Does 2 Peter 2:4 reveal there exists a heavenly abode for the wicked which many KJV Scriptures call hell that is separate from the lake of fire?
Does 2 Peter 2:4 Reveal Hell Exists?
- Thread starter veteran
- Start date
-
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!
Nope, not at all. And it's very dangerous to build a whole doctrine around a verse or two, which you have misunderstood to begin with.
There are about 182 clear verses for the destruction of the lost! Because man is mortal and because eternal life is given only to the redeemed, the unsaved forfeit their lives altogether!
In no way should 180+ clear verses be misunderstood by one who honestly desires to know truth. There is a fire reserved for the wicked, but a fire so hot it will utterly destroy all who are engulfed by it. When the fire has done its work, it will go out. Eternally burning fire is not taught anywhere in the Bible--not even in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The English word eternal[ Greek "aionios"] DOES NOT always mean unending as I have shown in other threads and on my website:
http://www.biblejesu...l-hellfire.html
By the way veteran, 2 Peter 2:4 says, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;"
Now tell me, do you know what Koine Greek word is under "hell".
And how can their be darkness there seeing you believe "hell" is a place of extreme fire, hence, extreme light.
And I know you connect 2 Peter 2:4 to Rev 20:14, so let me once again address that verse also. Hades cannot be the place of hell-fire since the KJV clearly says that hell itself (Hades) will be cast in to the lake of fire! How can this be so? If Hades (hell in the KJV) is fire how can it be cast into itself? The obvious meaning of the text is that "death and hell [the grave, the place of the dead] were cast into the lake of fire", that is all that is a reminder of sin will be exterminated!
Also, The word order in Greek is very flexible, and usually reflect emphasis and rarely difference in meaning. From what I can tell you "ουτος" is a determiner and "determiner + noun clause" is the typical construction in which the determiner functions like an adjective (apart from being without an article) and modifies the noun clause. So if that were the case "ουτος ο θανατος ο δευτερος" would mean "this second death", which does not make sense because no "second death" was previously mentioned. Rather, "ουτος ο θανατος ο δευτερος εστιν" has "ουτος" as the subject and "ο θανατος ο δευτερος" as the predicate, which is usually in front of the copulative verb anyway.
2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
So as we all can clearly see, 2 Peter 2:4 does NOTHING to support the "eternal hellfire" teachers. In fact, it contradicts your idea of a brightly lit burning hell, because the verse talks about DARKNESS being in "hell". But how is that possible? Answer: There exists no burning hell!
And veteran, I ask you, please tell me what Koine Greek word appears under "hell". Do you have any ideas?
God bless.
Brethren, don't allow someone like truthseeker2012 to sway you. Think about what that Scripture clearly says, for it is a direct statement type of Scripture, not a parable nor a metaphor. Peter is making a declaration there which one either must choose to accept or deny.
How am I swaying anyone?
And why are you trying to warn people about me?
What do I teach that will cause a person to be lost?
Why do you always go around warning people about me and trying to turn people against me just because I disagree with some of your doctrines? Have I ever done that about you?
Why don't you address and debate my post and comments and verses instead of personally attacking me and trying to turn everyone against me?
Don't worry veteran, God and people's free choice has more power than I do. God will lead everyone into a truthful understanding if they sincerely seek truth. Don't worry, I don't have power to cause anyone to be lost. So please address and focus on the TOPIC and please stop personally attacking me and trying to discredit my character.
God bless.
I think it cannot be avoided that scripture truly does speak of a place apart from 'heaven'...or where believers will spend eternity with God. Not only does the bible talk of hades, sheol, gehenna, the lake of fire, outer darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth; it also begs people again and again to repent now...in this life, before it is too late. We must ask ourselves what we are being begged to avoid? Why repentance and deliverance is so necessary...from what?
So yeah, I think the bible speaks of such a place. But beyond that I wouldn't dare to try and suppose what said 'punishment' might be, if I think it to be fair or not. Such things are to be left up to God...as He is the only one both fit and just enough to make such decisions.
