Out of fear (presumably), Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night and in this darkness entrusts Nicodemus with powerful truths....
All from John 3:
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
....right after Christ's proclamations Nicodemus confesses his faith in Jesus...."Rabbi WE know that you are a teacher from God....(v.2) He believed his miracles were from God. (2b) The one preceding miracle John tells us is the turning of water into wine. To Nicodemus Jesus states: "I tell you the truth no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. (v3) ...."Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. (12,13) Christ makes his other -worldly statements to Nicodemus after Nicodemus confesses that Jesus was God's miracle worker and he is a teacher of God. Why is this so critical? Because by admitting Jesus is a teacher from God he logically would be accepting of all his teaching. Certainly this talk of a "new birth" was difficult for Nicodemus but there is no talk of Nicodemus' outright rejection of Christ.
Continuing on....."For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." vv 16-17
Now what may or may not be a dig at Nicodemus as Jesus proceeds with "This is the verdict :Light has come into the world, but men love darkness instead of light." But no, Nicodemus is a child of God. A frightened one, but one nonetheless. He insists on meeting Jesus at night. And he had at least one other believer from the Pharisees. " Rabbi, We know you are a teacher who has come from God.
But you object that Nicodemus is a coward- so what? Do I have to mention Peter's denials? Or the times Jesus alluded his executioners "Again they tried to seize him ( the Jews seizing Jesus), but he escaped their grasp. (Jn 10:39) Because his time had not come. (Jn 7:6) Do you think that God loves less the Coptic Christians and Christians in Iraq because they are coy? Was Nicodemues to offer himself as a Christ believer so the Sanhedrin so he could enjoy a stoning?
But we do see growth in Nicodemus"
Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them "Why didn't you bring him in? No one ever spoke the way this man does, the guard's declared. Has any of the rulers of law -there is a curse on them. " Nicoearlier who was one of their own number, asked, Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing? They replied, 'Are you from GAlilee too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee. (Jn 45-52)
, who had gone to Jesus
The Burial of Jesus:
Later, Joseph of Arimathea, asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus. the man who had earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nichodemeus brought a mixture of myrh and aloes, about 75 pounds. Taking Jesus' body the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Repent your Repentance
I know the scene well. A college fellowship, a higher living preacher, almost everyone for that matter involved in evangelism is exhorting his non Christian audience to REPENT! For the vast majority of these preachers do not know what the word means. As I said, I know what they exhort and their meaning of repent is simply to be sorry for your sins and in that sorrow to change ones lifestyle and believe in Jesus Christ.
But wait a moment...if salvation is partially dependent on ones repentance (or sorrow) how do I know I am sorry enough? I am shedding no tears! Or just a few....This is the problem with a Campus for Christ type evangelism...it is based on the emotion of the individual instead of relying what Christ has accomplished for the individual irrespective o the broad spectrum of emotions he may feel. Finito.
Back to the proper meaning of "to repent" in Greek. It is "Metanoeo" "To think differently...i.e. reconsider" "To think diffidently after being informed with the truth"
Whenever you find a verse on repentance it may involve many varied subjects that one simply changes his mind about...
Below is a short fictional biography of a young mans repentance.....
"I never believed Jesus was the Christ until I read and reread John's Gospel..it was than when I repented (changed my mind) and embraced that He is the Son of God. I never thought before I was a Christian that living with my girlfriend was immoral and in fact it took me a few months of reading the Bible and the exhortations of a few Christian peers that made me repent and change that situation. I am sad about having lived that way but honestly I never shed tears over how sinful I was...am I to manufacturer extreme sorrow? Even now when I sin I do not always feel sorrow which makes me ironically assured me of my depravity! I know myself and if I became "super Christian" I would get puffed up and drift from Christ as I wouldn't need him in my conceit "
But wait a moment...if salvation is partially dependent on ones repentance (or sorrow) how do I know I am sorry enough? I am shedding no tears! Or just a few....This is the problem with a Campus for Christ type evangelism...it is based on the emotion of the individual instead of relying what Christ has accomplished for the individual irrespective o the broad spectrum of emotions he may feel. Finito.
Back to the proper meaning of "to repent" in Greek. It is "Metanoeo" "To think differently...i.e. reconsider" "To think diffidently after being informed with the truth"
Whenever you find a verse on repentance it may involve many varied subjects that one simply changes his mind about...
Below is a short fictional biography of a young mans repentance.....
"I never believed Jesus was the Christ until I read and reread John's Gospel..it was than when I repented (changed my mind) and embraced that He is the Son of God. I never thought before I was a Christian that living with my girlfriend was immoral and in fact it took me a few months of reading the Bible and the exhortations of a few Christian peers that made me repent and change that situation. I am sad about having lived that way but honestly I never shed tears over how sinful I was...am I to manufacturer extreme sorrow? Even now when I sin I do not always feel sorrow which makes me ironically assured me of my depravity! I know myself and if I became "super Christian" I would get puffed up and drift from Christ as I wouldn't need him in my conceit "
Saturday, February 16, 2013
The Testimony I Would Like to Hear
I am thinking of all the celebrity and politicians verbal testimonies through the years- some stumbling, most looking for the correct language. What I want to hear, just once is this....
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
The maker of heaven and earth
And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born under the virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was Crucified dead and buried
He descended into hell,
The third day he rose again from the dead
He ascended into heaven
and sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty
From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
The Resurrection of the body
And the life everlasting.
"That's my testimony, is yours the same"?
Just Once.
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
The maker of heaven and earth
And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born under the virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was Crucified dead and buried
He descended into hell,
The third day he rose again from the dead
He ascended into heaven
and sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty
From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
The Resurrection of the body
And the life everlasting.
"That's my testimony, is yours the same"?
Just Once.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Re-Training our Minds
According to one golf psychologist golf's intrigue comes from hitting that good shot- because it releases endorphin's in the brain thus subtly addicting the player.
