Edward Fudge: Hero Or Heretic?

CharismaticLady said:

Who do you see as the Antichrist?

Click to expand...

There are several on here.

BarnyFife said:

To be perfectly honest, CL, I don't reckon that the Bible speaks directly to the mortality status of angels, but since the evil ones obviously live much longer than humans, it seems reasonable to assume they possess a different nature (whatever that means) than we. I'm the first to admit that some things are just over my head. I would be afraid to conjecture farther than this. As I said, I couldn't refute your theory scripturally, not without doing an in-depth study, which I haven't done and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm up to doing at present. The most direct addressing of this that I know of is 1 Timothy 6:16, which states that God alone has immortality, while 1 Corinthians 15:53 says we will put on immortality, which seems to be placed at the time of Christ's 2nd coming which, if considered deeply, could lead down a mortality/immortality rabbit hole.

As far as Peter's statement goes, I don't think it affects my basic position that each and every unrepentant sinner, human or angelic, will suffer exactly commensurate with the evil he has perpetrated. But it stands to reason that from whom much has been given (in this case, light and grace), much will be required.

If I missed something or need to be more specific, please let me know. I just offer my interpretation. I'm certainly no authority on Scripture. I leave that to the Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

Peter's statement first: Be careful what you ask for. If you perform well in order to gain immortality, you may get the immortality you wanted but wind up in the Outer Darkness with your immortality.

My understanding of angels is that they are like flames from a fire. If they leave God, it's like taking a burning ember from a central fire. They appear to be two separate fires, but that's because of space. Angels can return to God -- and if they do, they do not retain a sense of being a separate individual. They do not even crave being separate -- if they did, they'd fall the way Satan and his crowd did.

Some angels can last a long time. It depends on whether they have accomplished their mission. I think you could say in a way they are like the Word of God that goes forth and returns after its purpose is achieved. Some do part of their jobs, return to God and wait to do more parts.

Consider the three angels which appeared like men to Abraham. They were part of God -- Genesis calls the LORD. Why were there three angels then but only two went to Sodom? Well, one had achieved his purpose after meeting with Abraham and Sarah. He returned to God, and the other two went to Sodom. Who were the three angels? There is a clue perhaps in the verse itself. Two words occur:

והנה 66
שלשה 635
701 total

The expression "These were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael" also equal 701 in Hebrew.

Giuliano said:

Peter's statement first: Be careful what you ask for. If you perform well in order to gain immortality, you may get the immortality you wanted but wind up in the Outer Darkness with your immortality.

My understanding of angels is that they are like flames from a fire. If they leave God, it's like taking a burning ember from a central fire. They appear to be two separate fires, but that's because of space. Angels can return to God -- and if they do, they do not retain a sense of being a separate individual. They do not even crave being separate -- if they did, they'd fall the way Satan and his crowd did.

Some angels can last a long time. It depends on whether they have accomplished their mission. I think you could say in a way they are like the Word of God that goes forth and returns after its purpose is achieved. Some do part of their jobs, return to God and wait to do more parts.

Consider the three angels which appeared like men to Abraham. They were part of God -- Genesis calls the LORD. Why were there three angels then but only two went to Sodom? Well, one had achieved his purpose after meeting with Abraham and Sarah. He returned to God, and the other two went to Sodom. Who were the three angels? There is a clue perhaps in the verse itself. Two words occur:

והנה 66
שלשה 635
701 total

The expression "These were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael" also equal 701 in Hebrew.

Click to expand...

I see allot of " speculation" about angels.

Show just one single instance in all of the 66 books where an angel ceased to exist.

Got Scripture ?

Waiting on him said:

View attachment 10402

Click to expand...

Waiting on him said:

View attachment 10403

Click to expand...

freaky...

Waiting on him said:

A different individual claims we get to observe their torment, I suppose from the balcony.

Click to expand...

That is not my idea of heavenly bliss. I believe if you love someone and that person loves you back, one way or another God is going to save that person. It is not possible for me to love someone more than God does; so if I love someone, I'm sure God does too.

I also do not believe wiping away all tears means God is going to make us forget people we have loved because He's going to punish them eternally. No, I think those tears and prayers will be answered. If not now, later.

Psalm 56:8 Thou tellest my wanderings: put thou my tears into thy bottle: are they not in thy book?

Compare that to the prayers offered up in Revelation.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

What if our prayers cannot be answered immediately? I don't think they reach God until He can say yes. I think maybe it would grieve Him to say no. I believe they are saved by the angels until the time is ready for God to say yes. But eventually, all tears will wiped away.

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Abraham was told his offspring would go into bondage. It had to be that way; but eventually Abraham got what he wanted.

Exodus 2:23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.
24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
25 And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.

God "remembered" it? Well, yes. Did Israel deserve such favor? Not on their own account. God wanted to please Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for one thing; and the people in the land were very wicked too.

Deuteronomy 9:5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

If we ask God for something good, surely we can't believe He wouldn't give it to us. It's impossible then for me to believe I love anyone more than God does, that He would send someone I love into eternal punishment. God might even save some people because we asked.

justbyfaith said:

More accurately, sin is not imputed where there is no law (it is not that it does not exist).

Click to expand...

why do you say "(it is not that it does not exist)" jbf?

bbyrd009 said:

why do you say "(it is not that it does not exist)" jbf?

Click to expand...

Because of what @Behold teaches...

he teaches that "works of the flesh" are not sins in the believer; and that as believers in Christ we are without sin because of the fact that we are not under the law (Romans 6:14; Romans 4:15, 1 John 3:4).

But there is more to it than that.

