Re-Thinking Hell

[P1LGR1M]

The point remains.

I know.

I am waiting for you to cede the point.

The Lost Sheep of Israel were in a state of destruction yet had not ceased to exist.

It is scripture that makes the case for Satan himself "turned you to ashes" and "cease to be"... which is an example of the end-points you are ignoring so far...

You have no "end-points," just a reiteration of the same tired opinion.

Sodom was turned to ashes physically on the day God destroyed it, but Christ Himself states they still await judgment:


Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


Everlasting Destruction is the Doctrine Christ taught, and He makes it clear it is not annihilation. He makes it equally clear there is no Universal Salvation.

One will either be known of Christ and know God, or they be among those Christ never knew because they refused to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ:


Matthew 7:22-23
King James Version

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
King James Version

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;


It is necessary for men to believe in Christ while they yet live. Those are the two groups of the world, the lost and the saved.

Still they are "details" in that post you say you cannot see.

They cannot be seen because they are invalid. I cannot recognize something that has been dismissed (and this easily) as a "point."


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

The Matt 10 text does not say "fear Him who can make you lost"

Never said it did.

I have consistently stated that it is the Lost Sheep of Israel that were lost, and that this shows someone in a state of destruction that has not ceased to exist.

Why do you think we call the unsaved "lost?"

It is the "details" in the Bible as seen in this post that I am in favor of -- #284

Correct: it is what you put into posts you are in favor of, not what is actually in the Bible.

There was no

• "destruction but not death" in Matt 10

Sure there is, I have shown it to you several times.

I asked you, "Was Israel dead?" They would have had to be for the text to not show destruction but not death. They were alive. Christ came to minister to them. And they were in a state of destruction.

I asked you, "Did they have eternal life?" They would have had to have been in order for the text to not show destruction but not death.

There was no

• 
  
• "destruction but only incomplete" in Matt 10

Not "incomplete," but ongoing (in Matthew 10:28).

Incomplete in Matthew 10:15 in the sense that they were already lost but had not suffered final judgment yet.

Still lost, still in a state of destruction, and still in existence.

There was no

• "eternal life but not very happy in that life" in Matt 10

False argument, I never said this.

Also not in Ezek 28 as noted above.

Correct: noted as complete and final judgment/destruction which is easily dismissed by Christ's Own words:

Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Not sure how many times you want me to point this out, Bob.

you are back to "quoting you" and then questioning me as if I said it. Did you lose focus on the fact that we are talking about Matt 10?

Not sure how...

P1LGR1M said: ↑
So Israel was physically dead?


..is me "questioning you as if you said it."

I asked it, and I will ask again:

P1LGR1M said: ↑
So Israel was physically dead?


They would have had to be in order for your statement...

There was no

• "destruction but not death" in Matt 10

...to make any sense.

So, was Israel dead?


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

There is no such thing as eternal life given to "a nation" -- change subject much?

Sure there is:


Romans 11:25-27
King James Version

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


Hebrews 10:15-18
King James Version

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Read the Bible much?

While the Gospel has always foretold the salvation of mankind as a whole, ignoring the fact that God made direct promise to the Nation of Israel (a People He created as a physical picture of the eventual One Fold of the Eternal State) and how that impacts interpretation of not only that which is Eschatological but that which is Soteriological as well. This is probably why you have embraced the false teaching of loss of salvation, as well as the false teaching of annihilation.

As far as me changing the subject, the question was directly related to your statement:



BobRyan said: ↑

There was no
"destruction but not death" in Matt 10


My response was:

So Israel was physically dead?

Israel had Eternal Life?

How is that changing the subject?


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

"God so loved the WORLD" is the statement of Christ before the cross. IT is a world that was lost "not just Jews".

Correct: Christ mentions the Everlasting Gospel numerous times, but that does not negate the fact that the Gospel remained a mystery until Pentecost.