Daughter Georgia has been playing close to ten years now and we have gone back and forth on the "secret" to golf and we finally agree on it.
Her mechanics are solid and has an envious swing. She is is a "driving range phenom" . How to translate all of that God given talent into low scores is a totally different matter. What a head game golf is! My left foot, my grip, my take-away- these thoughts in competition can drive the better golfer mad.
And so the secret appeared. The secret to golf is to stare down the target and swing like a five year old. Just as one trusts his ability to drive a car a golfer has to trust his swing. Caution to the wind. You know all of the fundamentals, the proper grip, the stance, just trust!
And so it is with the Christian life- you have studied the scripture, you pray, you have read and most importantly you have committed your faith in Jesus Christ. Yet you are stuck- you are too introspective and go through a litany of faith tests and fail everyone of them. It's because you are looking inside.
"Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, this is the way; walk in it." (Isa 30:21) So walk in it!
And that is as charismatic as I will ever get.
Daughter Georgia has been playing close to ten years now and we have gone back and forth on the "secret" to golf and we finally agree on it.
Her mechanics are solid and has an envious swing. She is is a "driving range phenom" . How to translate all of that God given talent into low scores is a totally different matter. What a head game golf is! My left foot, my grip, my take-away- these thoughts in competition can drive the better golfer mad.
And so the secret appeared. The secret to golf is to stare down the target and swing like a five year old. Just as one trusts his ability to drive a car a golfer has to trust his swing. Caution to the wind. You know all of the fundamentals, the proper grip, the stance, just trust!
And so it is with the Christian life- you have studied the scripture, you pray, you have read and most importantly you have committed your faith in Jesus Christ. Yet you are stuck- you are too introspective and go through a litany of faith tests and fail everyone of them. It's because you are looking inside.
"Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, this is the way; walk in it." (Isa 30:21) So walk in it!
And that is as charismatic as I will ever get.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
TO THE FREE WILLERS OF THE WORLD
I must admit that this is my favorite subject, i.e. making fun of those who think they make decisions with God.
I always thought this would make a great motion picture- the life of Lazarus before (JOHN 11)and after his being resurrected by Jesus who states emphatically he is doing this miracle so others may believe.
You know my theory that for the most part Jesus did not like miracles-they basically drained him and proved his divinity as he preferred to live a simple faithful life that He was the Son of God.
So picture the scene as Lazarus is raised and goes after Jesus...."What are you doing...I was in glory and you brought me back. "Send me back Jesus, send me back"!
Do you think Jesus asked Lazarus his preference or he did what would glorify God ?
Do you think he asks our permission whether we are to undergo a trial or a miracle?
TO GOD BE THE GLORY
I always thought this would make a great motion picture- the life of Lazarus before (JOHN 11)and after his being resurrected by Jesus who states emphatically he is doing this miracle so others may believe.
You know my theory that for the most part Jesus did not like miracles-they basically drained him and proved his divinity as he preferred to live a simple faithful life that He was the Son of God.
So picture the scene as Lazarus is raised and goes after Jesus...."What are you doing...I was in glory and you brought me back. "Send me back Jesus, send me back"!
Do you think Jesus asked Lazarus his preference or he did what would glorify God ?
Do you think he asks our permission whether we are to undergo a trial or a miracle?
TO GOD BE THE GLORY
Saturday, February 2, 2013
A righteous boy was born the other day. He may not know it but he is seen by God as perfect in every way. When it's his time he may come kicking and screaming, but God always has his way. He took the Pharaoh down and raised Lazarus up, and neither asked His permission.
This child is not of the world but a child of God. His name is Judah, named after Christ the King, the "Lion of Judah". Although a great lion he demands his infants be brought to his throne for his blessing. And so it will be.
This child is not of the world but a child of God. His name is Judah, named after Christ the King, the "Lion of Judah". Although a great lion he demands his infants be brought to his throne for his blessing. And so it will be.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
HELL, NO
"But I say unto you that whosever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment;and whosever is angry without a cause shall be in danger of judgment and whosever shall say to his brother , Raca, shall be in the danger of the council, but whosever shall say, 'thou fool, shall be in the danger of hell fire. (Matt 5:22) KJV
And I say unto my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea I say unto you , Fear him. LK 12:4-5 KJV.
From the Schofield Reference Bible: Greek Geena equals Gehenna, the place in the Valley of Hinnom where, anciently human sacrifices were offered (2 Chr.33:6; Jer. 7:31) and where the continuous burning of rubbish illustrated to the Jewish people unending judgment upon the wicked. The word occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28, 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk.9: 43,45,47; Lk 12:5; Jas.3:6
There is a certain bond between Roman Catholics and Protestants and has to deal with the eternal and very physical punishment who end up being hell. The influential John Stott was the last casualty of a reformed theologian who was "cut off" for wanting to debate this issue. I believe I can make a case against eternal punishment but I need a fair hearing.
I know it is against the academic rules to use Wikipedia but nonetheless let's look at their take on the the beginnings of the word hell.."The modern English word hell is derived from old English Ref hel, helle (about 785 AD)( to refer to a netherworld of the dead)........Subsequently the word was used to transfer a pagan concept its Christian theology and it's vocabulary (however for the Judea- Christian origin of the concept Gehenna)
When Jesus spoke about hell he wasn't speaking about hell. According to WIKI that was a later pagination of the word gehenna. So when Jesus spoke of Gehenna he used the word Gehenna which it should remain in our Bibles today. He was speaking of a well known physical place where rubbish burned and sacrifices had been offered..."Fear him who, after he had killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna; yea I say unto, Fear him".
So we have allowed and continually allow "hell" with all of its baggage such as art and horrific layers of suffering to continue. There is one passage in Matthew and one in Revelation that seems a slam dunk to those who hold to hell- in this case "The lake of fire":
[Jesus said:] “When the son of man comes in his glory, and all his angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the and the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right.'Come you are blessed by my Father: take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord , when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
The king will then reply, 'I tell you the truth , whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
Then he will or to those on his left, Depart from me, you are cursed, into an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in. I needed clothes and you did not clothe me. I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer , 'Lord,when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did no help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the the righteous to eternal life" Mt. 46, 31-36
This then is the single most powerful verse for eternal conscious suffering of the unrighteous.
