zerinus Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 The passage in question isn't clear that it's referring to mankind.As I said, "People who don't know exactly who christ was, are judged on what they do know, not what they don't know. As Paul states, no one is without excuse, and to whom is given much, much is also required."Only God knows who is saved or not.But that is not exactly the Evangelical position that I have heard. They say if you die without believing in Jesus, you are damed, no exceptions.
Hughes Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 If you are going to quote me, please use my exact words. What I said was a parable is "a story used to teach a principle, the story not being an account of a true event".Recall the story was to make that point that people ought to be following the Law of Moses, which the rich man had not done, that they should follow the prophets and believe their words. Abraham (the speaker in the parable) has Lazarus in his "bosom", showing that this is not heaven, but only the Spirit World, because "heaven" is with Father, not one of His servants, not even one so high as Abraham.No, I wasn't quoting you, thanks. Abraham's bosom was heaven in the jewish context. There is no teaching in the bible of a "spirit world" where we go before we see God. As Paul said, to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ. And to the Thief next to Jesus on the cross, today you will be with me... This parable is consistent with this teaching. You claim I am wrong, that there is no possibility of repentance after this life, but Peter tells us that disobedient people heard the Gospel in spirit prison, precisely so they could repent. You even claim that those who heard the Gospel in prison were not "evil", as I had asserted; that the "peter [sic] passage doesn't say those were evil people", but that's because you only tread the piece I quoted. Just a few verses earlier, Peter does say they were "disobedient": "Christ ... went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient ...". Disobedient spirits in prison don't seem like candidates for the label "righteous", at least in my mind. OK, the contention of the LDS (ie Joseph Smith) is that Peter says that Jesus went and preached the "Gospel in spirit prison, precisely so they could repent." (quoting you exactly)Now, this is taken from 1 Peter 3:19 - "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" (KJV)Yet, the problem is that the passage doesn't indicate or imply that Jesus offered the hope of salvation to these spirits, it doesn't say Christ evangelized them. Rather, that he simply proclaimed the victory of his resurrection. The issue of who these spirits are is a moot point, as no salvation was offered them after they died. Which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.The other passage, 1 Peter 4:6 "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."This passage doesn't say that the gospel is preached to anyone after they physically die. What Peter is saying is that the gospel is preached to those who are dead spiritually, so that they might come alive spiritually. It has nothing to do with preaching to the physically dead."And after this" can mean "immediately following this", but that's not the only possible meaning. I have seen a lot of Evangelicals make far too much of this verse. A host of things could come "after this". The meaning Apollos had in mind in this verse hasn't anything to do with when we will be judged, but the fact that Christ suffered but once for all sin. Notice the repeated use of "once". There's a reason writers use this kind of device.The use of a "once" repeatedly for emphasis doesn't negate the passage quoted, showing that "after this the judgment:"Your extension of "after this" to mean what ever you wish it to mean is obviously motivated, not by biblical context, but my your own mormon influences. That's about the first time I have ever heard an Evangelical admit that there is a chance for those who have not explicitly "accepted Jesus as Savior" in this life.Here's one example:"In John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "If you do not believe this there is 100% chance when you die you will go to hell. Please understand I do not hate you or want you to go there! I just hope to wake you up with this truth preached by Tim Conway from Hell is Necessary sermon. Hell is real and there is no escape."So, your departure from this makes you sound very LDS, rather than Evangelical.LehiOh well. I couldn't ever follow Joseph Smith false teachings. I do think for myself, and understand that God judges the heart and about all those who haven't heard specifically about Jesus this present a problem or even make it hard for God to know the heart of man.
Hughes Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Hughes, on 15 March 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:Hmmm... A word was left out of 20:15, you said it was the word "if". Hmmm...Rev. 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."Nope. Not missing. oh well.NIV - Rev 20:15 "IF" anyone's name was not written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Yes "IF" [ Meaning on condition of ] is in some Bibles but is missing in some Bibles. Hughes You had better call the NIV Translating committee to recall all the NIV Bibles to get that changed if it's not supposed to be there . In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHTSo your whole point is to criticize the NIV?
Hughes Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 But that is not exactly the Evangelical position that I have heard. They say if you die without believing in Jesus, you are damed, no exceptions.Ok. It's possible that you've not read evangelicals who have thought a little bit about the subject.
Anakin7 Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 But that is not exactly the Evangelical position that I have heard. They say if you die without believing in Jesus, you are damed, no exceptions. And remember that not all [billions, past,present,future] have,are,will have a preacher to declare the good news to them. See Romans 10:15. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Anakin7 Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 So your whole point is to criticize the NIV? You see but see not, hear and hear not. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Anakin7 Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Just checked my N.A.S.B and it has the conditional word "if" for Rev 20:15. Awesome. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Anakin7 Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Hughes what Church denomination do you fellowship/worship with ?. In his Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
zerinus Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Ok. It's possible that you've not read evangelicals who have thought a little bit about the subject.You mean since Mormonism came along? LOL!