I don't agree Rach, not at all. The Bible doesn't talk about any place apart from heaven or the grave.
We are begged to avoid DEATH! In Christ and only in Christ is there life. Those who reject Christ will never see any kind or any form of life, John 3:36.
The Bible speaks very clearly, in hundreds of place about the lost and that they will DIE and not receive life. Yet some people have twisted a few verses and built a whole doctrine around it and the early translations didn't help by using words such as "hell", which does not exist in the original manuscripts.
But thank goodness that Scholars are waking up to themselves, and realising that hell is not in Bible.The original "Authorized Version" of the King James Bible contained the word "Hell" 54 times from Genesis to Revelation. The New King James Bible contained the word "Hell" only 32 times and the American Standard and New American Standard (both revisions of the KJV) only 13 times. And the NIV OT doesn't contain the word hell even once!
And there are literally scores of Bible translations which do NOT contain the word "Hell" even ONCE! That's because they were written by Scholars who LOVE the truth and have EMBRACED the truth!
The word "Hell" is disappearing from the pages of English Bible translations and HAS already completely disappeared from many of them, and rightly so.
God bless.
Yeah, I'm not going to get into it with you at all. We already knows what happens, so let's not. I'll believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and neither of us will accuse the other of unbiblical heresies. We may think it...but let's not say it!!!!
Show me anything I have said that is unbiblical heresies and prove I am wrong using Scripture alone.
God bless.
God bless.
I think that's the proper attitude to have about it, admit that God's Word is pointing to such a place even though we may not yet understand just what kind of place it is.
In the Luke 16 example of Lazarus and the rich man, the Greek word for "torments" is 'basanos', which refers to a 'touchstone'. A touchstone is a certain type of rock that when you strike a piece of gold ore with it, the amount of gold in the ore is revealed. The touchstone idea there is used like a measuring tool, the rich man didn't measure up. To me, that kind of torment is an emotional torment, not a literal burning by literal fire.
i believe in hell also.
truthseeker your understanding of the scriptures i wonder is it your interpretation of did someone explain it to yo from a book you read? then did you look up the scriptures to see if what they said could be interpreted that way? or did a pastor teach you that theology that there is no hell? i am trying to understand where you are coming from in your reasoning of why you believe the way you do. i don't need a lesson in if hell exists or not from you but just want to know where you got all your beliefs from. it is tough trying to understand how a peson believes what he does if there not any background information from them. any help would be greatly appreciated.
yours in Christ
truthseeker your understanding of the scriptures i wonder is it your interpretation of did someone explain it to yo from a book you read? then did you look up the scriptures to see if what they said could be interpreted that way? or did a pastor teach you that theology that there is no hell? i am trying to understand where you are coming from in your reasoning of why you believe the way you do. i don't need a lesson in if hell exists or not from you but just want to know where you got all your beliefs from. it is tough trying to understand how a peson believes what he does if there not any background information from them. any help would be greatly appreciated.
yours in Christ
Ah, yeah...that would be getting into it with you, and I'm just not gonna. There is no point and certainly no edification in it. So at this point I believe we need to say "I love Jesus, and you love Jesus" and leave it at that, otherwise we get back into the same argument that we've had before...in fact, that you've had with everyone. I'm glad you are a born again Christian...truly, there's no better place to be than in the arms of Christ...but as we know what a discussion between us will bring, don't you think it wiser to avoid it?
And something important to know is that Luke 16 contains parables, not literal comments.
So... is Rich man and Lazarus..Is it figurative or Literal ? Well let's see.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mar 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
Did you catch that? If not, read those 2 verses again! Jesus always used parables when speaking to the Pharisee's etc. It was only when Jesus spoke with His disciples that he expounded all things.
So that proves and shows that the Rich man and Lazarus was a Parable!
Christ addressed the Pharisees when He recited this account (verse 14). Using one of their own well-known stories about the future (nearly every detail was recorded in Josephus' book, Josephus' Discourses to the Greeks Concerning Hades [pp. 637, 638], which was written shortly after Christ's time), Christ pointed out that in this life only we determine our future destiny. No second probation exists for the human race!