The only way I can argue against this verse's plain interpretation (and I know it is a stretch) is that the unrighteous that perish, suffer eternal punishment in the perspective in what they have lost- because they have lost eternal life in that sense they are punished eternally even though they lose consciousness.
Why do I say lose consciousness? Because Paul uses Perish when he discusses what happens to the unbeliever at death. It implies a burning up and a cessation of suffering. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:18 c.56 AD)
There are others (Rom. 2:12, I Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor 4:16, 2Col 2:22, 2 Thess 2:10. Also in Hebrews 1:11, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
The only way I can argue against this verse's plain interpretation (and I know it is a stretch) is that the unrighteous that perish, suffer eternal punishment in the perspective in what they have lost- because they have lost eternal life in that sense they are punished eternally even though they lose consciousness.
Why do I say lose consciousness? Because Paul uses Perish when he discusses what happens to the unbeliever at death. It implies a burning up and a cessation of suffering. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:18 c.56 AD)
There are others (Rom. 2:12, I Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor 4:16, 2Col 2:22, 2 Thess 2:10. Also in Hebrews 1:11, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
Then there is the verses in Revelation 20:13....15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he hat done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This talks about unbelievers entering a lake of fire which is "the second death" . I don't believe anyone knows what the second death means accept to take it literally that those who enter die.
John the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as using the word perishing: "..that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Jn 3:16)
So my first case against hell is that it is a pagan word and not biblical. Not that Gehenna is such a pleasant place but it is different then medieval paintings of hell. No doubt the Roman Catholic Church clung to it because he that holds the keys to hell is more to be feared than the keys to Gehenna. As to the infamous Matthew passage we have an apparent contradiction because Jesus himself uses perishing. We have a quandary here. Does the Matthew verses "trump" all of the perishing verses? That there is no mention of hell or judgment in the Acts? There will be a judgment "after certain days, when Festus came with his wife, Drusilla, he sent for Paul, and heard concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, self control, and judgement to come, Felix trembled. Acts 24:25
This is the message of the NT. Faith in Christ have life and those without face judgment
Then there is the verses in Revelation 20:13....15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he hat done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This talks about unbelievers entering a lake of fire which is "the second death" . I don't believe anyone knows what the second death means accept to take it literally that those who enter die.
John the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as using the word perishing: "..that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Jn 3:16)
So my first case against hell is that it is a pagan word and not biblical. Not that Gehenna is such a pleasant place but it is different then medieval paintings of hell. No doubt the Roman Catholic Church clung to it because he that holds the keys to hell is more to be feared than the keys to Gehenna. As to the infamous Matthew passage we have an apparent contradiction because Jesus himself uses per
ment
ishing. We have a quandary here. Does the Matthew verses "trump" all of the perishing verses? That there is no mention of hell or judgment in the Acts? There will be a judgment "after certain days, when Festus came with his wife, Drusilla, he sent for Paul, and heard concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, self control, and judgement to come, Felix trembled. Acts 24:25
This is the message of the NT. Faith in Christ have life and those without face jug
Than we have all of Paul's and Peter's Epistles. Not once doe they mention hell- rather they talk of non believers as perishing. Perishing implies termination of any suffering. See Rom.2:12,1 Cor 1:18, 1 Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor4:16 , Col 2:22, 2Th2:10, Heb 1:11, 2 Pet 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
So we have the earliest most influential letters where no eternal suffering is mentioned for the unbeliever, only perishing.
The idea of judgment is clear, along with the warning of gehenna. At the judgment how long a person suffers is not clear, although, again, perishing implies an end to suffering. Hell is a pagan perversion and it is time for Reformed and Roman Catholics to translate it back to Gehenna.
If a literal hell is to be expected than why did not the Acts, Peter and Paul not mention it in the early
Church? Why do we continually allow a pagan term ,namely hell to replace gehenna?
I am not saying that a strong case cannot be made for "Lake of fire" as opposed to "hell" as in the Mathew and Revelation verses. There should be a mature discussion as to why the early church has no mention of eternal damnation, given the dire warnings that Christ and John of Revelation give.
And 2 Jude : "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame, wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness. One can see this is a view entirely different than our other quotes
In conclusion we have Jesus talking about perishing of the lost but also portraying an awful fire that seems to exist forever. What to do? What to say? The strength of the hell position are the words of Jesus while Jesus himself introduces perishing in John's Gospel.
So we have quandary. Does Matthew's passage trump all the others because Jesus said it? Does the perishing "theory" trump the Matthew passage? I believe in a court of law the perishing theory would prevail although I would be left with reasonable doubt.
And I say unto my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea I say unto you , Fear him. LK 12:4-5 KJV.
From the Schofield Reference Bible: Greek Geena equals Gehenna, the place in the Valley of Hinnom where, anciently human sacrifices were offered (2 Chr.33:6; Jer. 7:31) and where the continuous burning of rubbish illustrated to the Jewish people unending judgment upon the wicked. The word occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28, 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk.9: 43,45,47; Lk 12:5; Jas.3:6
There is a certain bond between Roman Catholics and Protestants and has to deal with the eternal and very physical punishment who end up being hell. The influential John Stott was the last casualty of a reformed theologian who was "cut off" for wanting to debate this issue. I believe I can make a case against eternal punishment but I need a fair hearing.
I know it is against the academic rules to use Wikipedia but nonetheless let's look at their take on the the beginnings of the word hell.."The modern English word hell is derived from old English Ref hel, helle (about 785 AD)( to refer to a netherworld of the dead)........Subsequently the word was used to transfer a pagan concept its Christian theology and it's vocabulary (however for the Judea- Christian origin of the concept Gehenna)
When Jesus spoke about hell he wasn't speaking about hell. According to WIKI that was a later pagination of the word gehenna. So when Jesus spoke of Gehenna he used the word Gehenna which it should remain in our Bibles today. He was speaking of a well known physical place where rubbish burned and sacrifices had been offered..."Fear him who, after he had killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna; yea I say unto, Fear him".