His ministry to the Jews was an exclusive fulfillment of the Prophecy of Messiah that was relevant to the People of Israel. That does not mean that Christ never ministered to Gentiles or Samaritans, He did, but we cannot refute HIs Own statement:


Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


That is what you are doing, Bob.

P1LGR1M said: ↑

"Incomplete" implies that further destruction awaits those in Hell.

Not a word that is used in Matt 10:28 -- did you forget that we are discussing that text?

Not at all. Here is the original exchange:

"destruction but only incomplete" in Matt 10

"Incomplete" implies that further destruction awaits those in Hell. Simply not in the text, and not found in any other text either. If you have such a text please present it.

Here is my original statement:

That is the point you are missing: the destruction in Hell will not be a complete destruction. Israel was "lost" and yet walking around in the land.

And I am still awaiting a text that states the destruction will be "complete" in a context of annihilation.

It isn't there. The terminology used by the Lord and the Apostles make it clear that it is an ongoing destruction, just as the state of destruction Israel was in was ongoing, and will be until they are brought into New Covenant relationship with God through Christ.

"All Israel will be saved" because only those who come into relationship with God through Jesus Christ will be saved.

There was no

• "destruction but not death" in Matt 10
• "destruction but only incomplete" in Matt 10
• "eternal life but not very happy in that life" in Matt 10

Also not in Ezek 28 as noted above.

Run out of arguments much?

You have apparently lost your focus on the discussion in Matt 10:28

Well, I will let your unbiased readership determine that.

your statements are getting harder to follow -- given the details in the actual post you are responding to

Well, I have tried to put the cookie jar on the lower shelf, but there is only so slow I can type.



Perhaps reading what I actually say might help, Bob.

If you simply address the Scripture and points being made it will help you to see the error of your doctrine.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

BobRyan said: ↑
My main focus is on the "objective unbiased readers" of these exchanges.

You mean your main focus is not on having a doctrinal discussion and debate, where two antagonists present viewpoints and then address why they view their antagonist's view to be in error by addressing the very Scripture and points raised as support?

Yeah, I know.

You apparently missed the point entirely. The point is not about magnanimity - it is about utility.

Again, there is no point: you have no sincere desire to work through this doctrinal dissension in the Body of Christ, but seek merely to take potshots that you think make you sound as if you know what you are talking about.

The fact is—that just isn't working for you Bob.

Your view of annihilation is as faulty as your view of loss of salvation. Your proof texts are as weak, and your inability to address those points raised give testimony that the Scripture is simply not going to back you up.

The usefulness of a discussion where person A is not paying much attention to what person B is saying.

And I appreciate you giving such an excellent example of someone doing that. Really, I do.

My point was that I primarily rely on the utility of the discussion as it could benefit the unbiased objective viewer.

I would agree. Just as shown in the out-of-context use of Scripture to prooftext universal salvation, even so it is good for people to understand that annihilation is a false doctrine as well, so I appreciate you joining the discussion.

I view person A in that case as having free will and am not bothered that they refused to stay focused on details raised since the unbiased objective readers can also "see that".

I agree, so again, thanks for participating.

I simply can't do what I do without people like you.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Gish galloping usually results in most people not reading your posts.

Cheerleading usually results in a poster being exposed as incapable of carrying on a doctrinal discussion or debate.

Which would answer your question of why people aren't addressing them.

You might want to go back and reread the thread. Seems like there has been quite a bit of response.

As to why the responses aren't addressed, that is due to the inability of those who teach universal salvation to respond to them.

That is why you haven't addressed them.

But that is okay, because my goal is not to fit in with a majority, but to simply present the Biblical Basis for the views I take. It will benefit only those it will benefit, and beyond that it is out of my hands.

I would also add this: because doctrines such as universal salvation, annihilation, and soul sleep are usually considered doctrines of cults by most Bible Students, few will take the time to get involved in what they feel is a waste of time. Kind of like atheists: many refuse to have discussions with them because of the absurdity of their position. Me? I'm not like that. I like to challenge those whose beliefs step outside of Scripture. I have presented the proof texts of Universal Salvation as being out of context and why they are out of context.