Jesus employed a popular Pharisaical story to teach an important lesson to the Pharisees. But the details of the story so contradict the other teachings of Christ (see Matthew 13:36-40) that no one should accuse Him of supporting the details of the parable itself.
A parable signifies a complete and often imaginary story from which a moral or lesson is to be drawn.
The Random House College Dictionary describes a parable as "a short, allegorical story designed to convey a truth or moral lesson.
Jesus' parables started this way: There was a certain etc...., bit like, once upon a time etc..
The pharisees believed that salvation is based on Abrahamic descent. They believed that all of Abraham's descendants would automatically go to Heaven. Jesus used this parable to turn the tables around and show them that is not the case. A lesson was drawn from it. It's simply a parabolic fable.
Luke 16:19-31 and the OT Isa 14:4-11[Parabolic imagery] is the ONLY place in the whole Bible that makes Hades/Sheol a place of suffering and is the ONLY place in the whole of scriptures portrayed as a place of torment. These being parables, so we can't now sweep all other[and there are many] clear verses aside because of 2 parables.
It's simply hebraized platonism and Christ's last appeals at his end of public ministry.
Rich man and Lazarus is the ONLY passage in the whole of NT of suffering in Hades. And that's because it's only a parable and NOT literal!
"Abrahams Bossom" was a Jewish idiom meaning "Paradise".
IDIOM = individual peculiarity of language - the language peculiar to a people or to a district, community, or class. example "Its raining cats and dogs". if someone tells you this, you take it literal or symbolically?
The nature and destiny of man was a major area of disagreement between Christ and the pharisees. The pharisees rejected Christ's teachings of Life, death and destiny of man. The pharisees were immortal soulists who also believed in eternal agony.
Jesus thus rebuked the Pharisees for their disregard of the Scriptures, foreseeing that even a supernatural event would not change the hearts of those who persistently rejected the teachings of "Moses and the prophets." The miracle of raising the real life Lazarus from the dead soon afterwards confirmed the accuracy of Jesus' conclusion. One did rise from the dead, yet the brothers of the "rich man" did not repent. In fact, the Pharisees even plotted to kill Lazarus after his resurrection. His very life was a reminder to them of their own hypocrisy
So you side with the pharisees over Jesus?
It's as literal as Judges 9:8-15 is, talking trees hehe :-)
Here are the 5 PARABLES in Luke:
1) The Parable of the lost sheep [Luke 15:1-7] Shepards Love
2) The Parable of the lost coin [Luke 15:8-10] The Womans dilligent search
3) The Parable of the lost son [Luke 15:11-32] The Wonderful love of the Father over his wayward son
4) The Parable of the Unjust Steward [Luke 16:1-18] Preparation for the life to come and building friendships for the future.
5) The Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus [Luke 16:19-31] The necessity of being ready for the day of death and the futility of counting on a 2nd probation Lost Opportunity and the eternal fixity of mans destiny when life ends. And that Salvation is NOT based on Abrahamic descent.
Many people have asked me, doesn't the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 teach an eternal hell of torment? And the answer is No! It is simply a parable used to emphasize a point. Many facts make it clear that this is a parable. A few are as follows:
A. Abraham's bosom is not heaven (Hebrews 11:8-10,16).
B. People in "hell" can't talk to those in heaven (Isaiah 65:17).
C. The dead are in their graves (Job 17:13; John 5:28,29). The rich man was in bodily form with eyes, a tongue, etc., yet we know that the body does not go to some "hell" at death. It is very obvious that the body remains in the grave, as the Bible says.
D. Men are rewarded at Christ's second coming, not at death (Revelation 22:11,12).
E. The lost are punished in the lake of fire which will eventually burn out,[Gehenna] at the end of the world, not when they die (Matthew 13:40-42). The point of the story is found in verse 31 of Luke 16. Parables cannot be taken literally. If we took parables literally, then we must believe that trees talk! (See this parable in Judges 9:8-15).