So we have allowed and continually allow "hell" with all of its baggage such as art and horrific layers of suffering to continue. There is one passage in Matthew and one in Revelation that seems a slam dunk to those who hold to hell- in this case "The lake of fire":
[Jesus said:] “When the son of man comes in his glory, and all his angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the and the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right.'Come you are blessed by my Father: take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord , when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
The king will then reply, 'I tell you the truth , whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
Then he will or to those on his left, Depart from me, you are cursed, into an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in. I needed clothes and you did not clothe me. I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer , 'Lord,when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did no help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the the righteous to eternal life" Mt. 46, 31-36
This then is the single most powerful verse for eternal conscious suffering of the unrighteous.
The only way I can argue against this verse's plain interpretation (and I know it is a stretch) is that the unrighteous that perish, suffer eternal punishment in the perspective in what they have lost- because they have lost eternal life in that sense they are punished eternally even though they lose consciousness.
Why do I say lose consciousness? Because Paul uses Perish when he discusses what happens to the unbeliever at death. It implies a burning up and a cessation of suffering. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:18 c.56 AD)
There are others (Rom. 2:12, I Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor 4:16, 2Col 2:22, 2 Thess 2:10. Also in Hebrews 1:11, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
The only way I can argue against this verse's plain interpretation (and I know it is a stretch) is that the unrighteous that perish, suffer eternal punishment in the perspective in what they have lost- because they have lost eternal life in that sense they are punished eternally even though they lose consciousness.
Why do I say lose consciousness? Because Paul uses Perish when he discusses what happens to the unbeliever at death. It implies a burning up and a cessation of suffering. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:18 c.56 AD)
There are others (Rom. 2:12, I Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor 4:16, 2Col 2:22, 2 Thess 2:10. Also in Hebrews 1:11, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
Then there is the verses in Revelation 20:13....15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he hat done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This talks about unbelievers entering a lake of fire which is "the second death" . I don't believe anyone knows what the second death means accept to take it literally that those who enter die.
John the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as using the word perishing: "..that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Jn 3:16)
So my first case against hell is that it is a pagan word and not biblical. Not that Gehenna is such a pleasant place but it is different then medieval paintings of hell. No doubt the Roman Catholic Church clung to it because he that holds the keys to hell is more to be feared than the keys to Gehenna. As to the infamous Matthew passage we have an apparent contradiction because Jesus himself uses perishing. We have a quandary here. Does the Matthew verses "trump" all of the perishing verses? That there is no mention of hell or judgment in the Acts? There will be a judgment "after certain days, when Festus came with his wife, Drusilla, he sent for Paul, and heard concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, self control, and judgement to come, Felix trembled. Acts 24:25
This is the message of the NT. Faith in Christ have life and those without face judgment
Then there is the verses in Revelation 20:13....15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he hat done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This talks about unbelievers entering a lake of fire which is "the second death" . I don't believe anyone knows what the second death means accept to take it literally that those who enter die.
John the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as using the word perishing: "..that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Jn 3:16)
So my first case against hell is that it is a pagan word and not biblical. Not that Gehenna is such a pleasant place but it is different then medieval paintings of hell. No doubt the Roman Catholic Church clung to it because he that holds the keys to hell is more to be feared than the keys to Gehenna. As to the infamous Matthew passage we have an apparent contradiction because Jesus himself uses per
ment
ishing. We have a quandary here. Does the Matthew verses "trump" all of the perishing verses? That there is no mention of hell or judgment in the Acts? There will be a judgment "after certain days, when Festus came with his wife, Drusilla, he sent for Paul, and heard concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, self control, and judgement to come, Felix trembled. Acts 24:25
This is the message of the NT. Faith in Christ have life and those without face jug
Than we have all of Paul's and Peter's Epistles. Not once doe they mention hell- rather they talk of non believers as perishing. Perishing implies termination of any suffering. See Rom.2:12,1 Cor 1:18, 1 Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor4:16 , Col 2:22, 2Th2:10, Heb 1:11, 2 Pet 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
So we have the earliest most influential letters where no eternal suffering is mentioned for the unbeliever, only perishing.
The idea of judgment is clear, along with the warning of gehenna. At the judgment how long a person suffers is not clear, although, again, perishing implies an end to suffering. Hell is a pagan perversion and it is time for Reformed and Roman Catholics to translate it back to Gehenna.
If a literal hell is to be expected than why did not the Acts, Peter and Paul not mention it in the early
Church? Why do we continually allow a pagan term ,namely hell to replace gehenna?
I am not saying that a strong case cannot be made for "Lake of fire" as opposed to "hell" as in the Mathew and Revelation verses. There should be a mature discussion as to why the early church has no mention of eternal damnation, given the dire warnings that Christ and John of Revelation give.
And 2 Jude : "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame, wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness. One can see this is a view entirely different than our other quotes
In conclusion we have Jesus talking about perishing of the lost but also portraying an awful fire that seems to exist forever. What to do? What to say? The strength of the hell position are the words of Jesus while Jesus himself introduces perishing in John's Gospel.
So we have quandary. Does Matthew's passage trump all the others because Jesus said it? Does the perishing "theory" trump the Matthew passage? I believe in a court of law the perishing theory would prevail although I would be left with reasonable doubt.
Red Letters?
As JOJO pointed out in one of her comments the official Westminster Confession states that all scripture is equal. That is to say we do not stratify scripture.
If this true why do we purchase "red letter" bible edition's -where Jesus' words are highlighted in red.
This causes many problems- Do we pit Jesus against Paul? Against OT Patriachs? Jesus said that every
"jot and tittle" of the law (Mt 5:18) will be fulfilled; in other words scripture written outside of him be fulfilled.
