Posted on 12/20/2016 8:14:06 AM PST by Kaslin
Yes, it is a little picture of hell, and people throw up their hands because nothing seems to appeal to these people.
If an actual gospel pitch even failed here (which I could not prejudge) then it makes sense that when they have killed, to put them to death too. But that doesn’t mean annihilation of the soul; only a change of its position.
Sometimes we just throw away the key, but that’s to let them be evil in the jail, where they can not hurt others with their evil.
When we talk about a chessboard here, we forget that there are regions beyond it. Playing the chess means not damned yet.
Why does God continue to keep Satan in existence?
The answer in part is tests, but God could have wiped Satan before he had tested anyone, leaving all else in the same bliss.
The answer is, in part grace. God has promised. “The ages of the ages” is a term for eternity.
If an actual gospel pitch even failed here (which I could not prejudge) then it makes sense that when they have killed, to put them to death too. But that doesn’t mean annihilation of the soul; only a change of its position.
But it isn’t. “I shall not contend forever.”
It’s a spiritual killing, removing all righteousness.
Righteousness is equated to life in the scripture.
I.e. he who keeps the law will “live” by it.
Our own attempts now that we are fallen to keep the law won’t succeed; however embracing Christ by love whereupon He will save forever and transform us into those who WILL keep the law — will succeed, with the work finally finished at the pearly gates.
The damned refused the law, and refused the blood of Christ to cover. God says: if you must do that, fine, because to force you would make love no longer love. Now they are existing in death.
Just rest for a while, and think this over. Again I believe people went to the cessationist view because they would not be able to rest in heaven because “God is torturing other people.” But that is untrue. God is letting evil angels, and some but not all people, torture themselves against His goodness. The fires of hell seem to be another view of the glories of heaven. The difference is in who is perceiving them.
It’s a spiritual killing, removing all righteousness.
Righteousness is equated to life in the scripture.
It is why it is called the second death. First time is the body you occupy - the flesh. The second one is your soul - you.
No... it is not a means or intermediary to life, as though you needed to keep the law in order to keep something ELSE up.
That is a confusion of still-proud humans.
As an illustration I know, I have noticed in myself that as I obey Christ better and better, more and more of the moves I make are actually fueled by the Law. I choose, but I choose more and more what the Law says. God blesses those moves, and I see more and more winning in my Christian walk.
I think we get the idea of the law as something we need to keep in order to then keep something ELSE up, which is our raison d’etre.
But it isn’t. Notice that even in civic affairs we call nonoffenders “law abiding.” Now that would be an exaggeration to say that covers all their lives. The law of the country leaves many things untreated. You don’t have to put your socks in a sock drawer. But it may be found gainful to put your socks in a sock drawer for God, so that then the socks are right there when you need them, and you can then spend the effort you would have spent looking for the socks, on more significant ways to serve Him.
Anyhow I got through some interesting discussions recently with a strictly observant Jewish lady, or at least one who seems to show some intent to observe.
That brought up the whole issue of the law, or Torah as it is called in that culture.
I pointed out that there was a commandment that she was muffing towards a brother that is difficult towards her: the 2nd commandment. Now one doesn’t have to accept the guff of a difficult brother (and he had done some very hateful things), but one can still wish that brother well, and perhaps from time to time do a kindness for the sake of God’s will. This actually helps the relationship because it keeps some kind of love flowing even if on a nominal basis.
She eventually answered me, rather tiredly (it seemed to me) that she commended my sincerity but really didn’t want to talk about it any more.
I think I pricked her conscience. She’s observing by choice, but she now sees she has trouble observing. So there isn’t as much life in her living as there could be.
Anyhow, if she continues to desire to do God’s will, God will eventually honor that by providing her an opportunity to grow in that direction. Maybe an opportunity for kindness will appear that she can do towards this difficult brother.
But it isn’t. “I shall not contend forever.”
I think we are on the same page except I don’t know what you mean in your first use of the word, “it”.
I use this to explain the foundational teaching of Christianity (salvation through grace):
Imagine two kids. Achmed’s father is Allah. John’s is Jesus (yes, I know Jesus is not God the father, but they ARE one, after all).
So, Allah tells Achmed to clean up his room. Achmed believes that if he does not clean up his room, he will be written out of his father’s will. So in fear and trembling he cleans his room and checks for dust specs with a microscope to be sure his dad doesn’t nail him for not doing the job.
Meanwhile, Jesus tells John to clean up his room. John knows that he will remain in his father’s will whether he cleans up his room or not, but out of love, respect and a desire to please his father, he cleans up his room. However, there have been times when John DIDN’T clean up his room because he was being a brat or selfish, etc.
And in this is a hint at why I don’t buy the “turn or burn” message regarding Christianity any more. Jesus is very clear that, although He speaks harshly of the fate of the lost, He makes it clear that He wants people accepting His gift out of desire, not fear of consequences.
And all over the place the bible makes those consequences very clear: Death. What Jesus saves you from is death.
On a side note, many ECT believing Christians don’t get that the reason people laugh and mock them when they try to present to “gospel” is because the non-believers don’t see it that way.
In the NT, People come to Christ because the message is LIFE, eternally. Modern ECT Christians come to people and start out with, “it’s worse than you think!. You are not just going to die. You are going to suffer for all eternity in fire. And we have a solution for that. It is Jesus atoning blood.
Many can’t get past that first claim and don’t take you seriously. And it is because, in all seriousness, it makes no sense. And I don’t mean as in, “there is a way that seems right to a man but it’s end is death*.” I mean it makes no sense from a biblical perspective. To reasonable people it just sounds, well, dumb.
What is even more fascinating is that when I argue this subject with bible knowledgeable agnostics and atheists that actively hate Christianity (most of whom were raised Christian but left it in their late teens), it is critical to them that the bible teaches ECT. The reason is that their whole hatred is usually founded on that one teaching.
When I tell them the bible does not teach that nor does it fit within the personality of the God of the bible, they really get caught off guard and other than lashing out, don’t really know what to do.
i.e. I believe that ECT teaching is not benign. I believe it is harmful to the spread of the Gospel. I believe the Turn or Burn message comes straight from Satan.
*Notice even there the word “death” is used. The word has a very real meaning. It is a simple and straightforward word, except when qualifiers are used to explicitly explain it as not “real” death.
That was actually very interesting. Like you implied, she may think about what you said and change her response to people like that.
Shortly after I became a Christian I coined a phrase that helps me handle people acting badly towards me or others: “We are all just disobedient children on the playgound.”
It allows me to at least be more able to have the love for those that wrong me as I would a little boy. I’ve even gotten that way with my ex-wife. It was a VERY contentious divorce and we will probably never speak, even at our kids weddings. In my case, though, it is out of self preservation along the lines of, “you can forgive a lion for eating one of your kids, but it is stupid to continue to let the other kids play around it.” i.e. you can forgive someone, but you need to understand their nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.