Religious "conversions" resulting from a fear of hell as it is depicted in this passage have indeed occurred. Satan has done a lot of damage with the hell doctrine lie.
God bless.
I used to believe in eternal hell for over 30 years. I thought God was a monster and tyrant who will torture the lost forever without end and without the ability to repent. The hell doctrine kept me for being a believer or someone who could love Jesus because there was no way I could love Jesus believing in hellfire.
But at the age of 33 years, I began to deeply study the Scripture for myself, comparing different translations, talking to Scholars and learning a bit of Hebrew and Koine Greek, and the more I studied the more it became clear...Jesus NEVER taught eternal hellfire and that the truth is that God will destroy the lost at the second death when Jesus calls down fire from the sky which will look like a lake of fire and destroy Satan and the lost.
Once I understood that truth, I feel madly and very deeply in love with Jesus and I have been a follower of Jesus ever since and I love God with all my heart now.
God bless.
Rach, you made an accusation towards me that I am teaching unbiblical heresies. Yet when I ask you to show me my errors using Scripture alone, you refuse to do so.
God bless.
Yes, I did say you teach unbiblical heresies. I also said you think the same of me...and I notice you are not denying that either. But, just so I can say I haven't refused to answer you, I will say this. I think when you claim that one is saved by grace, but must also be beholden to the laws, that you muddy the gospel. Galatians...Paul uses pretty strong words against people doing that very same thing. So yeah, I think you are teaching something that the Bible does not...which is heresy.
You think I'm doing the same because I choose to worship on a Sunday.
My point was, nothing good will come of us arguing about those points. We've been there, done that, and no edification came, no glory to God, no repenting or learning. I will not agree with you on such issues; as I see them as heretical, so there is no point going on. I will not get into your constant questioning and accusations...they have no benefit either. So, just know that if you take your usual tack, I will not answer. I was attempting to open communication between us despite our differences, but so be it, you've made your opinion know. Cheers.
Rach I have never accused you of teaching unbiblical heresies, not even once. I have stated in other comments that I am open minded and humble and teachable if I can be shown something in Scripture. That's why we are debating to learn and grow and/or validate what we already believe in.
To prove I am open minded I can tell you I believed in eternal hellfire for 33 years until I started to understand from Bible that eternal hellfire is not biblical at all.
So I am humbly inviting you Rach, if you believe I am teaching unbiblical heresies, then please show me my error using God's Holy Scripture and if I can recognize a erroneous doctrine I believe in, I will change my beliefs.
Rach, I do not believe you are willfully believing a biblical lie, in fact I have said in other posts that I believe many Sunday keeping Christians are God's saved children.
I am sorry you believe I am teaching heretical doctrines, but know this Rach, my heart is open and I sincerely love truth and God is helping me to understand more and more truth as I grow older. I have never said I believe I am 100% correct of entire Bible, in fact the more I read the more I realise how little I know.
However the current doctrines I teach because at current I sincerely believe them to be true, and unless you can show me otherwise using Bible alone, then I will continue teaching the doctrines.
God bless.
Actually, you accused me of worshipping a false god, and following a man (not Jesus)...that's actually accusing me of blasphemy, which is even worse than heresy. I'm not angry over it, but it does tell me that you have these false impressions of me and what I believe.
Alright. For the sake of peace between us, I will give this one last try. I am not holding my breath however.
