BRXII Battle talk

Ecumenicist · Feb 5, 2007

Nineveh said:
...And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’...

Apparently Logos is the only one required to site sources...

Lon · Feb 5, 2007

logos_x said:
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. But now he is comforted and you are tormented.

Well...there is the rub, isn't it?

Is THIS the actual standard of the judgement of the lake of fire?
Did the rich man...which was the high priest...recieve ALL the good he was ever going to recieve forever?

Seems to me..this "answer" doesn't fit at all with Kevin's (and other's) arguments. Jesus was raising issues with the Pharisaic belief system...in particular, their ideas about who was in and who was out. But He goes even further...He is saying that their idea of doing the right thing was scewed, because it allows for them to treat the "lost" as if they were of no consequence. And it was because of this that they, themselves, were "lost".

What concerns me is that it seems that, in trying to prove an eternal Hell, people miss the whole point of the story...which was a continuation of the other parables Jesus taught earlier in Luke 15 and 16.

It was their religious thinking that made them behave in ways contrary to the Lord's ministry...and this was what Jesus was pointing out with these 5 parables.

Alright, I agree with this, they are all put together to make a point. We are in agreement. They all point to Christ caring for the lost and how they are important to Him including Lazarus, the poor man (the main point of that story), but it takes a turn when it focuses then on the rich man. It is his wrap up story, the one that brings it back to the Pharisees I think. Jesus was not only conveying compassion for Lazarus, He was conveying judgement against the rich man and his lack of love and charity. Regardless of this, however, He discusses the torment of the man, and in no uncertain terms tells us that he cannot get respite. This is troubling, because we are left with the same question whether it is a story or a parable. The man is either hypothetically or in actuallity. If hypothetically merely, how can such be? Why tell a story of eternal torment if it wasn't an important component? My assessment is that it is an important component. Jesus was teaching a truth. We know from Revelation that the Lake of Fire exists and is eternal. This place was hades the rich man was in, which is later to be thrown into the lake of fire. While I can appreciate a view that says the lake of fire annihilates, I do not understand 2 things at least. Why the greek uses a verb for ongoing gnashing and why the fire is never quenched. While I do not like the implications any more than you do, I will not allow my repulsion or my feelings to cloud what seems clear from scripture. I would love to believe in annihilation, but this story of Lazarus and the rich man troubles me with reality. Christ does not shy away from this proposition in this story, which leads me to believe that regardless of my troubled spirit, Christ has not problem with the components of this story. If He didn't intend for His audience to understand exactly this, He wouldn't have said it. Afterwards, He didn't explain this aspect of the story, and his disciples must have understood, because they didn't ask either. They had no problem asking Him anything about His stories, and the fact that this discussion never takes place shows us that the components, if troubling, were understood. No matter how squeemish this makes me, I cannot change the meaning to fit my moral values. God is God and I will answer to Him, especially when my feelings are at odds. This reminds me of Enyart's discussion about wiping out an entire nation. It doesn't fit well into our morals, but we have to come to the understanding that no matter how I view something, I must go to His Word for my answers and believe He is just.

