Antoher "FUN" Theological question!

[Uncensored2008]

It is an interesting metaphor full of nuance and symbolism. But as with all of the New Testament, it has to be seen as imagery to get the people's attention.

Hell is a theme throughout the Bible.

But when you take the gospel as a whole--and to have even a fighting chance to understand the message, it MUST be taken as a whole--you have other metaphors and other imagery explaining that all have sinned and NONE are worthy to be saved. And yet Jesus's message is that our sins will be washed away and will no longer exist in God's eyes.

But ONLY those who accept Jesus and have their name written in the "Lambs book of life." Others are to be cast in to the lake of fire. As you said, you must take it as a whole, or reject it as a whole.

So who do you think the righteous is in that passage? I interpret it as those Jesus came to show the way to eternal life. Who are the evil that are thrown away like bad fish? I dunno. Could be demons. Naughty angels. Anybody.

In context, it is very clear - those who reject Jesus.

{13:37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 13:38 The field is the world and the good seed are the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 13:39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 13:40 As the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one who has ears had better listen! }

Those who follow Jesus are the good seeds, those who don't are weeds.

This is the fundamental and foundational doctrine of Christ, without this doctrine, it is not Christianity as it rejects the message of Christ as savior.

But there is no indication that anybody will be able to EARN a place in Heaven but we will get there by the grace of God.

The only "earning" is in the acceptance. I in no way suggested that salvation was dependent on works.

Before we go further, I want to reiterate that I am agnostic. I was raised in a VERY religious home and have rejected, well - all religion. As pointed out, it's all or nothing. I cannot believe all, so I believe nothing of it.

However, it is a subject I am well versed in. One of my buddies in high school was TV Evangelist Jim Reeve.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's a difference between believing people - in the general sense - will go to Hell, and believing it's acceptable for us to decide which people - in the specific sense - will be going and why.

From a Biblical sense, no man will have any impact on another persons entry into heaven. Christian faith, whether Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal or Methodist, holds the Jesus knows the heart of every person and informs the father, who accepts those that are saved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's a difference between believing people - in the general sense - will go to Hell, and believing it's acceptable for us to decide which people - in the specific sense - will be going and why.

From a Biblical sense, no man will have any impact on another persons entry into heaven. Christian faith, whether Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal or Methodist, holds the Jesus knows the heart of every person and informs the father, who accepts those that are saved.

Which has what to do with what I said?

Try to stay with me here, instead of trying to push my words into some mold of what you want to be talking about.

I believe that there will be people going to Hell. Bible says so. I do NOT believe that I am qualified to say WHO those people will be. I have no way of knowing, since I am not God and cannot look into people's hearts. It is also a sin for me to do so.

So a pastor can preach all day that there will be people going to Hell, and be just fine. At the point where he decides to preach that President Obama, or Newt Gingrich, or some other specific person, is going to Hell, he just committed a sin.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which has what to do with what I said?

Try to stay with me here, instead of trying to push my words into some mold of what you want to be talking about.

I believe that there will be people going to Hell. Bible says so. I do NOT believe that I am qualified to say WHO those people will be. I have no way of knowing, since I am not God and cannot look into people's hearts.

That differs from what I wrote in exactly WHAT way?

It is also a sin for me to do so.

So a pastor can preach all day that there will be people going to Hell, and be just fine. At the point where he decides to preach that President Obama, or Newt Gingrich, or some other specific person, is going to Hell, he just committed a sin.

{Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would knowb my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” }

 

[Foxfyre]

It is an interesting metaphor full of nuance and symbolism. But as with all of the New Testament, it has to be seen as imagery to get the people's attention.

Hell is a theme throughout the Bible.

Yes it is and it is described with various metaphors, imagery, symbols, and context. If you take the whole of it it is quite unclear what hell is or who/what will be there.

But when you take the gospel as a whole--and to have even a fighting chance to understand the message, it MUST be taken as a whole--you have other metaphors and other imagery explaining that all have sinned and NONE are worthy to be saved. And yet Jesus's message is that our sins will be washed away and will no longer exist in God's eyes.

But ONLY those who accept Jesus and have their name written in the "Lambs book of life." Others are to be cast in to the lake of fire. As you said, you must take it as a whole, or reject it as a whole.

