls back to this scene, including for connecting Jesus’ rebuke of the apostles here to the parable of the Rich Man in the fire of hades after death), that God/Christ shall in fact succeed in bringing home all the lost sheep. Which I already knew of course, although I hadn’t ever noticed its direct connection to the salting-with-fire material. (In fact I wouldn’t notice its connections until a few years later when working on my Gospel harmonization project.) So the local context does go the distance in successful salvation of all those who are lost. Total scope plus total persistence plus total final victory equals more than just a technically minimum universal salvation.
On some other recent topics from your post STT, while I’m passing by.
Regarding kolasis: actually there are at least two maybe three other occurrences of the term in the NT, in different cognates. Two verbal forms of the noun anyway (although I think it’s actually the other way around, kolasis being a noun form of the verb.) One of them definitely involves remedial punishment, the other one might.
Moreover, there are at least two applications of the underlying imagery in the NT, although the term isn’t used in those applications, one being in GosJohn (which doesn’t look immediately remedial) and one in the second half of Romans 11 which is so very explicitly remedial that it includes a warning that we had better not regard the punishment as less than remedial on pain of being hit with the punishment ourselves! This, I have discovered, is quite a theme in the Gospels, too.
I’m pretty sure I talk about all this in my episode on Matt 25, and in my ExCom entries here on the forum for Matt 25.
Regarding Rev 20:10, the Greek there means into the eons of the eons. It can be a way of talking about forever (RevJohn uses it that way to talk about God at least a few times), but it doesn’t have to mean that depending on the context. It does mean a very long time: if Satan isn’t the very last holdout (as might be expected), he must be among them. Rev 14 indicates there will be at least some other holdouts, too, using the same language including reference to torments (of at least some degree). But the overlapping sets of imagery in Rev 14 are actually remedial: the term for torment was used for gold refinement, and even if (so I’ve been told by non-universalists) that usage had become archaic by the day of RevJohn’s composition, it can’t be more archaic than other OT referential uses in RevJohn! – and in the OT, metal refining is typically remedial imagery for what I suppose are obvious reasons. The Rev 14 imagery also references the washing, salting, and sacrificing of meat to God, the aroma of which goes up into the eons of the eons. That’s a purification image. So it shouldn’t be surprising that soon afterward John provides a flashforward revelation to people standing on the sea of fire mixed with glass as overcomers, having come out from the beast and out from the worship of the beast and out from the number of his name, praising God for His mighty saving victories. (The grammatic terms get obscured there in English, but it’s language that refers to people repenting of their sins and renouncing Satan to follow God instead.)
Regarding your case for annihilation from 1 Cor 15: all enemies under His feet includes us (“for He has put all things under His feet”, and we ourselves were once enemies of God, and still are so far as we’re impenitent about some sins however small), and we’re not annihilated. 
Your argument (or wherever you found it) stops with the statement about destruction, and doesn’t involve arguing what the destruction even means. (Which is pretty typical for anni arguments here, I have to say.)
If all things being put under His feet was annihilation, all things including us would be annihilated. If all enemies being put under His feet was annihilation, all enemies including us would be annihilated. Paul goes on to explain quite well that he means personal subjection to Christ, by being put under the feet of Christ – not merely a subjection in some sense that all things are subject to the Lord of all things already (for Whom and through Whom and by Whom all things are made and continue existing), but explicitly a subjection parallel to the Son’s own subjection to the Father: a subjection of personal loyalty.
Paul also happens to end that chapter, and his discussion of the importance of resurrection (not only for Christ but for everyone), with a reassurance that our evangelical work in Christ shall not be in vain, referencing a place in Hosea where despite God calling death and hades to take rebel Jews the rebels end up being restored to fellowship with God later after all (thus explaining why Paul can change the reading a little to mockingly challenge death about its sting); and referencing a place in Isaiah where despite God promising to slay all the pagan rebels they end up being reconciled with God afterward after all. But that’s another fairly large discussion. 
Anyway, the point is that Paul includes more than enough testimony in 1 Cor 15’s middle digression on the final resurrection, to show that by “destruction” he isn’t talking about never-ending rebellion or a rebellion that ends in annihilation. He’s talking about a destruction that ends in the destroyed one (if “the death” refers to Satan, which I think is most likely) coming to be subject to the Son and to the Father.