Death reigned from Adam to Moses even though there was no law; because the wages of sin is death: and this indicates that there was such a thing as sin even without the law.

The more accurate reality is that sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5:13).

Where the law does not apply, there is no transgression; and some would say that this means there is also no sin.

But the reality is that you can sin without transgressing if there is no law; for trangression is the violation of the law and therefore if there is no law to violate, you can still sin without actually transgressing.

justbyfaith said:

...in that parables do not have the names of people in them. ...

Click to expand...

You are simply mistaken:


Besides all this, Lazarus is simply the Greek form of the Hebrew Eliezer (he whom God helps). Did you know that in the OT Abraham had a servant named Eliezer (Genesis 15:2)? Do you know that names in Scripture have significance to character (1 Samuel 25:25)?

Believe it to be a parable if you wish.

What is the parabolic meaning of "being in torments" (Luke 16:23)?

(obviously in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is experiencing torments because he was not faithful to God in his life).

BarnyFife said:

I don't believe in separate body/spirit entities. That's Greek dualism.

Hell is eternal only in the sense that it is final.

Click to expand...

Are you not understanding Paul? Sorry, but you are not understanding how it is that we become NOT in the flesh, but in the Spirit. It is becoming born again to eternal life. But Paul goes on to verify that the body is separate and must still die, and at the resurrection put on immortality, so as to not confuse the body with the newly immortal spirit.

ReChoired said:

You are simply mistaken:

And he took up his parable, and said, Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel. Numbers 23:7​

Mark 4:15 - gives "Satan"

Matthew 13:37 - gives "The Son of man"

Matthew 13:39 - gives "The devil" and "angels"

Matthew 15:13 - gives "heavenly Father"

2 Samuel 12:7 - gives "[King] David, thou art the man"

Ezekiel 23:1-4 - gives "Aholah and Aholibah"

Luke 4:23 - gives as a "proverb" "Physician" to Jesus Himself​

Besides all this, Lazarus is simply the Greek form of the Hebrew Eliezer (he whom God helps). Did you know that in the OT Abraham had a servant named Eliezer (Genesis 15:2)? Do you know that names in Scripture have significance to character (1 Samuel 25:25)?

Click to expand...

Most importantly, the audience Jesus was speaking to at the time were certainly aware of who the rich man was, who Eliezer was and who the dogs that licked his sores were. I’m certain they got the point, though they didn’t necessarily receive it.

even if one returned from the dead.

CharismaticLady said:

Who do you see as the Antichrist?

Click to expand...

Actually, there is no such thing as "THE" Antichrist, as being a singular, one man band.
In the KJV, you will never find it written as such. However, there is "that spirit of antichrist", meaning in the plural, that anyone who is unsaved can be antichrist, as it is stated "many antichrists".

I did do a study on KJV- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, and discovered through the Textus Receptus Greek, that the translators of the KJV actually used the wrong word of "that" Wicked, causing it to read in the singular, therefore allowing for the use of the uppercase "W". However, the TR-Greek uses the word "the", and therefore the translators should have used the word "the" wicked (lowercase "w"), which causes it to read in the plural, as the context does justify it.
And of course, they easily could have been swayed to use the wrong word "that", because it was commonly believed then by most Protestants, that the Pope was antichrist. Also, in the year 1611 of the KJV Bible, of its first printing, it was right in the middle of the Protestant Reformation.

Earburner said:

Actually, there is no such thing as "THE" Antichrist, as being a singular, one man band.
In the KJV, you will never find it written as such. However, there is "that spirit of antichrist", meaning in the plural, that anyone who is unsaved can be antichrist, as it is stated "many antichrists".

I did do a study on KJV- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, and discovered through the Textus Receptus Greek, that the translators of the KJV actually used the wrong word of "that" Wicked, causing it to read in the singular, therefore allowing for the use of the uppercase "W". However, the TR-Greek uses the word "the", and therefore the translators should have used the word "the" wicked (lowercase "w"), which causes it to read in the plural, as the context does justify it.
And of course, they easily could have been swayed to use the wrong word "that", because it was commonly believed then by most Protestants, that the Pope was antichrist. Also, in the year 1611 of the KJV Bible, of its first printing, it was right in the middle of the Protestant Reformation.

Click to expand...

So who was this?

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Earburner said:

Actually, there is no such thing as "THE" Antichrist, as being a singular, one man band.
In the KJV, you will never find it written as such. However, there is "that spirit of antichrist", meaning in the plural, that anyone who is unsaved can be antichrist, as it is stated "many antichrists".

I did do a study on KJV- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, and discovered through the Textus Receptus Greek, that the translators of the KJV actually used the wrong word of "that" Wicked, causing it to read in the singular, therefore allowing for the use of the uppercase "W". However, the TR-Greek uses the word "the", and therefore the translators should have used the word "the" wicked (lowercase "w"), which causes it to read in the plural, as the context does justify it.
And of course, they easily could have been swayed to use the wrong word "that", because it was commonly believed then by most Protestants, that the Pope was antichrist. Also, in the year 1611 of the KJV Bible, of its first printing, it was right in the middle of the Protestant Reformation.

Click to expand...

I'd like to know where the idea of "THE" Antichrist came from. Who started using the word in the way it's so commonly used today?

CharismaticLady said:

So who was this?

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Click to expand...

Why not use the terms Paul used?

Giuliano said:

Why not use the terms Paul used?

Click to expand...

I like John best.

CharismaticLady said:

Who do you see as the Antichrist?

Click to expand...

Btw, do you disagree with the word "when" in KJV- 2 Thes. 1:7-10, as I did reveal, that it shows the two issues of the Redemption of the Saints and the destruction of the unsaved, as being a simultaneous event?