[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, but there is no specification as to when that has to happen or exactly how one gets their name written into the book. When you take the whole, you see that Jesus died for ALL of us. There are numerous near death experiences reported in which people caught a glimpse of Jesus and the incredible possibilities of what heaven will be like. And then, not formerly being religious or believers, no longer feared death or what comes after. Jesus was absolutely adament that it is not our prerogative to judge whether people will be in hell. He has that all under control.

So who do you think the righteous is in that passage? I interpret it as those Jesus came to show the way to eternal life. Who are the evil that are thrown away like bad fish? I dunno. Could be demons. Naughty angels. Anybody.

In context, it is very clear - those who reject Jesus.

{13:37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 13:38 The field is the world and the good seed are the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 13:39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 13:40 As the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one who has ears had better listen! }

Those who follow Jesus are the good seeds, those who don't are weeds.

This is the fundamental and foundational doctrine of Christ, without this doctrine, it is not Christianity as it rejects the message of Christ as savior.

And yet there are people who have rejected Jesus all their lives, but then at some point let Him in and received the blessing of confidence in eternal life. Even in Jesus parables we see teaching that it isn't over until it is over and it is God's prerogative in how he will bless this one or that one. The Bible says the Lord works in mysterious ways. I think a lot of us will be very surprised at how much we sometimes get very wrong, but I have learned you can't put God in a definitive box of 'this is how it is.' He's a much much larger God than that.

The Gospel is not a set of rules, obligations, musts and must nots. That is what Jesus came to release us from. He chose to suffer and die as redemption for all our sins, not just those who were 'good' people. I have to believe there is choice to reject that else there is no free will, no love, no ability to change our course. But in my opinion, there is no specific prescription for how we receive God.

But there is no indication that anybody will be able to EARN a place in Heaven but we will get there by the grace of God.

The only "earning" is in the acceptance. I in no way suggested that salvation was dependent on works.

Before we go further, I want to reiterate that I am agnostic. I was raised in a VERY religious home and have rejected, well - all religion. As pointed out, it's all or nothing. I cannot believe all, so I believe nothing of it.

However, it is a subject I am well versed in. One of my buddies in high school was TV Evangelist Jim Reeve.

I know a few evangelists too. Some I agree with . Some I don't.

If you have ever done any serious reading on Martin Luther's struggles with his faith, he became convinced that grace is so structured that we cannot earn it even by 'acceptance' as that also comes from our will and consciousness. Therefore, his brand of Lutheranism included the doctrine of predestination--yes, that is in the Bible too--and Calvin and Zwingli--no friends of Luther--developed that further into a Calvinistic concept taught by Presbyterians and a few others to this day. There are some who say that specific words must be used. Some say specific rituals must be followed.

The words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament are what theological scholars call 'pericopes' or 'sayings'. There is absolutely no attempt to put these into chronological order nor in their full context. They were recalled from oral tradition--a very reliable method due to the conditioning and training of the Jewish writers--and placed strategicallyu into the manuscripts to make a theological statement to be read in the various congregations that had formed after Jesus's death and resurrection. Historical context was not important at that time, but rather the teachings themselves. And there is much that was omitted in the texts because so much was committed to memory or already familiar to the apostles and other disciples.

Jesus said that he loved us and by his death we can know that our sins are forgiven and we are assured of eternal life. I read that as he loves me, he loves you whether you know that or not, and he loves all of God's creation. He is the ultimate example of hate the sin, love the sinner. That is all I need to know to be a follower of Jesus. All the other doctrine is just window dressing and mostly efforts of humankind to please God. And there are so many different beliefs and divisions within Christianity that I can't believe God cares all that much how we worship Him so long as we are not harming ourselves or others.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which has what to do with what I said?

Try to stay with me here, instead of trying to push my words into some mold of what you want to be talking about.

I believe that there will be people going to Hell. Bible says so. I do NOT believe that I am qualified to say WHO those people will be. I have no way of knowing, since I am not God and cannot look into people's hearts.

That differs from what I wrote in exactly WHAT way?

It is also a sin for me to do so.

So a pastor can preach all day that there will be people going to Hell, and be just fine. At the point where he decides to preach that President Obama, or Newt Gingrich, or some other specific person, is going to Hell, he just committed a sin.

{Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would knowb my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” }

And now we're back to things that have no relation to what I said. If you're trying to convince me that there's some way in which it would be possible or acceptable for me to judge who is and isn't going to Hell, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And now we're back to things that have no relation to what I said. If you're trying to convince me that there's some way in which it would be possible or acceptable for me to judge who is and isn't going to Hell, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Why would I care to convince you of such a thing? I posted verses that say the opposite, and I don't believe in hell, Jesus, or any of this nonsense.

I merely point out what is written in the Bible and what Christian doctrine - across denominations, holds on this.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It is an interesting metaphor full of nuance and symbolism. But as with all of the New Testament, it has to be seen as imagery to get the people's attention.

Hell is a theme throughout the Bible.

Yes it is and it is described with various metaphors, imagery, symbols, and context. If you take the whole of it it is quite unclear what hell is or who/what will be there.

Ah yes, but there is no specification as to when that has to happen or exactly how one gets their name written into the book. When you take the whole, you see that Jesus died for ALL of us. There are numerous near death experiences reported in which people caught a glimpse of Jesus and the incredible possibilities of what heaven will be like. And then, not formerly being religious or believers, no longer feared death or what comes after. Jesus was absolutely adament that it is not our prerogative to judge whether people will be in hell. He has that all under control.

In context, it is very clear - those who reject Jesus.

{13:37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 13:38 The field is the world and the good seed are the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 13:39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 13:40 As the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one who has ears had better listen! }

Those who follow Jesus are the good seeds, those who don't are weeds.

This is the fundamental and foundational doctrine of Christ, without this doctrine, it is not Christianity as it rejects the message of Christ as savior.

And yet there are people who have rejected Jesus all their lives, but then at some point let Him in and received the blessing of confidence in eternal life. Even in Jesus parables we see teaching that it isn't over until it is over and it is God's prerogative in how he will bless this one or that one. The Bible says the Lord works in mysterious ways. I think a lot of us will be very surprised at how much we sometimes get very wrong, but I have learned you can't put God in a definitive box of 'this is how it is.' He's a much much larger God than that.

The Gospel is not a set of rules, obligations, musts and must nots. That is what Jesus came to release us from. He chose to suffer and die as redemption for all our sins, not just those who were 'good' people. I have to believe there is choice to reject that else there is no free will, no love, no ability to change our course. But in my opinion, there is no specific prescription for how we receive God.

But there is no indication that anybody will be able to EARN a place in Heaven but we will get there by the grace of God.

The only "earning" is in the acceptance. I in no way suggested that salvation was dependent on works.

Before we go further, I want to reiterate that I am agnostic. I was raised in a VERY religious home and have rejected, well - all religion. As pointed out, it's all or nothing. I cannot believe all, so I believe nothing of it.

However, it is a subject I am well versed in. One of my buddies in high school was TV Evangelist Jim Reeve.

I know a few evangelists too. Some I agree with . Some I don't.

If you have ever done any serious reading on Martin Luther's struggles with his faith, he became convinced that grace is so structured that we cannot earn it even by 'acceptance' as that also comes from our will and consciousness. Therefore, his brand of Lutheranism included the doctrine of predestination--yes, that is in the Bible too--and Calvin and Zwingli--no friends of Luther--developed that further into a Calvinistic concept taught by Presbyterians and a few others to this day. There are some who say that specific words must be used. Some say specific rituals must be followed.

The words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament are what theological scholars call 'pericopes' or 'sayings'. There is absolutely no attempt to put these into chronological order nor in their full context. They were recalled from oral tradition--a very reliable method due to the conditioning and training of the Jewish writers--and placed strategicallyu into the manuscripts to make a theological statement to be read in the various congregations that had formed after Jesus's death and resurrection. Historical context was not important at that time, but rather the teachings themselves. And there is much that was omitted in the texts because so much was committed to memory or already familiar to the apostles and other disciples.

Jesus said that he loved us and by his death we can know that our sins are forgiven and we are assured of eternal life. I read that as he loves me, he loves you whether you know that or not, and he loves all of God's creation. He is the ultimate example of hate the sin, love the sinner. That is all I need to know to be a follower of Jesus. All the other doctrine is just window dressing and mostly efforts of humankind to please God. And there are so many different beliefs and divisions within Christianity that I can't believe God cares all that much how we worship Him so long as we are not harming ourselves or others.[/QUOTE]

Consider the man on the cross next to Jesus. He spent his life breaking commandments. He was a thief. He was not baptized. He didn't follow religious protocol. But in one second, he defended Christ and asked Christ to remember him. And that one second garnered an eternity in Paradise. No church was involved. God saw his heart and that thief has been with Christ ever since.