logos_x · Feb 5, 2007

Lonster said:
Alright, I agree with this, they are all put together to make a point. We are in agreement. They all point to Christ caring for the lost and how they are important to Him including Lazarus, the poor man (the main point of that story), but it takes a turn when it focuses then on the rich man. It is his wrap up story, the one that brings it back to the Pharisees I think. Jesus was not only conveying compassion for Lazarus, He was conveying judgement against the rich man and his lack of love and charity. Regardless of this, however, He discusses the torment of the man, and in no uncertain terms tells us that he cannot get respite. This is troubling, because we are left with the same question whether it is a story or a parable. The man is either hypothetically or in actuallity. If hypothetically merely, how can such be? Why tell a story of eternal torment if it wasn't an important component? My assessment is that it is an important component. Jesus was teaching a truth. We know from Revelation that the Lake of Fire exists and is eternal. This place was hades the rich man was in, which is later to be thrown into the lake of fire. While I can appreciate a view that says the lake of fire annihilates, I do not understand 2 things at least. Why the greek uses a verb for ongoing gnashing and why the fire is never quenched. While I do not like the implications any more than you do, I will not allow my repulsion or my feelings to cloud what seems clear from scripture. I would love to believe in annihilation, but this story of Lazarus and the rich man troubles me with reality. Christ does not shy away from this proposition in this story, which leads me to believe that regardless of my troubled spirit, Christ has not problem with the components of this story. If He didn't intend for His audience to understand exactly this, He wouldn't have said it. Afterwards, He didn't explain this aspect of the story, and his disciples must have understood, because they didn't ask either. They had no problem asking Him anything about His stories, and the fact that this discussion never takes place shows us that the components, if troubling, were understood. No matter how squeemish this makes me, I cannot change the meaning to fit my moral values. God is God and I will answer to Him, especially when my feelings are at odds. This reminds me of Enyart's discussion about wiping out an entire nation. It doesn't fit well into our morals, but we have to come to the understanding that no matter how I view something, I must go to His Word for my answers and believe He is just.

And..I agree with this. However I want to emphasise that this is not a permanent condition.

Resurrection from death provides the out.

This, again, is not an eternal situation...because even in this, Jesus now has the keys, and He is the resurrection and the life, and Lord of both the living and the dead.

Even if this is a true situation for the rich man...it does not follow that Jesus intends to leave Him there if the rich man changes his heart, and Jesus chnges the entire situation...does He not?

Even in a short amount of time, we can see the rich man changing from a selfish individual to one that shows concern for his brothers and probaly for anyone else that might end up where he did. And Jesus, surely, already feels great desire to end the suffering...that is why he went to the cross.

Nineveh · Feb 5, 2007

Dave Miller said:
Jesus said "Know a tree by the fruit it bears." Sounds like good advice to me. I
wouldn't call Jesus' words "legalism."

It most likely escaped your attention that was a metaphor and He wasn't speaking of the fruits of the Spirit.

What your saying here is that God has a double standard, which I disagree with. If
these good fruits flow from people who experience the Holy Spirit, surely they flow from
from the Holy Spirit Himself.

Dave, I've noticed you find a lot to contend with in Scripture. All I can do is try to offer that your fem/homo theology has taken the place of reading the Bible to know what God has to say.

I continue to pray that you have the occasion to experience the Fruits of the Spirit
first hand one day. When you do, your whole attitude and outlook will change.

I would take offense if I didn't know you are Scripturally ignorant.

Dave Miller said:
Apparently Logos is the only one required to site sources...

I'm not afraid to search the Word, are you, assistant pastor? Don't you know where that sentence comes from, after all, it's all part of the same story that's being discussed. Or did you need a reference to read the whole story.

Lon · Feb 5, 2007

logos_x said:
And..I agree with this. However I want to emphasise that this is not a permanent condition.

Resurrection from death provides the out.

This, again, is not an eternal situation...because even in this, Jesus now has the keys, and He is the resurrection and the life, and Lord of both the living and the dead.

Even if this is a true situation for the rich man...it does not follow that Jesus intends to leave Him there if the rich man changes his heart, and Jesus chnges the entire situation...does He not?

Even in a short amount of time, we can see the rich man changing from a selfish individual to one that shows concern for his brothers and probaly for anyone else that might end up where he did. And Jesus, surely, already feels great desire to end the suffering...that is why he went to the cross.