And it is doubtful that even you, who have publicly claimed not to know what to believe—really gives two whits about the subject. If you did, you would add to your cheerleading the points made by all sides that are valid arguments.

You might ask yourself why you are more interested in making friends than making disciples of Christ.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

You are aware of the difference between "able to destroy" and "will/shall destroy," aren't you?

Classic "shot in the dark"??

1. "able but of course would never do such a thing" is not a deterrent to anything and is not an argument ever used by Christ when it comes to what God can do and warning people against opposing God. My guess is that we both already know that.

2. The NT Writers relied heavily on "God is able and of course HE WILL"

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna: Fiery Hell).

Luke 12
4 ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
5 ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

Jude 1:24 Now to Him who is able to protect you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory, blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Eph 3:20 20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,

2 Cor 9:8 And God is able to make all grace overflow to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;

Rom 4:21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,

2 Timothy 1:12”For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

Hebrews 11:19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.

2 Corinthians 1:4”who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.

"able - but we all assume he never would" is not in the NT

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
My main focus is on the "objective unbiased readers" of these exchanges.

You mean your main focus is not on having a doctrinal discussion and debate, where two antagonists present viewpoints and then address why they view their antagonist's view to be in error by addressing the very Scripture and points raised as support? .

You lost focus again.

As you already saw here --

My main focus is on the "objective unbiased readers" of these exchanges. I am blessed beyond that if the person I am dialoging with also is interested in the Bible details I keep pointing out - but that does not always happen. What does almost always happen - is that an objective unbiased reader sees what is going in the exchange. You can't simply "tell them what to think"... they look at the details pointed out.

I keep pointing out that by presenting the clear Bible evidence and then allowing detractors from it to demonstrate their case - I am appealing to the objective unbiased readers to see that glaringly obvious contrast and come to a conclusion.

You imagine that this is some odd way of avoiding doctrine? ignoring "what the Bible says"??

I find a certain paucity in your logic just then.

Just as shown in the out-of-context use of Scripture to prooftext universal salvation,

As we both know - I never argue for universal salvation. Please stay focused on the point at hand.

 

[BobRyan]

And I am still awaiting a text that states the destruction will be "complete" in a context of annihilation.

read the posts in the thread then -- then make a substantive point that supports your suggestion.

Where your suggestion is something more than "kill but did not say really-really-for-sure kill" or does not argue "destroy but not really-really-for-sure-destroy"

For example - read this one.

Matthew 10:28 King James Version (KJV)

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.

end of story if one is going to accept it as it reads.

At first glance, it seems that the Lord is speaking about destruction that is complete

The "as it reads" part.

and most will understand this in physical terms. The word translated destroy is apollymi, and it needs to be pointed out, first, that (in the above verse) is not the same word translated as "kill," which is apokteinō.

Indeed it is going BEYOND what man can do - rather than claiming that God can do even LESS than what man can do.

=============================
Luke 17:29 apollumi

“ but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

Which is why it is so instructive to see in 2 Peter 2 "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" that we see in 2 Peter 2

2 Peter 2:6
6 “and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes,

The point, Bob, is that the destruction of those in Hell is a continual existence.


God bless.

Only if existing as a pile of ashes satisfies your criteria for "continued existence"

Apparently God does not equate the idea of continuing as a pile of ashes as "continued existence" in His Ezek 28 statement.


Ezek 28:
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”

 

[David's Harp]

Classic "shot in the dark"??

1. "able but of course would never do such a thing" is not a deterrent to anything and is not an argument ever used by Christ when it comes to what God can do and warning people against opposing God. My guess is that we both already know that.

2. The NT Writers relied heavily on "God is able and of course HE WILL"

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna: Fiery Hell).

Luke 12
4 ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
5 ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

Jude 1:24 Now to Him who is able to protect you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory, blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Eph 3:20 20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,

2 Cor 9:8 And God is able to make all grace overflow to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;

Rom 4:21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,

2 Timothy 1:12”For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

Hebrews 11:19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.