 

[amrchaos]

And now we're back to things that have no relation to what I said. If you're trying to convince me that there's some way in which it would be possible or acceptable for me to judge who is and isn't going to Hell, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Why would I care to convince you of such a thing? I posted verses that say the opposite, and I don't believe in hell, Jesus, or any of this nonsense.

I merely point out what is written in the Bible and what Christian doctrine - across denominations, holds on this.

So, in other words

You are not a literalists??

I have read some of your posts before and I am starting to think that there is something very wrong here.....

 

[MaryL]

Hypothetically? No. I wouldn't jump off a cliff because everyone else was doing it, either.

 

[Foxfyre]

And now we're back to things that have no relation to what I said. If you're trying to convince me that there's some way in which it would be possible or acceptable for me to judge who is and isn't going to Hell, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Why would I care to convince you of such a thing? I posted verses that say the opposite, and I don't believe in hell, Jesus, or any of this nonsense.

I merely point out what is written in the Bible and what Christian doctrine - across denominations, holds on this.

But a serious Bible scholar knows not to pluck one verse or passage out of the Bible and hold it up as the sum of all the Bible teaches on a subject. Unless you look at the words through the eyes of those who wrote them, you're going to often get it wrong. And if you do not consider one part of a teaching within the whole of a teaching on a subject--and this can be scattered through myriad manuscripts spanning a lot of time--you will almost always get it wrong.

What the people you know believe about Christian teachings or what the people I know believe about Christian teachings will invariably contain some points of agreement, some truths, some controversies, some contradictions, some untruths though the latter are more often than not unintentional. God is unknowable in His whole being and we mortals I believe are not capable of fully comprehending or understanding more than very little. The mysteries of the Bible as we have it have been researched, examined, discussed, debated, and contemplated for more than two thousand years now and we are no closer to agreement as a believing people on every point than we were at the beginning.

You may feel you have to box in what the Bible says in order to justify rejecting it. I prefer to let God be God. I don't have all the answers by any means, but I do have a strong instinct that he disapproves of us assuming His role in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And now we're back to things that have no relation to what I said. If you're trying to convince me that there's some way in which it would be possible or acceptable for me to judge who is and isn't going to Hell, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Why would I care to convince you of such a thing? I posted verses that say the opposite, and I don't believe in hell, Jesus, or any of this nonsense.

I merely point out what is written in the Bible and what Christian doctrine - across denominations, holds on this.

So you're basically just talking to hear your keyboard rattle, with no point at all. Got it. Buh bye.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, in other words

You are not a literalists??

LOL

Literalist agnostic, that would be interesting.

I have read some of your posts before and I am starting to think that there is something very wrong here.....

It's like debating Starwars. Just because Luke Skywalker never existed doesn't mean people can change the story to whatever they want.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But a serious Bible scholar knows not to pluck one verse or passage out of the Bible and hold it up as the sum of all the Bible teaches on a subject.

Fair enough, but that isn't what I'm doing. I'm starting with the basic salvation doctrine and floating a few verses to support it. Thing is, no one really disputes it.

Unless you look at the words through the eyes of those who wrote them, you're going to often get it wrong. And if you do not consider one part of a teaching within the whole of a teaching on a subject--and this can be scattered through myriad manuscripts spanning a lot of time--you will almost always get it wrong.

What the people you know believe about Christian teachings or what the people I know believe about Christian teachings will invariably contain some points of agreement, some truths, some controversies, some contradictions, some untruths though the latter are more often than not unintentional. God is unknowable in His whole being and we mortals I believe are not capable of fully comprehending or understanding more than very little. The mysteries of the Bible as we have it have been researched, examined, discussed, debated, and contemplated for more than two thousand years now and we are no closer to agreement as a believing people on every point than we were at the beginning.

While true enough, the foundational salvation doctrine is the basis for the Christian faith. Acceptance of Christ as savior is ubiquitous to all the various denominations. You may debate speaking in tongues or infant baptism, but the doctrine of being saved by accepting Christ is one that all sides embrace.