I appreciate this view also and my morality would love to comply. And at this point if I could totally agree that scripture supported this view, I'd be first on the bandwagon but the continual torment of this man, weeping and gnashing of teeth and the eternal flames keeps me from being able to jump on the bandwagon altogether. I do see some strong indications that would allow me to hope, one being "second death" which has a more permanent understanding, and also "be not afraid of those who can kill, just the body, but He can both destroy the body and the soul." Unfortunately it is difficult to pin 'destroy' down imperically from that passage. At this venture, I try to prepare for the worst and hope for the latter.

logos_x · Feb 5, 2007

Lonster said:
I appreciate this view also and my morality would love to comply. And at this point if I could totally agree that scripture supported this view, I'd be first on the bandwagon but the continual torment of this man, weeping and gnashing of teeth and the eternal flames keeps me from being able to jump on the bandwagon altogether. I do see some strong indications that would allow me to hope, one being "second death" which has a more permanent understanding, and also "be not afraid of those who can kill, just the body, but He can both destroy the body and the soul." Unfortunately it is difficult to pin 'destroy' down imperically from that passage. At this venture, I try to prepare for the worst and hope for the latter.

This would be a wise course of action.

Lon · Feb 5, 2007

logos_x said:
This would be a wise course of action.

True, but it is a precarious theological position in a sense, as you've been in the thick of it so to speak, you'd appreciate this quite. For the believer, we are a little more comfortable with any disagreement, but as we speak with those without hope or understanding, there is a demand on our theology that needs to take into account these issues and be able to bring meaning to their questions. We could certainly present our perspective here, but it would be important to be able to discuss the merit from these perspectives.

CabinetMaker · Feb 6, 2007

red77 said:
Bluntly - I'm still yet to recieve a remotely realistic and logical answer for this not being a parable.......

Click to expand...

Did you ever notice that in all of parables Jesus used to teach, non of the characters in them ever had a name. The were a son or a father or a farmer or even wheat and weeds.

The story of the Rich man and Lazurus feature people. The rich man is described in some detail and was probably known to the people of the time. Lazurus was also described and was also known to the people of the time. The story is unique and does not fit the patterns of the parables Jesus used. It makes more sense in a litteral reading than it does as a parable.

Lon · Feb 6, 2007

CabinetMaker said:
red77 said:

Did you ever notice that in all of parables Jesus used to teach, non of the characters in them ever had a name. The were a son or a father or a farmer or even wheat and weeds.

The story of the Rich man and Lazurus feature people. The rich man is described in some detail and was probably known to the people of the time. Lazurus was also described and was also known to the people of the time. The story is unique and does not fit the patterns of the parables Jesus used. It makes more sense in a litteral reading than it does as a parable.

Click to expand...

The parablist has good objections here, and while the parable view weakens some of our adherence, it changes not much the implications, so I tend to not get too hung up over this, but I do see much truth in your analysis.

Ecumenicist · Feb 6, 2007

Nineveh said:
It most likely escaped your attention that was a metaphor and He wasn't speaking of the fruits of the Spirit.

Dave, I've noticed you find a lot to contend with in Scripture. All I can do is try to offer that your fem/homo theology has taken the place of reading the Bible to know what God has to say.

Oh contraire. I see much consistancy in Scripture, in the Commandments that Jesus
gave and Paul reitterated. Love of neighbor, turning the other cheek, love of enemy,
returning kindness for abuse. All consistant with the fruits of the Spirit. No agenda in
any of those straight forward commandments, just God's Love expressed through
Jesus Christ.

Jesus demanded mercy and not sacrifice, Jesus came to save and not condemn, all
consistant messages.

Then there are the healings, the many healings, all consistant.

Jesus Himself equates sin with disease, and forgiveness with healing, that's consistant
too.

Seperating wheat from chaff, the fruit from the waste, leaving only the good fruit, again,
consistant message.

Then there is hell and the lake of fire. Scripture is consistant here as well. God's fire
destroys evil, and purifies, this is consistant as well. Healing, purification, seperation
from sin, destruction of sin, all consistant.

Its the ET interpretation of Scripture that is inconsistant.

God is Love. God is good. God is One. This is consistant.

God torturing billions of sentient beings for all eternity? Inconsistant.

I have no problem with Scripture, its a consistant revelation of God's Grace and
Love for God's Creation, for humanity.

Nineveh · Feb 6, 2007

Dave Miller said:
Oh contraire. I see much consistancy in Scripture, in the Commandments that Jesus
gave and Paul reitterated. Love of neighbor

Oops, you have exposed yourself dave. That's Love God with your whole being and the second one is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. That's where you usually stumble though. You try to define love by dave's standard.