2 Corinthians 1:4”who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.

"able - but we all assume he never would" is not in the NT

Hi Bob, I'm wondering if I should take back my statement earlier on what I stated to be the crucial words - "who is able". It's just that, for me, any of the verses that you've kindly posted above read a little different than might be assumed at first glance. That is to say that most people perhaps assume that we would read the verses as given - God will do these things. However, I look on it more as He is able in accordance with His Will.
So, yes "able - but we all assume He never would" could be just as bad as "able - but we all assume He always must".
Are these words just inconsequential? Why not use the word can, must, will or something else in the affirmative?

Anyway, sorry if you feel I'm being pedantic or just plain wrong. And sorry if this is detracting from the main theme too much.

 

[P1LGR1M]

You lost focus again.

As you already saw here --

lol

Yes, because direct response is of course "losing focus."

I will show you your insincerity at the end of this post, Bob.

You have avoided the actual doctrine of the discussion altogether. Providing a counter proof text that has been shown to be a temporal context that awaits an eternal judgment isn't what I call an appeal to unbiased readers.

I keep pointing out that by presenting the clear Bible evidence and then allowing detractors from it to demonstrate their case - I am appealing to the objective unbiased readers to see that glaringly obvious contrast and come to a conclusion.

And this "clear Bible evidence" has been shown to be yanked out of a Biblical context. Several times.

That is why you only quote portions of what I have said. To quote it in its entirety only exposes your error further. You know it. I know it. The unbiased reader knows it.

You imagine that this is some odd way of avoiding doctrine? ignoring "what the Bible says"??

Would you mind pointing out the post that I do this in?

It's not there.

I find a certain paucity in your logic just then.

lol

By all means—point it out.

Just as shown in the out-of-context use of Scripture to prooftext universal salvation,

As we both know - I never argue for universal salvation. Please stay focused on the point at hand

Here your insincerity and deceitfulness is exposed, Bob.

You quote me saying...

Just as shown in the out-of-context use of Scripture to prooftext universal salvation,

...and falsely charge me with attributing a universal salvation position to you, when I have mentioned already our discussions about your view that those who are Eternally Redeemed can lose their salvation.

Here is what I actually said:

Just as shown in the out-of-context use of Scripture to prooftext universal salvation, even so it is good for people to understand that annihilation is a false doctrine as well, so I appreciate you joining the discussion.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but this is exactly what you do with Scripture: you quote what you feel serves your purpose and leave out what doesn't accomodate what you want to teach.

Think the unbiased reader is going to miss that?

Does this kind of tactic represent what you claim?

I keep pointing out that by presenting the clear Bible evidence and then allowing detractors from it to demonstrate their case - I am appealing to the objective unbiased readers to see that glaringly obvious contrast and come to a conclusion.

You can't even point out a clear statement by an antagonist. Why would anyone think you point out clear statements of the Word of God?

And why would someone not acknowledge their error if they are a born-again believer who is beholden to God?

When you can quote something I said in full and properly represent it, then you will be doing the will of God. When you can quote Scripture and properly present it, then you will be doing the will of God.

But as long as you resort to shoddy tactics like this, in hopes of "scoring points" with your readership, instead of making points that are relevant to the Lost, then you will continue to serve your own purposes.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob, I'm wondering if I should take back my statement earlier on what I stated to be the crucial words - "who is able". It's just that, for me, any of the verses that you've kindly posted above read a little different than might be assumed at first glance. That is to say that most people perhaps assume that we would read the verses as given - God will do these things. However, I look on it more as He is able in accordance with His Will.
So, yes "able - but we all assume He never would" could be just as bad as "able - but we all assume He always must".
.

I agree that of we insert "always must" then no humans are saved since all would be destroyed both body and soul.

However the force of Christ's argument is totally wiped out if you add in "but of course would never do such a thing".