There are two main issue's I believe we differ on. The first is your insistance that in worshipping on Sunday that I am 'wilfully' breaking one of the 10 commandments (you said it, not I...go and look it up). In reply, I give this verse:
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. (Colossians 2:16-19 ESV)
The other issue is your apparent teaching that salvation comes not just through Christ, but in actually keeping the law. You 'say' that you only believe in salvation by faith alone by Christ alone, which I also hold to, but then you also say that if you don't keep the laws...actively 'doing' them (again, your words, not mine...look 'em up), that God will not recognise you on the last day. The problem I have here, is you are trying to play both sides, when both side are actually mutually exclusive. If salvation is by Jesus alone...then nothing else is required. Certain responses out of love and gratitude can be expected from a truly regenerated heart, but nothing is needed for redemption. And if salvation comes from following the law physically and mentally...then Christ's sacrifice was for nothing!
yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Galatians 2:16-21 ESV)
I'm sorry, how can you reconcile ^^^^^ this, with you telling me that I worshipped a false god, a man? Perhaps you need to go back and actually read what you wrote to me. Please understand this...I am not angry with you, I'm really attempting here to show you how, in trying to passionately teach others what you believe, you are actually doing harm. I get that you love Jesus...that's great...I do to. But you do have this really bad tendency to accuse others of saying what they plain well haven't...and also saying that you believe something that you've already contradicted in your own writings!
Don't feel so bad about being a heretic! We all are in some shape or form. We're not perfect and we all still have growing left to do! I look back on myself years ago and remember fighting strongly for what was just wrong! The Holy Spirit has been growing me since, and I fully expect that in ten years I will look back on myself now and roll my eyes at myself. The beautiful thing we can grasp in all this is that God loves us enough to keep growing us! It's a sign of His patience and love that He keeps nudging us into learning, into repenting of our arrogances and foolishnesses!
I get that you sincerely believe what you are teaching now...the thing is...I believe the exact same thing about what I believe now! And yes, you are correct in thinking that the Bible must be what corrects us both. But I believe that the Bible is clear about the things above. My point is always this...until either you or I are led to see we are reading scripture incorrectly, there is no benefit from us hurling insults at each other! So my request to you is this...even if you don't agree with the scriptures I've post above, just say you don't agree, and move on...you're not going to change my mind at this point. That's the Spirit's job, and at the moment he's the only one I'll listen to about these very important issues.
1. Rach, where did I accuse you of worshiping a false god? Post # and thread please? If I said that, I want to be shown so I can immediately apologize. I honestly don't recall saying it but if I did that was a bad thing for me to do.
So please show me the Post # and thread please where I said you worship a false god.
2. In regard to Colossians 2:16-19, I have already covered those verses before Rach. They have nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath.
Col 2:16-17 is referring to the yearly ceremonial Sabbaths and feast days, not referring to the Sabbath of the Lord. It refers only to the Sabbaths which were "a shadow of things to come" v17, and not to the seventh-day Sabbath.
All those who quote Col 2:16-17 to support the weekly Sabbath as abolished do not realise, or is IGNORANT of the fact that there were seven yearly holy days, or holidays, in ancient Israel which were also called sabbaths. These were in addition to, or "beside the sabbaths of the Lord" (Leviticus 23:38), or seventh-day Sabbath.
These all foreshadowed, or pointed to, the cross and ended at the cross. God's seventh-day Sabbath was made before sin entered, and therefore could foreshadow nothing about deliverance from sin. That's why Colossians chapter 2 differentiates and specifically mentions the sabbaths that were "a shadow." These seven yearly sabbaths which were abolished are listed in Leviticus chapter 23 and were part of the abolished ceremonial law, and not the eternal Moral Law-10 Commandments.
Verse 17 is saying that the sabbath days referred to in verse 16 were "shadows" of things to come. So what does that mean? The yearly ceremonial sabbaths that the Jews observed in connection with the Temple or Sanctuary were prophetic in nature. Every year the Jews were acting out the plan of salvation as demonstrated by the Temple ceremonies. The whole process was designed as a play of sorts, to explain to everyone the exact sequence of events in God's plan to redeem mankind. The focus of this plan, of course, is Jesus Christ in his role as the Lamb of God, as well as his role of High Priest or Mediator between God the Father and humanity.
So Rach, those verses does not tell me to abandon the weekly true Lord's Sabbath, hence, so I will not do so. As I clearly showed, those verses talked about the annual Sabbaths.