At worst (though it isn’t “worst” it’s really the same idea), he’s talking about death itself being destroyed by all enemies being put under the feet of Christ with all things, and so all enemies being thus subjected with all things to the Son and, in subjection to the Son, subjecting to the Father along with the Son. Death cannot be destroyed by never-ending death, and death cannot be destroyed by a final ultimate death: neither annihilation nor ECT is the ultimate destruction of death.
Since I’m coherently accounting for more testimony detail here (and even accounting for more detail at all!) than the anni case, I’m going to go with that argument and not with a lesser detailed/coherent one.
At least, an anni or ECT case has to coherently explain how either of those results equals all enemies like all things being subjected to the Father by being subjected to the Son, in some way that they are not already subject to God (by God being God already and by the Son reigning over impenitent rebels in wrath already leading to this coming subjection), and in some way that God ends up being altogether in all not only in altogether in some.
Regarding how one can see 1 Cor 3:10-15 talking about the salvation of non-Christians, too: I’m okay with granting that Paul doesn’t have non-Christians in his primary topical view here. But Christ is the only foundation upon which anyone can build anything! – that’s a high Christology statement, or at least a high Christology belief. Restricting that idea to only applying to Christians, would be less than trinitarian theism (and even less than modalism). And even some (not all) unitarians agree that Christ is the foundation of all (other) created things.
Moreover, I don’t think any non-universalist Christian anywhere would dispute that the stubble and straw of unworthy things built by non-believers shall be destroyed by the fire of God! (Whether or not those Christians think the non-believers really can build on any foundation other than Christ, thus tacitly denouncing trinitarian theism for something like neo-Arianism where Christ is only an elevated human hero, or for something like a God/Anti-God cosmological dualism where Satan is equal but opposite to God and so might be a real other foundation. Although in the latter theology, God wouldn’t be able to destroy anything built on Satan’s equal foundation; it might crumble from internal problems of trying to build on something opposite to God perhaps.)
Regarding a lack of faith to give any money away in charity right now: the Father still cares for you, you of little faith, more than for flowers which He clothes in finer colors than Solomon but which are doomed to die and go into the fire.
But at least you have faith enough to recognize you lack more faith, and to be concerned about this and to see more faith as something to aspire to. That isn’t nothing! – it’s more than blind complacency which many Christians have.
But meanwhile: what do you have faith enough to do, fulfilling justice in love toward other people under God? Be doing that. Even one talent is worth more in God’s reckoning than the mere thousand pounds of silver “talanton” from which we got the idea of a talent as a capable gift which we can use for the glory of God. But have you bought someone a cup of water when they are thirsty? Do you offer to let other people borrow the things you have been blessed with? There are bare minimums that anyone can do, and which anyone can aspire to grow in grace about (and abounding. ) The whole point to giving alms is that you’re helping other people; how you help them isn’t the main thing. But if you want more faith, then concentrate on being faithful with what you can be faithful with. Walk according to what light you can see, looking for more light thereby. (If you can’t bring yourself to be faithful about giving any help at all, then you have more problems than giving any amount of money will be able to solve!)
Okay, off to do ‘work’ work now…
STT, In response to your post, yes, I will certainly pray that you will grow to become a financially responsible person and learn how to handle your money wisely.
[tag]JasonPratt[/tag]
It’s fine, if I remember correctly I haven’t tagged you in a while.
Well that is the question I’m asking, what causes the fire of Gehenna to become unsalty, is it when it’s applied to unbelievers? whereas for believers, the events of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 will play out?
But is the Holy Spirit the same fire as that of Gehenna, I highly doubt The Lord Jesus Christ would use a garbage dump to refer to the Holy Spirit.
Could this be what happens to unbelievers?
Is everyone sheep though?
JOHN 10:26:
-26: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
I’m not a Calvinist (Calvinism removes all purpose to life) and I definitely don’t believe in limited atonement but this question must be asked.
The Lord Jesus Christ will be successful saving the SHEEP, but Matthew 25:31-46 talks about the Sheep AND THE Goats, will The Lord Jesus Christ save the goats?
According to BlueLetterBible (link - blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g2851), 'κόλασις [kolasis] (Strong’s Reference Number G2851) occurs only twice in the New Testament:
MATTHEW 25:46:
-46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment [kolasis]: but the righteous into life eternal.