In almost my examples above if we add "and always must" the no human is lost. If we add "but of course never would" then no human is saved.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
My main focus is on the "objective unbiased readers" of these exchanges.

You mean your main focus is not on having a doctrinal discussion and debate, where two antagonists present viewpoints and then address why they view their antagonist's view to be in error by addressing the very Scripture and points raised as support? .

You lost focus again.

As you already saw here --

My main focus is on the "objective unbiased readers" of these exchanges. I am blessed beyond that if the person I am dialoging with also is interested in the Bible details I keep pointing out - but that does not always happen. What does almost always happen - is that an objective unbiased reader sees what is going in the exchange. You can't simply "tell them what to think"... they look at the details pointed out.

I keep pointing out that by presenting the clear Bible evidence and then allowing detractors from it to demonstrate their case - I am appealing to the objective unbiased readers to see that glaringly obvious contrast and come to a conclusion.

You imagine that this is some odd way of avoiding doctrine? ignoring "what the Bible says"??

I find a certain paucity in your logic just then.

lol

Yes, because direct response is of course "losing focus."

I will show you your insincerity at the end of this post, Bob.

You have avoided the actual doctrine of the discussion altogether.

I find your logic at that point...illusive.

 

[P1LGR1M]

read the posts in the thread then -- then make a substantive point that supports your suggestion.

I've done that many times. Quote the points I made and address them.

Where your suggestion is something more than "kill but did not say really-really-for-sure kill" or does not argue "destroy but not really-really-for-sure-destroy"

First, I never denied that men can kill men, or that it doesn't mean they can't kill them, so again—an insincere representation of your antagonist.

Secondly, if the same result was intended in the statement, then it would read "Do not fear men that can kill the body, but rather, fear Him Who is able to kill both soul and body in Hell.

But it doesn't say that, does it. Two different words for two different contexts, the physical (in which men can kill the body), and the eternal, in which God can destroy the soul (person) and body.

Third, I have never said the destruction wasn't destruction: it is a continuing state of destruction.

If you would just address what I say instead of what you want me to be saying you might actually contribute to the discussion.

For example - read this one.

I read it. I addressed every word you said in several posts. I did not leave out one word you said.

It is not I that needs to go back and reread, it is you, my friend.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

read the posts in the thread then -- then make a substantive point that supports your suggestion.

So let's see if your challenge is sincere.

You said...

LINK

There is no such thing as eternal life given to "a nation" -- change subject much?


...to which my response was...

LINK

Sure there is:


Romans 11:25-27
King James Version

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


Hebrews 10:15-18
King James Version

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Read the Bible much?

While the Gospel has always foretold the salvation of mankind as a whole, ignoring the fact that God made direct promise to the Nation of Israel (a People He created as a physical picture of the eventual One Fold of the Eternal State) and how that impacts interpretation of not only that which is Eschatological but that which is Soteriological as well. This is probably why you have embraced the false teaching of loss of salvation, as well as the false teaching of annihilation.

You are asking me to do something I have been consistently doing:

read the posts in the thread then -- then make a substantive point that supports your suggestion.

So this is a direct response to your challenge, so now you can show why I am in error and you are correct in saying...

There is no such thing as eternal life given to "a nation" -- change subject much?

God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

..and falsely charge me with attributing a universal salvation position to you, when I have mentioned already our discussions about your view that those who are Eternally Redeemed can lose their salvation.

Here is what I actually said:

P1LGR1M said: ↑
Just as shown in the out-of-context use of Scripture to prooftext universal salvation, even so it is good for people to understand that annihilation is a false doctrine as well, so I appreciate you joining the discussion.

demonstrating how your logic is hard to find in those posts.

Your argument is the rather odd "someone did this wrong so it is good for people to understand that another person taking some other POV must surely be wrong as well".

Consider taking another shot at it. we can wait.

 

[P1LGR1M]

demonstrating how your logic is hard to find in those posts.

Your argument is the rather odd "someone did this wrong so it is good for people to understand that another person taking some other POV must surely be wrong as well".