Jesus demanded mercy and not sacrifice, Jesus came to save and not condemn, all consistant messages.

Golly... Who's this guy then? "Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God."

Maybe you have a different Jesus, dave. One that is concerned with birds in heaven rather than men's eternal souls.

Then there are the healings, the many healings, all consistant.

Jesus Himself equates sin with disease, and forgiveness with healing, that's consistant
too.

Seperating wheat from chaff, the fruit from the waste, leaving only the good fruit, again,
consistant message.

Then there is hell and the lake of fire. Scripture is consistant here as well. God's fire
destroys evil, and purifies, this is consistant as well. Healing, purification, seperation
from sin, destruction of sin, all consistant.

Its the ET interpretation of Scripture that is inconsistant.

God is Love. God is good. God is One. This is consistant.

God torturing billions of sentient beings for all eternity? Inconsistant.

I have no problem with Scripture, its a consistant revelation of God's Grace and
Love for God's Creation, for humanity.

god is dave. That's the only thing that makes your god consistent with your beliefs.

red77 · Feb 6, 2007

CabinetMaker said:
red77 said:

Did you ever notice that in all of parables Jesus used to teach, non of the characters in them ever had a name. The were a son or a father or a farmer or even wheat and weeds.

The story of the Rich man and Lazurus feature people. The rich man is described in some detail and was probably known to the people of the time. Lazurus was also described and was also known to the people of the time. The story is unique and does not fit the patterns of the parables Jesus used. It makes more sense in a litteral reading than it does as a parable.

Click to expand...

Yes, this in and of itself does not make it a literal event, Lazarus - if I'm not mistaken - translates as 'Misery', this is consistent with his plight in the story, the rich man is also not named - why? Two people - one with extreme wealth and one in extreme poverty - and a message attached of how selfishness and a cold heart towards another is not good......
i'm afraid this does not make sense on a literal reading for the reasons I outlined earlier, anyone who is literally on fire cannot speak coherently - never mind as eloquently as the rich man is capable of doing in the story......
Only a suspension of disbelief would dictate otherwise......

red77 · Feb 6, 2007

Dave Miller said:
Oh contraire. I see much consistancy in Scripture, in the Commandments that Jesus
gave and Paul reitterated. Love of neighbor, turning the other cheek, love of enemy,
returning kindness for abuse. All consistant with the fruits of the Spirit. No agenda in
any of those straight forward commandments, just God's Love expressed through
Jesus Christ.

Jesus demanded mercy and not sacrifice, Jesus came to save and not condemn, all
consistant messages.

Then there are the healings, the many healings, all consistant.

Jesus Himself equates sin with disease, and forgiveness with healing, that's consistant
too.

Seperating wheat from chaff, the fruit from the waste, leaving only the good fruit, again,
consistant message.

Then there is hell and the lake of fire. Scripture is consistant here as well. God's fire
destroys evil, and purifies, this is consistant as well. Healing, purification, seperation
from sin, destruction of sin, all consistant.

Its the ET interpretation of Scripture that is inconsistant.

God is Love. God is good. God is One. This is consistant.

God torturing billions of sentient beings for all eternity? Inconsistant.

I have no problem with Scripture, its a consistant revelation of God's Grace and
Love for God's Creation, for humanity.

Whoops, double post but you cant edit on this.....

Anyway - absolutely :thumb:

red77 · Feb 6, 2007

Nineveh said:
Oops, you have exposed yourself dave. That's Love God with your whole being and the second one is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. That's where you usually stumble though. You try to define love by dave's standard.

Golly... Who's this guy then? "Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God."

Maybe you have a different Jesus, dave. One that is concerned with birds in heaven rather than men's eternal souls.

god is dave. That's the only thing that makes your god consistent with your beliefs.