3. Yes Rach, I believe and teach in salvation by faith + grace alone, and what I have said is that anyone truly born again will have God's Law written on their heart and will delight in keeping His Commandments. What I said was that anyone who claims to be a Christian yet willfully breaks the 10 Commandments and doesn't care about, have never been born again in the first place. There is plenty of evidence to support that in Bible, e.g John 14:15, 1 John 2:4 etc.
4. Amen to Galatians 2, I completely agree with what it's teaching. But Rach you are not accurately accepting what I am teaching, what I am saying is that the LAW CANNOT SAVE US, but ONCE SAVED we uphold and keep the Law out of love and fruit of salvation. Anyone who doesn't do it has no truth and is a liar according to Bible.
5. You have accused me of being a heretic in your message. Tell me the truth, if I had have come to this website and said AMEN to everything you said and did, would you call me a heretic? Or Rach, do you call me heretic because I disagree with some of your Bible interpretations?
If I came onto this website and said, "I believe and teach that Jesus is Lord, Saviour, God, Messiah and the Lamb of God and only through Christ are we saved, Him being our complete Saviour. I believe and teach the Gospel of justification, sanctification, righteousness and salvation by faith and grace alone and that we are credited and imputed Jesus' perfection and righteousness as a free gift. I believe and teach that the blood of the Lamb washes away our sins", would you have called me a heretic? The truth is Rach, I do believe all those things about Jesus and the gospel. So do you still claim I am a heretic, and do you believe I am lost, and what have I ever taught that you believe will cause a person to be lost?
God bless.
Look, I'm really not trying to fight with you. I'll show you the posts, but only so you may see that I'm not lying either.
Yes, I remember what you think the Colossians verse means, but I respectfully disagree...I think that it is your interpretation here that is faulty. What does it matter if it is talking about a specific day or the bigger picture 'Sabbath' days? The whole point of the verse is that 'no one is to judge you' on any kind of 'festival or new moon or Sabbath'. That all these earthly observances (most of which were put in place by God to start with) were but a foreshadowing of what Christ would bring. We are to let 'no one disqualify you'...which...I'm sorry, is what you are attempting to do. I honestly don't mind if you want to worship on the traditional Sabbath. If it makes you feel closer to God to keep these observances, then great. But both Col 2 and Galatians 2:11-3:29 tell us that the teachings of those trying to smoosh these observances together...especially those saying that without a combination of the two...Christ + observances...people would not be saved.
So I'm sorry, but I truly see scripture supporting me and my Sunday worship...not because Sunday is the 'new Saturday', but because as I am saved through Jesus, I have the freedom to choose the day and style of my worship...as long as neither is sinful...as 1 Cor 6:12 says...all things are permissible, but not all things are helpful. With Jesus comes an amazing freedom, but truly regenerated people should be wise enough to know that many things are sinful and would not edify them, or God.
And as I have said before, 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated and restated in Matthew. And they all come in under what Jesus tells us...that all the commands are summed up in two: Love God and love others. But absolutely no mention is made of needed to continue observing the Sabbath...especially when the NT spends so much time explaining how Jesus fulfilled the law...completed it and brought in a new covenant. The new covenant doesn't mean the old never had value, just that the old was never complete and couldn't save anyone. The new covenant in Christ can...so we rejoice in the old, knowing that it all pointed to our hope in Christ.
Now, as far as the John verses go, I actually agree with you. Anyone who has been truly born again will actively seek not to sin. But this does not make us perfect. There are still times when we know we are being obstinate, or wrong, or mean or unfair...and we press on anyway. Does this mean we are not saved because we 'wilfully' sinned? No...it makes us sinful, stupid people who are grieving Jesus and the Spirit...but it doesn't jeopardize our salvation. Not if we eventually heed the call to repent and start walking in the light again. The point of being 'free of sin' doesn't mean we never fall...it means that unlike the unsaved, we actually can say no to it. We are not stuck in the ever repeating loop of sin...we have the power of the Spirit to look at that rebellious behaviour, repent and stop that behaviour. Thank God!