Consider taking another shot at it. we can wait.

So here it is again:

read the posts in the thread then -- then make a substantive point that supports your suggestion.

So let's see if your challenge is sincere.

You said...

LINK

There is no such thing as eternal life given to "a nation" -- change subject much?


...to which my response was...

LINK

Sure there is:


Romans 11:25-27
King James Version

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


Hebrews 10:15-18
King James Version

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Read the Bible much?

While the Gospel has always foretold the salvation of mankind as a whole, ignoring the fact that God made direct promise to the Nation of Israel (a People He created as a physical picture of the eventual One Fold of the Eternal State) and how that impacts interpretation of not only that which is Eschatological but that which is Soteriological as well. This is probably why you have embraced the false teaching of loss of salvation, as well as the false teaching of annihilation.

You are asking me to do something I have been consistently doing:

read the posts in the thread then -- then make a substantive point that supports your suggestion.

So this is a direct response to your challenge, so now you can show why I am in error and you are correct in saying...

There is no such thing as eternal life given to "a nation" -- change subject much?

Not really hard to see the logic: you say there is no such thing as eternal life given to a nation, yet this is the very promise of God to Israel. First in Promise, and in Prophecy. In Paul's day, the Restoration of Israel is still something prophesied to happen.

How hard is it to follow the argument?

Now it is up to you to show why "there is no such thing as eternal life given to a nation."


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

So Israel was physically dead?

Israel had Eternal Life?

No, Israel was dead. They did not have eternal life. That is the very reason Christ came, that men might not perish but have everlasting life. The perishing is not physical, it is eternal.

1. Perish is both physical and final - see Matt 10:28 It involves both body and soul. Do you have an immortal body??

2. Israel was not saved as a nation nor lost as a nation - rather mankind was lost as a species and "God so loved the world that He gave" -- not merely "so loved the Jews that He gave".

Sure there is:

Romans 11:25-27
King James Version

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

In Rom 11 Paul argues that by having gentiles grafted in - in this way - all Israel is saved... and that is because " they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;"

Rom 9:6
For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

mankind is not saved as a nation or lost as a nation.

We are lost as fallen humanity, children of Adam Rom 5, no matter what nation we are in.

But we are not "destroyed - both body and soul in fiery hell" until the lake of fire event in Rev 20.

The point remains.

 

[P1LGR1M]

As we both know - I never argue for universal salvation. Please stay focused on the point at hand.

Are you willing to admit misrepresenting what I have said here?

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

1. Perish is both physical and final - see Matt 10:28 It involves both body and soul.

And I have given numerous texts that show it is not final. Yet you avoid quoting those.

Sodom was turned to ashes physically on the day God destroyed it, but Christ Himself states they still await judgment:


Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


Everlasting Destruction is the Doctrine Christ taught, and He makes it clear it is not annihilation. He makes it equally clear there is no Universal Salvation.

One will either be known of Christ and know God, or they be among those Christ never knew because they refused to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ:


Matthew 7:22-23
King James Version

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
King James Version

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;


It is necessary for men to believe in Christ while they yet live. Those are the two groups of the world, the lost and the saved.

This is a direct response to your assertion that because Sodom was destroyed physically it means they were forever turned to ashes.

So it doesn't get clipped in the quote I will repost it so it stays visible in its entirety:


Sodom was turned to ashes physically on the day God destroyed it, but Christ Himself states they still await judgment:


Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


Everlasting Destruction is the Doctrine Christ taught, and He makes it clear it is not annihilation. He makes it equally clear there is no Universal Salvation.

One will either be known of Christ and know God, or they be among those Christ never knew because they refused to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ:


Matthew 7:22-23
King James Version

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
King James Version

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;


It is necessary for men to believe in Christ while they yet live. Those are the two groups of the world, the lost and the saved.

These are just a few of the many teachings that show an unending existence of damnation for unbelievers.

So address the points and Scripture, Bob, that's all you have to do.


Continued...