Enough with the Red Letters , all scripture is of equal weight and value. Don't play that Jesus card on me!
DEDICATED TO MY GRANDCHILD OF JOANNE AND GREY, A CHILD OF THE CONVENANT.
If this true why do we purchase "red letter" bible edition's -where Jesus' words are highlighted in red.
This causes many problems- Do we pit Jesus against Paul? Against OT Patriachs? Jesus said that every
"jot and tittle" of the law (Mt 5:18) will be fulfilled; in other words scripture written outside of him be fulfilled.
Enough with the Red Letters , all scripture is of equal weight and value. Don't play that Jesus card on me!
DEDICATED TO MY GRANDCHILD OF JOANNE AND GREY, A CHILD OF THE CONVENANT.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
the "Great Commission" who says so?
Jesus never pronounced that what I am about to tell you I want you to call forever "The Great Commission."
It's about time we start thinking for ourselves instead of letting Bible editors make stuff up.
Why aren't the verses I quoted on my Hell, No?, The "Great Commission"?
Re: The separation of the goats and the sheep?(Mt 25-31-46)
Why isn't the ten talents the greatest commission? (Mt 25: 14-30)
Any number of Christ's narratives that contain a command(s)
So although this is one of my shortest missives it is important because we have to question what tradition has
handed us unless Christ Himself has named something himself.
It's about time we start thinking for ourselves instead of letting Bible editors make stuff up.
Why aren't the verses I quoted on my Hell, No?, The "Great Commission"?
Re: The separation of the goats and the sheep?(Mt 25-31-46)
Why isn't the ten talents the greatest commission? (Mt 25: 14-30)
Any number of Christ's narratives that contain a command(s)
So although this is one of my shortest missives it is important because we have to question what tradition has
handed us unless Christ Himself has named something himself.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Why we baptize whole families.
Because that is how it was done in Acts. The earliest Church in action
Acts 1:5
Acts 2:38
Acts 2:41
Acts 8:12
Acts 8:13
Acts 8:16
Acts 8:36
Acts 9:18
Acts 10:48
Acts 11:16
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
Acts 18:8
Acts 19:3
Acts 19:4
Acts 19:5
Acts 22:16
In some of the verses above entire families were baptized. Baptists say that because an infant isn't mentioned means we cannot assume. We have to read these verses in light of Jesus' words in Matthew: "Then let the little children place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. When he had placed his hands on them, he went on form there. Mt 19,13-15
In light of theses verses how could you keep a child from his hand? This is one of two sacraments which means that the grace of God is imparted to the child. Follow the words of Jesus- no "dedications" but baptism- have him or her be touched by Jesus. Not to be crass, but infant baptism "worked" for my three and it is a wonder in God's faithfulness to watch him bring each one into saving faith. Dear God, thank you for your faithfulness. .
Do not hinder them!
Saturday, January 12, 2013
HELL, NO?
"But I say unto you that whosever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment;and whosever is angry without a cause shall be in danger of judgment and whosever shall say to his brother , Raca, shall be in the danger of the council, but whosever shall say, 'thou fool, shall be in the danger of hell fire. (Matt 5:22) KJV
And I say unto my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea I say unto you , Fear him. LK 12:4-5 KJV.
From the Schofield Reference Bible: Greek Geena equals Gehenna, the place in the Valley of Hinnom where, anciently human sacrifices were offered (2 Chr.33:6; Jer. 7:31) and where the continuous burning of rubbish illustrated to the Jewish people unending judgment upon the wicked. The word occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28, 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk.9: 43,45,47; Lk 12:5; Jas.3:6
There is a certain bond between Roman Catholics and Protestants and has to deal with the eternal and very physical punishment who end up being hell. The influential John Stott was the last casualty of a reformed theologian who was "cut off" for wanting to debate this issue. I believe I can make a case against eternal punishment but I need a fair hearing.
I know it is against the academic rules to use Wikipedia but nonetheless let's look at their take on the the beginnings of the word hell.."The modern English word hell is derived from old English Ref hel, helle (about 785 AD)( to refer to a netherworld of the dead)........Subsequently the word was used to transfer a pagan concept its Christian theology and it's vocabulary (however for the Judea- Christian origin of the concept Gehenna)
When Jesus spoke about hell he wasn't speaking about hell. According to WIKI that was a later pagination of the word gehenna. So when Jesus spoke of Gehenna he used the word Gehenna which it should remain in our Bibles today. He was speaking of a well known physical place where rubbish burned and sacrifices had been offered..."Fear him who, after he had killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna; yea I say unto, Fear him".
So we have allowed and continually allow "hell" with all of its baggage such as art and horrific layers of suffering to continue. There is one passage in Matthew and one in Revelation that seems a slam dunk to those who hold to hell- in this case "The lake of fire":
[Jesus said:] “When the son of man comes in his glory, and all his angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the and the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right.'Come you are blessed by my Father: take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord , when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
The king will then reply, 'I tell you the truth , whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
Then he will or to those on his left, Depart from me, you are cursed, into an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in. I needed clothes and you did not clothe me. I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer , 'Lord,when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did no help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the the righteous to eternal life" Mt. 46, 31-36
This then is the single most powerful verse for eternal conscious suffering of the unrighteous.
The only way I can argue against this verse's plain interpretation (and I know it is a stretch) is that the unrighteous that perish, suffer eternal punishment in the perspective in what they have lost- because they have lost eternal life in that sense they are punished eternally even though they lose consciousness.
Why do I say lose consciousness? Because Paul uses Perish when he discusses what happens to the unbeliever at death. It implies a burning up and a cessation of suffering. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:18 c.56 AD)
There are others (Rom. 2:12, I Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor 4:16, 2Col 2:22, 2 Thess 2:10. Also in Hebrews 1:11, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
Then there is the verses in Revelation 20:13....15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he hat done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This talks about unbelievers entering a lake of fire which is "the second death" . I don't believe anyone knows what the second death means accept to take it literally that those who enter die.