Nineveh - anyone who doesnt accept your interpretation of events is 'judging by their standard', you used to do it to me with "the gospel of red77" and now you're doing it with Dave Miller also, it seems that those who believe that God has a plan with a bit better success rate than what you perceive it to be are making it up,

I guess the god that's consistent with your beliefs is one whose wrath outweighs his love and one who loses the majority of his own creation

god is Nineveh?

logos_x · Feb 6, 2007

Lonster said:
True, but it is a precarious theological position in a sense, as you've been in the thick of it so to speak, you'd appreciate this quite. For the believer, we are a little more comfortable with any disagreement, but as we speak with those without hope or understanding, there is a demand on our theology that needs to take into account these issues and be able to bring meaning to their questions. We could certainly present our perspective here, but it would be important to be able to discuss the merit from these perspectives.

:thumb:

Well...there are many places where people aren't allowed to speak of these issues. TOL is a rare place. Many places would get rid of people like me for even talking about it. This is one of many reasons I value TOL, and the people that make it possible.

Nineveh · Feb 6, 2007

red77 said:
Nineveh - anyone who doesnt accept your interpretation of events is 'judging by their standard',

Oh, look! You give dave a pat on the back. Looks as if you are guilty of judging

The question is, which is in agreement with God.

you used to do it to me with "the gospel of red77"

Amazing, no? You sound like you belong to dave's church.

and now you're doing it with Dave Miller also, it seems that those who believe that God has a plan with a bit better success rate than what you perceive it to be are making it up,

Well, yes. Because God always talks about the remnant and the few. Who should I agree with? You and dave or God? Answer: God.

I guess the god that's consistent with your beliefs is one whose wrath outweighs his love and one who loses the majority of his own creation

God has done everything possible to save His creation, except take away man's freewill to reject Him. No matter how much you want everyone to be saved, it's not up to you.

god is Nineveh?

Nope, not any more. I gave up making things up about God back when I repented and accepted Christ.

red77 · Feb 6, 2007

Nineveh said:
Oh, look! You give dave a pat on the back. Looks as if you are guilty of judging The question is, which is in agreement with God.

I agree with Dave, I dont agree with you, yes, that is a judgement on my part the same as when i agree or disagree with anyone, the reason why I agree with Dave on much is because it ties in with scripture.....

Amazing, no? You sound like you belong to dave's church.

I dont belong to any particular 'church' in an earthly sense Nin!

Well, yes. Because God always talks about the remnant and the few. Who should I agree with? You and dave or God? Answer: God.

God 'always' talks about the remnant and the few? Always?! Hyperbole on your part here?

God has done everything possible to save His creation, except take away man's freewill to reject Him. No matter how much you want everyone to be saved, it's not up to you.

As I suspected all along - you dont believe that God can restore his own creation because of man....how insane an idea it must be that God purposed all things in accordance with his will including free will and still save his entire own handiwork....

Nope, not any more. I gave up making things up about God back when I repented and accepted Christ.

Then choose to believe that God cant reconcile his own world within the fullness of time if you wish, I wont.....

Nineveh · Feb 6, 2007

red77 said:
I agree with Dave, I dont agree with you, yes, that is a judgement on my part the same as when i agree or disagree with anyone, the reason why I agree with Dave on much is because it ties in with scripture.....

You stated who you agree with, it was the first thing off your tongue. You agree with dave, and as much as you really want Scripture to agree with dave, it doesn't. Both you and dave toss out the Law and replace it with your own brand of love.

I dont belong to any particular 'church' in an earthly sense Nin!

You seem to whole heartedly agree with dave's feminist and homosexual theology, among other things. This was why I am rather amazed logos is so willing to partner with this false hope that God really won't call an end to sin once and for all.

God 'always' talks about the remnant and the few? Always?! Hyperbole on your part here?

4 pages of remnant, if you care to look.

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Jesus doesn't seem to think the majority is going to seek Him. So who should I believe, red? You and dave, who offer the false hope that everyone is eventually going to be saved, or should I heed Jesus and follow the Narrow Way? Who should I tell others to follow? You and dave, or the Narrow Way?