You may feel you have to box in what the Bible says in order to justify rejecting it. I prefer to let God be God. I don't have all the answers by any means, but I do have a strong instinct that he disapproves of us assuming His role in the grand scheme of things.

The bible is plenty easy to reject, I don't need to box it in.

 

[koshergrl]

foundational?

 

[Foxfyre]

But a serious Bible scholar knows not to pluck one verse or passage out of the Bible and hold it up as the sum of all the Bible teaches on a subject.

Fair enough, but that isn't what I'm doing. I'm starting with the basic salvation doctrine and floating a few verses to support it. Thing is, no one really disputes it.

Unless you look at the words through the eyes of those who wrote them, you're going to often get it wrong. And if you do not consider one part of a teaching within the whole of a teaching on a subject--and this can be scattered through myriad manuscripts spanning a lot of time--you will almost always get it wrong.

What the people you know believe about Christian teachings or what the people I know believe about Christian teachings will invariably contain some points of agreement, some truths, some controversies, some contradictions, some untruths though the latter are more often than not unintentional. God is unknowable in His whole being and we mortals I believe are not capable of fully comprehending or understanding more than very little. The mysteries of the Bible as we have it have been researched, examined, discussed, debated, and contemplated for more than two thousand years now and we are no closer to agreement as a believing people on every point than we were at the beginning.

While true enough, the foundational salvation doctrine is the basis for the Christian faith. Acceptance of Christ as savior is ubiquitous to all the various denominations. You may debate speaking in tongues or infant baptism, but the doctrine of being saved by accepting Christ is one that all sides embrace.

You may feel you have to box in what the Bible says in order to justify rejecting it. I prefer to let God be God. I don't have all the answers by any means, but I do have a strong instinct that he disapproves of us assuming His role in the grand scheme of things.

The bible is plenty easy to reject, I don't need to box it in.

And yet you DO box it. Salvation is part of the repetitive theme that runs throughout the Old Testament - Creation, sin, judgment, redemption/salvation. It occurs again and again with the people expecting a Messiah but in no way expecting that Messiah to be a Jesus. Non-Christian but religious Jews still await the Messiah they believe is to come. Christians believe he is here. To say that salvation is he foundational doctrine of Christianity is part of it yes, but you want to make it into something that Jesus never said and that is not taught in the Old or New Testaments.

The gospel is about the promise of salvation and eternal life from God and Jesus being God with us for awhile. It does not specify any manmade rules for how that is obtained.

Human kind seems compelled to come up with rules, law, dogma, doctrine, and theory on all matters of religion and Christianity emerged from and/or was a continuation of a religion that lived and breathed by such rules etc. So it is understandable that such surfaced in the religious practice of Christianity early on.

But strip away ALL the trappings, paraphenalia, rules, regulations, doctrines, dogmas, etc. that well intentioned humans have attached to the 'religion' and you have the pure spirituality and reality that Jesus taught. God is with us, he loves us enough to die for us to demonstrate that our sins are forgiven, and he has prepared a place for us for all eternity.

All the rest is window dressing in my opinion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

foundational?

Do you disagree that the concept of salvation through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as savior is the foundation of Christianity?

 

[koshergrl]

No, I disagree that "foundational" is a word. And I question the biblical scholarship of someone who apparently doesn't have a firm grasp of the language to begin with...

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I disagree that "foundational" is a word. And I question the biblical scholarship of someone who apparently doesn't have a firm grasp of the language to begin with...

Seriously, a disagreement over one element doesn't make me the enemy.

foun·da·tion (foun-dshn)
n.
1. The act of founding, especially the establishment of an institution with provisions for future maintenance.
2. The basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported. See Synonyms at base1.
3.
a. Funds for the perpetual support of an institution; an endowment.
b. An institution founded and supported by an endowment.
4. A foundation garment.
5. A cosmetic base.
[Middle English fundacioun, from Latin fundti, fundtin-, from fundtus, past participle of fundre, to lay the groundwork for; see found1.]
foun·dation·al adj.

foundational - definition of foundational by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I have an MBA, my grasp of the language is superlative.

 

[koshergrl]

I know MBAs who can't read or write their way out of paper bags.

Ok, foundational is a word, lol...

But I'm going to look at a real dictionary just to double check...