1 JOHN 4:18:
-8: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment [kolasis]. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
If kolasis means ‘prune’ in Matthew 25:46, ‘prune’ doesn’t make sense in 1 John 4:18 unless fear is a good thing, which brings me on to another question that I can’t seem to get an answer to, what does Jude 1:23 mean:
JUDE 1:23:
-23: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Does this verse mean to save people by scaring them?
The order of words in the Online Greek Interlinear Bible (link - scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm) reads like this:
’
Whom yet in fear be-saving (be-ye-saving !) out of-the fire snatching (snatching-them) hating and (even) the from the flesh having-been-spotted tunic.’
Yeah you did, but how would you reconcile that with the hateful words of a man after God’s own heart:
PSALM 55:15-16:
-15: Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell [Sheol]: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.
-16: As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me.
PSALM 58:6-11:
-6: Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord.
-7: Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
-8: As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
-9: Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.
-10: The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
-11: So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
PSALM 109:
-7: When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
-8: Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
-9: Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
-10: Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
-11: Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
-12: Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
-13: Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
-14: Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
-15: Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
-16: Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
I have heard someone say that David is actually praying these prayers so that the person will eventfully suffer enough so they will repent.
But still these verses call things into a question, especially Psalm 15:55 where David actually prays for someone to go to Hell, something I’m sure most people today would be hard pressed to do.
I actually used to argue Psalm 55:15 to argue Annihilationism for that matter, however it was just a ‘common sense’ argument and not a scriptural one, saying that no one should ever pray for someone to go to a place of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT).
Where does the Bible say that those who become believers in this life were put under Christ’s feet.
I stop at destruction because:
1 CORINTHIANS 15:25-26:
-25: For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
-26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
REVELATION 20:13-15:
-13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
-14: And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
-15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
God is coming to make all things new (Revelation 21:5) and restore all things (Acts 3:21) so it’s pretty obvious that death is not coming back, so what is to stop someone from assuming that if one enemy is destroyed in after Christ putting all enemies under his feet in 1 Corinthians 15, that the other enemies are not destroyed also?
And what is to stop someone from seeing that if death is done away with in the Lake of Fire, everything and everything else thrown into the Lake of Fire won’t be done away with either?
I quoted Acts 3:21 which is a favorite among Universalists:
ACTS 3:21:
-21: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
My concern here is that it says “until the time of restitution of all THINGS”, are people things?
HOWEVER, I am aware that the word ‘things’ isn’t (at least isn’t clearly) seen in the inspired Greek, there is a single word translated as ‘of all things’, and the base Greek word (there are more letters than the base word) is ‘πᾶς [pas] (Strong’s Reference Number G3956)’ but I just wanted to mention that.
This actually begs the question, does God even hear me when I pray for him to change me, or do I need to change myself first, I ask this because of John 9:31:
JOHN 9:31:
-31: Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
I understand that this is not The Lord Jesus Christ speaking and I understand that the context is healing prayers, but still, the question must be asked.
It’s only because there appears to be a possibility of Univeralism is that I have that faith, otherwise I would be too afraid to recognize that I lack faith.
[tag]LLC[/tag]
Thanks, God Bless
I did, but I will again:
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22-28:
-22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
—>SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, EVERYONE WILL BE RESURRECTED, WHETHER IN THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION (JOHN 5:29)
-23: But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
-24: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
-25: For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
—>CHRIST PUTS ALL ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET, READ NEXT VERSE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO ENEMIES
-26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
—>THIS VERSE REVEALS THAT THE ENEMIES ARE DESTROYED (ANNIHILATED)
-27: For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
-28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Point taken.
But what if there is someone who died right after becoming a Christian and did not have the time to produce any works, take the Thief on the cross next to The Lord Jesus Christ for an example.
Of course, I have never encountered a thirsty person before though.
Although would not donating to these companies to help thirsty children in Africa count as not giving someone a cup of water?
God Bless
Christ Be With You All
STT said:
You know, maybe if you consider God and HIS SPIRIT, (since you seem to be a big fan of the trinity,) in that it would be possible **through God’s Spirit **you would realize that as you walked past a person who needed help and you could provide that help, that God would say to you, DO SOMETHING.