As I suspected all along - you dont believe that God can restore his own creation because of man....

No, again. I believe God has created everything, He fixed it when we broke it, and He's going to completely restore everything in the future. The one thing He didn't do was force men to love Him and want to be with Him.

how insane an idea it must be that God purposed all things in accordance with his will including free will and still save his entire own handiwork....

He could have made robots who would do your bidding, red. But He didn't. God is not diminished by tossing out the trash, especially after doing everything to create, fix and restore it.

Then choose to believe that God cant reconcile his own world within the fullness of time if you wish, I wont.....

I know you won't. It's more comfortable to make believe everyone wants to be with God, it agrees with your world view.

red77 · Feb 6, 2007

Nineveh said:
You stated who you agree with, it was the first thing off your tongue. You agree with dave, and as much as you really want Scripture to agree with dave, it doesn't. Both you and dave toss out the Law and replace it with your own brand of love.

No, we both just happen to disagree with Nineveh - which doesnt by association mean disagreeing with scripture, much as you would have it that way. Love is described in Cor 13, I dont need to add to that nor make my own definition thanks

You seem to whole heartedly agree with dave's feminist and homosexual theology, among other things. This was why I am rather amazed logos is so willing to partner with this false hope that God really won't call an end to sin once and for all.

Oh pleeeeease, homosexuality has nothing to do with this debate, what on earth are you talking about? And to be honest the only people who believe that sin wont be ended once and for all are thjose who ascribe to ET where its never actually vanquished..........

4 pages of remnant, if you care to look.

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

So it is hyperbole on your part then, hardly 'always' at all is it? And yet again this same verse that doesnt mention hell, the LOF or eternal suffering but is interpreted to mean that by those who believe in ET...:rain:

Jesus doesn't seem to think the majority is going to seek Him. So who should I believe, red? You and dave, who offer the false hope that everyone is eventually going to be saved, or should I heed Jesus and follow the Narrow Way? Who should I tell others to follow? You and dave, or the Narrow Way?

Maybe you should consider for a second that this verse doesnt actually damn billions of people to a fiery unending torment, until you can be open enough to accept that as even a possibility then its pointless,

No, again. I believe God has created everything, He fixed it when we broke it, and He's going to completely restore everything in the future. The one thing He didn't do was force men to love Him and want to be with Him.

Then if he 'completely' restores EVERYTHING then that means ALL that he's created NIneveh, I dont believe that God 'forces' people to be with him either - you on the other hand believe that God forces people to suffer away from him regardless - which in turn also means that God does not restore EVERYTHING, everything means everything Nineveh - not just a fraction of mankind so you dont believe that God does this at all.....

He could have made robots who would do your bidding, red. But He didn't. God is not diminished by tossing out the trash, especially after doing everything to create, fix and restore it.

Oh - but I believe that God does actually restore everything Nin -

I know you won't. It's more comfortable to make believe everyone wants to be with God, it agrees with your world view.

i just believe that God can restore everything Nin, it seems more comfortable for you to cling onto the suffering of billions of people for your own world view to hold 'true' for which I'm sorry.....

Nineveh · Feb 6, 2007

red77 said:
No, we both just happen to disagree with Nineveh - which doesnt by association mean disagreeing with scripture, much as you would have it that way. Love is described in Cor 13, I dont need to add to that nor make my own definition thanks

Oh, but you and dave do make your own definitions. You want to rely on Cor to define Love but forget the Law hangs on Loving God with your whole being first.

Oh pleeeeease, homosexuality has nothing to do with this debate, what on earth are you talking about? And to be honest the only people who believe that sin wont be ended once and for all are thjose who ascribe to ET where its never actually vanquished..........

Warped theology has everything to do with this ongoing debate.

So it is hyperbole on your part then,...

Since you are simply going to ignore me, I'll return the fave.

BRXII Battle talk

New member

Well-known member

New member

Merely Christian

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

Well-known member

New member

Merely Christian

New member

New member

New member

New member

Merely Christian

New member

Merely Christian

New member

Merely Christian