John the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as using the word perishing: "..that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Jn 3:16)
So my first case against hell is that it is a pagan word and not biblical. Not that Gehenna is such a pleasant place but it is different then medieval paintings of hell. No doubt the Roman Catholic Church clung to it because he that holds the keys to hell is more to be feared than the keys to Gehenna. As to the infamous Matthew passage we have an apparent contradiction because Jesus himself uses perishing. We have a quandary here. Does the Matthew verses "trump" all of the hell fire verses? That there is no mention of hell or judgment in the Acts? There will be a judgment "after certain days, when Festus came with his wife, Drusilla, he sent for Paul, and heard concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, self control, and judgement to come, Felix trembled. Acts 24:25
This is the message of the NT. Faith in Christ have life and those without face judgment
Than we have all of Paul's and Peter's Epistles. Not once doe they mention hell- rather they talk of non believers as perishing. Perishing implies termination of any suffering. See Rom.2:12,1 Cor 1:18, 1 Cor 8:11, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Cor4:16 , Col 2:22, 2Th2:10, Heb 1:11, 2 Pet 2:12, 2 Peter 3:9
So we have the earliest most influential letters where no eternal suffering is mentioned for the unbeliever, only perishing.
The idea of judgment is clear, along with the warning of gehenna. At the judgment how long a person suffers is not clear, although, again, perishing implies an end to suffering. Hell is a pagan perversion and it is time for Reformed and Roman Catholics to translate it back to Gehenna.
If a literal hell is to be expected than why did not the Acts, Peter and Paul not mention it in the early
Church? Why do we continually allow a pagan term, namely hell to replace gehenna?
I am not saying that a strong case cannot be made for "Lake of fire" as opposed to "hell" as in the Mathew and Revelation verses. There should be a mature discussion as to why the early church has no mention of eternal damnation, given the dire warnings that Christ and John of Revelation give.
And 2 Jude : "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame, wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness. One can see this is a view entirely different than our other quotes
In conclusion we have Jesus talking about perishing of the lost but also portraying an awful fire that seems to exist forever. What to do? What to say? The strength of the hell position are the words of Jesus while Jesus himself introduces perishing in John's Gospel.
So we have quandary. Does Matthew's passage trump all the others because Jesus said it? Does the perishing "theory" trump the Matthew passage? I believe in a court of law the perishing theory would prevail although I would be left with reasonable doubt.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Do not get stuck on the 6 day Creation
In the beginning God create the heavens and the earth, now the earth was (a) (tohu wabohu) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,and the over the waters..Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Let me ask my audience if God ever needed two or three tries at anything- or when the Son healed someone was it ever a partial healing?
Why then after creation did God need a "second chance" ?
Please note my (a) footnote above. It is in all NIV bibles- It's no big deal except it changes what happened after creation COMPLETELY. The note is explained "or possibly became" formless and empty. The other two times when tohu wabohu is used to describe a condition produced by divine judgment in the only other two texts where the other two words compare in conjuction (isa 34:11) ( Jer 4:23) Schofield Refererence Bible
I am no Hebrew scholar so I cannot make a case for the footnote other than the Schofield note. At any rate, due to the huge sea change it brings to these verses one would think that it deserves more than a microscopic footnote.
I prefer "became formless and empty" as opposed to "was formless and empty" because God's perfect creation in verse one" "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why then would the next verse say immediately "Now the earth was formless and empty right after God tells us "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth??
As I said above God does all things perfectly but something happened to His perfect creation. Some of the speculation is that Lucifer, trying to exceed God, was thrown out with his minions. Isa 14:12. Eze 28:12
Something big happened that God seemingly started over.
So if you are in the sciences and people mock the creation remember the tiny footnote which make it impossible to know the age of the earth.
Let me ask my audience if God ever needed two or three tries at anything- or when the Son healed someone was it ever a partial healing?
Why then after creation did God need a "second chance" ?
Please note my (a) footnote above. It is in all NIV bibles- It's no big deal except it changes what happened after creation COMPLETELY. The note is explained "or possibly became" formless and empty. The other two times when tohu wabohu is used to describe a condition produced by divine judgment in the only other two texts where the other two words compare in conjuction (isa 34:11) ( Jer 4:23) Schofield Refererence Bible
I am no Hebrew scholar so I cannot make a case for the footnote other than the Schofield note. At any rate, due to the huge sea change it brings to these verses one would think that it deserves more than a microscopic footnote.
I prefer "became formless and empty" as opposed to "was formless and empty" because God's perfect creation in verse one" "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why then would the next verse say immediately "Now the earth was formless and empty right after God tells us "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth??
As I said above God does all things perfectly but something happened to His perfect creation. Some of the speculation is that Lucifer, trying to exceed God, was thrown out with his minions. Isa 14:12. Eze 28:12
Something big happened that God seemingly started over.
So if you are in the sciences and people mock the creation remember the tiny footnote which make it impossible to know the age of the earth.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Did the Father and His Son have two distinct wills?
The vast majority believe that Jesus did have his own distinct will, different from his Father' s.
This appears evident when he went through his trial at the Mount of Olives just before his being crucified.
Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not enter into temptation. He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but thine be done. An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthen him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Lk.22, 39-44
Notice first that Jesus exhorts his disciples to pray that they not enter temptation. Jesus always puts others ahead of himself except for the few times when he wanted to be alone with his father.
Now this appears to be a trial that he perspired to the point of blood falling down to the ground. The intensity of his anguish cannot be underestimated.
If one hears 100 sermons on this passage 99 are going to state that Jesus' cup was supped by the Lord, and that Christ in his humanity asked the Father in vain to escape this cup..
Yet this is not true. I have to give credit to Donald Grey Barnhouse who uses the whole of scripture to shed light on this:
During the days of Jesus' life he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Heb 5:7
According to Hebrews the "cup" must have been some kind of death. We are not talking about the crucifixion in that he obviously went through that death for his elect. Perhaps the thought that made him sweat blood was an eternal death that he saw in his humanness as possible. The thought of being separated from his Father from eternity? I am simply guessing here.