See, I agree with most of that. Yes, once saved we should desire to walk in the light and be holy. But it's an ongoing process. No one wakes up the morning after receiving grace and is perfect. Part of our imperfections is stumbling...sometimes we even deliberately sabotage ourselves. The beauty of that is this: so many of these times God is actually using our blatant rebellion to highlight what is happening in our hearts. Sin comes from the heart...so many behaviours stem from things going on there...pride, for example. And God, all knowing and all loving, may allow us to walk into sin with our eyes set straight on it, knowing we will fall because of it, and knowing that in the stumble, we will see a bigger problem. The Spirit allows us to see these problems...and the truth of conversion comes in those who accept their faults, repents of them broken heartedly and then truly moves away from them...putting them to death. It's the process of sanctification...which is a life long journey God has planned for us, so that we may bit by bit become more holy. It's such a humbling thing, that Jesus not only saves us, but continues to walk with us through this process, loving us still and urging us to become more like him.
Here's the thing...I disagree with a lot of people. I don't mind disagreements really, as long as they're not on the essential things. In fact I won't be blown away if in time God shows me that in some of the non essential things I've been mistaken. I know I'm not perfect...I know I'm far from it! My really big problem with what you are teaching, is that yes, you seem to trying to teach a gospel that is just not Jesus, and Him only. I know you say that you believe that Salvation comes through Him alone, but by saying that worshipping on Sunday means I'm wilfully breaking one of the 10, and therefore not saved (see your quote above), and also that one NEEDS to DO what God commands or they will not be saved...
...by saying these two things, you actually contradict scripture...hence the heresy. This, to me, is not just Bible interpretation over non essential things...like spiritual gifts or rapture or no rapture. This is talking and influencing the very nature of the gospel...the gift of grace and of salvation. You have to admit, it's a fairly serious topic. So no, I'm not using the 'heresy' word lightly. But in having said that, I do not condemn you....not at all. I very much hope that your eyes may be opened to the wonderful freedom that comes with Jesus (and in saying that I do not mean that as Christians we now have an excuse for licentiousness!). And I know (as I said in my last post) that almost all of us at one point or another...if we're honest...have been heretics! It's all about growth and trust in God. As long as we keep moving forward, towards Jesus, we will grow through these doctrinal fits and starts. As the Bible says...the Lord, who has begun a good work in me, will see it to completion!
So do I still see you as a brother? Of course! I can still see you as a brother and mistaken all at once. Just like I can know that I am safe in my salvation in Jesus, but probably wrong on any number of things at any given point! The point is Jesus...and the continual movement towards Him and growth to be like Him. The more we both do that, the more likely it will be that one day we'll be at the same place...close to Him!
Rach, I completely disagree with most of your comments above, and it;s obvious we read the Bible very differently, and you call me a heretic because I interpret Scripture differently to you. Do you call everyone a heretic who disagree with you?
God bless.
God bless.
You know, once again you show you yourself are incapable of doing what you've said you will do, and apparently understanding what others have said. I really tried to connect with you despite our differences. But apparently it's useless.
To answer your question...no I do not call everyone who disagrees with me heretic...only those who believe in heretical teachings.
By the way...I thought you promised to apologise to me for certain things said if I could show you where you said them. Well...I did that....and it kinda shows that you've called me a heretic for disagreeing with you. So it appears we're in the same boat...except by saying that I worship a false god, you've really accused me of blasphemy...which is worse then heresy. So perhaps before you get too emotionally overwrought you should take a good look at your motivations and why you feel you can say those things to me, but don't believe I may say them to you.
rach i agree with most of what you say but from reading the above posts i wonder if you 2 are looking at the issue of "You are free to willfully break God's 10 Commandments, but as for me, NEVER" the same way but coming at it from different direction. rach i think you are saying that we are to do good but if we mess up that is what God has given us grace for so we can be forgiven our sins and keep going. truth seeker is saying basically the same thing because if we are following the word of God then thatt leads us to do the 10 commandments. should we fail then that is what grace is given to us for so we can keep striving to fulfill the law.
Similar threads
