Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not the end but the beginning (which you misunderstand). See Rev 20:10 and Rev 14:10,11. How do people manage to misunderstand? That's why I have posted a thread in the Christian theology forum on this subject.Which I understand to mean the death of Death, and Hell's destruction. The end of the punishment, not the beginning.
My explanation will mean nothing to you unless you can see that Jesus alone pays for our sins, providing reconciliation to God. And and that this reconciliation is complete and total.Okay then, once again, tell us what the parable means.
How do you pay for your sin? What do you pay that is more efficacious than Jesus' death? How will you reconcile to God if Christ's death wasn't enough??
Much love!
But you believe they are there paying for their sins, or am I misunderstanding you?You’re making this about eternal life when it’s not about eternal life. I believe those in outer darkness have eternal life.
I believe those in outer darkness have eternal life.
But you believe they are there paying for their sins, or am I misunderstanding you?
I thing we must have very different ideas of what reconciliation to God is. Your idea of outer darkness apparently fits with your idea of a less than complete reconciliation to God. Again . . . unless I misunderstand you.
Much love!
John 17:3 KJV
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Much love!
Of course, I accept your apology, although none is needed. You have not offended me in any way. I must say, however, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to understand how to respond to your posts in a way that meets your approval. I had no idea it was necessary to analyze and seek to discern your motives before addressing you. I admit I can't help wondering how you know to what extent I have considered your remarks and views. I can only assume what hasn't been expressed, and this is not without its many distinct disadvantages, at best. With regard to the questionable interpretation of a single phrase by two different styles of expression, the curiosity seems to be self-evident. Others appear to agree.If I've responded inappropriately, I apologize. I know I sometimes put a fine point on things.
What is questionable about that? And why say so without even the slightest bit of exploration on why I say that?
Much love!
Salvation is judged by works, but not provided by them. I'm not at all sure the word "dependant" is specific enough in clarifying the issue. :)What you suggest is a salvation dependant upon works
Anything to say about the rest of that post?
Parables can often be very unclear, usually directly proportionate to our level of consecration. Scriptural (or divine) ones are absolutely designed that way. I haven't been following this discussion closely, so perhaps you'll pardon me if I mention something redundant. But it seems to me that the parable in question uses much figurative/symbolic language. I'm not at all sure that the term "sons (or children) of the Kingdom" doesn't mean Pharisees/legalists. And "outer darkness" doesn't sound too much like either of the two final destinations that are portrayed throughout the Bible (preponderance), so it might be figurative as well. I suspect that it means hellfire. Just my not-very-well-studied opinion, though. :)I don’t know how much clearer the parable can be, honestly.
So you are thinking that those in outer darkness nonetheless are in communion with God?Correct. Once again, not talking about eternal life vs not eternal life.
That's not what I'm doing, if that is affecting your replies. When I'm asking for clarification, or elaboration, it's because I'm not sure what you are saying.but it is used by many professional debaters as a tactical maneuver.
The only thing I wanted to point to was that you declared my hermanuetic to be, what did you say? Regardless, without any talk about how I arrived at that, only that I wasn't being consistent or whatever it was, I honestly don't really care.I had no idea it was necessary to analyze and seek to discern your motives before addressing you.
I'm not that way. I don't compare myself to others.it would make you feel very secure and affirmed. lol
I don't see that myself. I see that salvation is knowing God, and being born from Him. The works follow, but God knows who His children are.Salvation is judged by works,
Neither will I answer what the parable means.
Parables can often be very unclear, usually directly proportionate to our level of consecration. Scriptural (or divine) ones are absolutely designed that way. I haven't been following this discussion closely, so perhaps you'll pardon me if I mention something redundant. But it seems to me that the parable in question uses much figurative/symbolic language. I'm not at all sure that the term "sons (or children) of the Kingdom" doesn't mean Pharisees/legalists. And "outer darkness" doesn't sound too much like either of the two final destinations that are portrayed throughout the Bible (preponderance), so it might be figurative as well. I suspect that it means hellfire. Just my not-very-well-studied opinion, though. :)