To reiterate there was never two wills here. Think about the eternal Godhead having more than one will. Imagine His saying no to His Son in "whom HE was well pleased". Of course it was the Father's will to have this feared cup pass from his Son from eternity. What Jesus wanted Jesus received from the Father. How else could it be?
Anyone who preaches that Christ "sucked it up" and drank the cup is proof texting one verse and is wrong.
The Father and Son could never have two wills. Thanks to the author of Hebrews we know the whole story.
This appears evident when he went through his trial at the Mount of Olives just before his being crucified.
Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not enter into temptation. He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but thine be done. An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthen him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Lk.22, 39-44
Notice first that Jesus exhorts his disciples to pray that they not enter temptation. Jesus always puts others ahead of himself except for the few times when he wanted to be alone with his father.
Now this appears to be a trial that he perspired to the point of blood falling down to the ground. The intensity of his anguish cannot be underestimated.
If one hears 100 sermons on this passage 99 are going to state that Jesus' cup was supped by the Lord, and that Christ in his humanity asked the Father in vain to escape this cup..
Yet this is not true. I have to give credit to Donald Grey Barnhouse who uses the whole of scripture to shed light on this:
During the days of Jesus' life he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Heb 5:7
According to Hebrews the "cup" must have been some kind of death. We are not talking about the crucifixion in that he obviously went through that death for his elect. Perhaps the thought that made him sweat blood was an eternal death that he saw in his humanness as possible. The thought of being separated from his Father from eternity? I am simply guessing here.
To reiterate there was never two wills here. Think about the eternal Godhead having more than one will. Imagine His saying no to His Son in "whom HE was well pleased". Of course it was the Father's will to have this feared cup pass from his Son from eternity. What Jesus wanted Jesus received from the Father. How else could it be?
Anyone who preaches that Christ "sucked it up" and drank the cup is proof texting one verse and is wrong.
The Father and Son could never have two wills. Thanks to the author of Hebrews we know the whole story.
Monday, January 7, 2013
P is for Perseverance of?
The reformation's TULIP is for Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.
While going through my father's things years ago I found a little slip of paper with TULIP spelled out.
What was so exciting the was his description of which I have never read before or after!
He wrote after "P" "perseverance of God in the saints.
This simple addition was so exciting, not only because it was unique but because it is the truth of scripture backing it. .
Without God guaranteeing our "finishing well" we are on our own to make sure that happens.
Philippians 2:12:
"Therefore my dear friends, as you have always obeyed- not only in my presence , but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
Romans 8:30
"And those he predestined, he also called,those he called, he also justified, he also glorified."
I have written about this before-- one is either in the kingdom or not. One is either a Christian or he is not. There are no in between stages.
Also I Corinthians 3:16, I Corinthians 6:19, Galatians 3:20
"P" is for Perseverance of God in his saints. We can trust God to have us persevere in our faith!! Now what that may look at we don't know....only God knows.
While going through my father's things years ago I found a little slip of paper with TULIP spelled out.
What was so exciting the was his description of which I have never read before or after!
He wrote after "P" "perseverance of God in the saints.
This simple addition was so exciting, not only because it was unique but because it is the truth of scripture backing it. .
Without God guaranteeing our "finishing well" we are on our own to make sure that happens.
Philippians 2:12:
"Therefore my dear friends, as you have always obeyed- not only in my presence , but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
Romans 8:30
"And those he predestined, he also called,those he called, he also justified, he also glorified."
I have written about this before-- one is either in the kingdom or not. One is either a Christian or he is not. There are no in between stages.
Also I Corinthians 3:16, I Corinthians 6:19, Galatians 3:20
"P" is for Perseverance of God in his saints. We can trust God to have us persevere in our faith!! Now what that may look at we don't know....only God knows.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen
We human beings have extremely short memories when it comes to epic events. The stock market has had three significant sell offs in three years and yet there is almost complete complacency out there of our having another even as we face "a cliff". Millions live in known flood zones and think that "it won't happen to me". Over and over this occurs.
We can only imagine our forgetfulness of our Lord's return in that it has been nearly two thousand years. We tend to make the illogical mistake that the peers of Noah did which is thinking "because it hasn't happened it won't."
As usual our thinking is backward. Rather we should be saying "Everyday that passes brings us closer to the Lord's return". Most scholars concentrate on the lengthy Matthew 24 when studying the second coming . while Luke 17 is shorter, it has two "signs", absent in Matthew, that will be active before Christ returns.
The fist sign is that of Noah: " Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will also be in the days of the Son of Man". Lk 17: 26 One can scour the Scripture about Noah but only one cause is given for the flood....
"The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." So God destroys everyone save Noah and his family.
Millennial-ists are those that believe that we Christians will usher in the Millennium through evangelism and our good works.
NO!! Christ clearly warns us that things will get worse as the time for his return approaches. We will see "wickedness" increase as birth pangs ebb and flow with greater and greater intensity until the birth (his return). (Mt 24:8)
Do I have to argue that violence is on the increase just as in the time of Noah? We cannot help but be horrified at senseless massacres on a worldwide scale, yet we must expect them in increasing tendency.
Another Noahic sign was disbelief in the coming flood. Oh how Noah was mocked for building the ark. Again why? Because of the logic that there had never been a flood and thus there never will be one. The idea was preposterous. So Christians that confess the return of Christ are mocked and hated. It is amazing in light of the natural peace of Christianity how we are despised and yet this hatred is is an epidemic around the globe , but not surprising (you will be hated for my names sake) Mt 10:22
Now for the second sign,- the sign of Lot. Lot chose of his own volition an area to live "Abram lived in the land of Canaan while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord." (Gen. 13:12-13)
Next scene: Lot is at the city gates implying that he was a respected man. Now as I will show, the sins of Sodom was aggressive homosexual sin. Do you think he would have enjoyed his standing if he was speaking up against this sin? Does today's fear of speaking against sexual sin remind you of Lot's attitude? This apprehension by God's elect is a sign of Lot imo.
While Lot is at the city gates two angels (lit messengers) appear to Lot and Lot is adamant that they stay at his home. The next scene is violent. "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom- both young and old surrounded the house. They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we can have sex with them" (Gen 19:4-5) This is like is a feeding frenzy for foreign flesh. Active homosexual behavior and it's bold advocacy is a sign of Lot. All sexual activity outside of marriage is forbidden as well. (Acts 15:20)
The third sign of Lot comes from learning about his wife. It says that as God is providing his family a way of escape from Sodom, the command of God is to not look back. "But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. (Gen 19) When we are in bondage to some evil place or even some substance and God provides a way out, do we look back?
Lot is a great example of a "worldly Christian". But you may say I doubt he was a believer at all- and yet Peter calls Lot "a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless, 2 Peter 2:15 Again, the question is whether Lot kept all his pains about the wickedness around him to himself. It appears he kept his mouth shut due due to his being respected in Sodom. We all know what would happen to us if we were especially vigilant against the worldwide pro homosexual lobby.
In conclusion we must not be overcome by the violence getting increasingly worse- nor as the homosexual agenda enjoys official ecclesiastical standing which is absurd in light of scripture. ( Romans 1: 26,27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 ) "Scholars" tell us that the sin of Sodom was Lot's lack of "hospitality". This is absolutely pathetic statement in light of scripture in order to justify homosexual behavior.
As we see these signs it adds to our faith because Jesus' warnings are coming to pass in front of our very eyes. Say no to the thoughts that it has been two thousand years so forget about the second coming. In God's timetable it has been only two days! (2 Peter 3:8)
I should say something about those who struggle with homosexuality; my advice is to live a single celibate life and not to marry. Paul practically begs all people to stay single. (1 Cor 7) Follow his words if you struggle with these urges. The time is near. Christ tells us to take up our cross. Every Christian has a burden from time to time.
We can only imagine our forgetfulness of our Lord's return in that it has been nearly two thousand years. We tend to make the illogical mistake that the peers of Noah did which is thinking "because it hasn't happened it won't."
As usual our thinking is backward. Rather we should be saying "Everyday that passes brings us closer to the Lord's return". Most scholars concentrate on the lengthy Matthew 24 when studying the second coming . while Luke 17 is shorter, it has two "signs", absent in Matthew, that will be active before Christ returns.
The fist sign is that of Noah: " Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will also be in the days of the Son of Man". Lk 17: 26 One can scour the Scripture about Noah but only one cause is given for the flood....
"The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." So God destroys everyone save Noah and his family.
Millennial-ists are those that believe that we Christians will usher in the Millennium through evangelism and our good works.
NO!! Christ clearly warns us that things will get worse as the time for his return approaches. We will see "wickedness" increase as birth pangs ebb and flow with greater and greater intensity until the birth (his return). (Mt 24:8)
Do I have to argue that violence is on the increase just as in the time of Noah? We cannot help but be horrified at senseless massacres on a worldwide scale, yet we must expect them in increasing tendency.
Another Noahic sign was disbelief in the coming flood. Oh how Noah was mocked for building the ark. Again why? Because of the logic that there had never been a flood and thus there never will be one. The idea was preposterous. So Christians that confess the return of Christ are mocked and hated. It is amazing in light of the natural peace of Christianity how we are despised and yet this hatred is is an epidemic around the globe , but not surprising (you will be hated for my names sake) Mt 10:22
Now for the second sign,- the sign of Lot. Lot chose of his own volition an area to live "Abram lived in the land of Canaan while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord." (Gen. 13:12-13)
Next scene: Lot is at the city gates implying that he was a respected man. Now as I will show, the sins of Sodom was aggressive homosexual sin. Do you think he would have enjoyed his standing if he was speaking up against this sin? Does today's fear of speaking against sexual sin remind you of Lot's attitude? This apprehension by God's elect is a sign of Lot imo.
While Lot is at the city gates two angels (lit messengers) appear to Lot and Lot is adamant that they stay at his home. The next scene is violent. "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom- both young and old surrounded the house. They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we can have sex with them" (Gen 19:4-5) This is like is a feeding frenzy for foreign flesh. Active homosexual behavior and it's bold advocacy is a sign of Lot. All sexual activity outside of marriage is forbidden as well. (Acts 15:20)
The third sign of Lot comes from learning about his wife. It says that as God is providing his family a way of escape from Sodom, the command of God is to not look back. "But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. (Gen 19) When we are in bondage to some evil place or even some substance and God provides a way out, do we look back?
Lot is a great example of a "worldly Christian". But you may say I doubt he was a believer at all- and yet Peter calls Lot "a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless, 2 Peter 2:15 Again, the question is whether Lot kept all his pains about the wickedness around him to himself. It appears he kept his mouth shut due due to his being respected in Sodom. We all know what would happen to us if we were especially vigilant against the worldwide pro homosexual lobby.
In conclusion we must not be overcome by the violence getting increasingly worse- nor as the homosexual agenda enjoys official ecclesiastical standing which is absurd in light of scripture. ( Romans 1: 26,27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 ) "Scholars" tell us that the sin of Sodom was Lot's lack of "hospitality". This is absolutely pathetic statement in light of scripture in order to justify homosexual behavior.
As we see these signs it adds to our faith because Jesus' warnings are coming to pass in front of our very eyes. Say no to the thoughts that it has been two thousand years so forget about the second coming. In God's timetable it has been only two days! (2 Peter 3:8)
I should say something about those who struggle with homosexuality; my advice is to live a single celibate life and not to marry. Paul practically begs all people to stay single. (1 Cor 7) Follow his words if you struggle with these urges. The time is near. Christ tells us to take up our cross. Every Christian has a burden from time to time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)