Hughes Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Hughes what Church denomination do you fellowship/worship with ?. In his Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT.Foursquare, AG, and non-demoninational.
David T Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Here's another interview with him:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HFrbJCnwOY&feature=related
zerinus Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Nope.Don't you think it would be easier to just become a Mormon, rather than try to steal our clothes?
Hughes Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Don't you think it would be easier to just become a Mormon, rather than try to steal our clothes?Why would I knowingly follow false teachings?
zerinus Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Why would I knowingly follow false teachings?You are already following false teachings. Evangelical theology is false; and Mormonism is true.
Hughes Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 You are already following false teachings. Evangelical theology is false; and Mormonism is true.Funny. On what basis if Evangelical theology false? And Mormonism true?
LeSellers Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 On what basis if Evangelical theology false? And Mormonism true?On the basis of the witness of the Holy Ghost.Lehi
Anakin7 Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Funny. On what basis if Evangelical theology false? And Mormonism true? Do a Google search for the Book : Problems with Evangelical Theology by Bill Witherington In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
zerinus Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Funny. On what basis if Evangelical theology false?All kinds of things; from salvation by faith alone without works, to a false theology of the Trinity.And Mormonism true?Everything: Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Priesthood, latter-day prophets and Apostles, modern day revelation, you name it, the Church has it.
Hughes Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 On the basis of the witness of the Holy Ghost.LehiOn the same basis I find Joseph Smith's teachings false. Do a Google search for the Book : Problems with Evangelical Theology by Bill Witherington In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHTDo a google search on "what is a conversation..."
Mudcat Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 I watched an interview with him in which he rejected the emergent description. He has a problem with labels as they separate us while his goal is to unify us under the banner of Christ.MnG,Likely you and I will be at odds on this issue. But I hope you will hear me out.I don't blame Rob for rejecting the term "emergent", it's a slam term used more by the opposition to emergent doctrine than it actually is used in "emergent" circles. Seems he has a problem with Evangelical as a term also.However, despite his rejection of labels, your OP defines Rob as an Evangelical. Based upon the quote I sourced, Rob wouldn't agree with the terming himself "Evangelical" either.How is that different than early church writers who wrote their personal interpretations of the faith?I want to respond respond here but want clarification. Are you referring to NT writers or are you referring to Ignatus, Clement, Origen and so forth..... or perhaps both? The notion that free will continues after death is very consistent with Mormonism - another reason I find Bell interesting.The notion that free will continues after death is consistent with Evangelicalism, as well.I think your opinion is probably going to be the prevailing one. I've seen numerous videos denouncing Bell for heresy. His presumed heresies align nicely with Mormonism, though, which again, fascinates me. I say "presumed" because I have only begun reading, watching, and listening to him - I'm not sure yet whether he's presenting anything more than a marketing gimmick at this point.Bold mine. It isn't my opinion completely. I see the general direction Bell is going with his speculations and assumptions and I actually sympathies and empathize a great deal with his reasoning. In some sense I have come to similar speculative and assumptive conclusions but I am also cognizant that I could be completely wrong about quite a bit.I think the difference in views would be that Bell expresses his speculative assumptions out in books and promotes such jargon as the way we should look at things. The foundation for such thought is entirely to thin in any doctrinal sense, IMO. Yet Bell seems to want to lead others specifically in this direction. To me that is his error. I do see it as a bit of a marketing gimmick. But what he is selling is speculative.Certainly I can see the fascination you might have with another type of Christian that seems to head in the same general direction as yourself.Regards,Mudcat
Anakin7 Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 On the same basis I find Joseph Smith's teachings false. Do a google search on "what is a conversation..."
mercyngrace Posted March 17, 2011 Author Posted March 17, 2011 However, despite his rejection of labels, your OP defines Rob as an Evangelical. Based upon the quote I sourced, Rob wouldn't agree with the terming himself "Evangelical" either.I described him as such because that's how he was described in the cited article. It wasn't a label I gave him so much as a reference to the article. I want to respond respond here but want clarification. Are you referring to NT writers or are you referring to Ignatus, Clement, Origen and so forth..... or perhaps both? I was asking about post-Biblical writers.The notion that free will continues after death is consistent with Evangelicalism, as well.So why the opposition to Bell? That seems to be the point he's making.Bold mine. It isn't my opinion completely. I see the general direction Bell is going with his speculations and assumptions and I actually sympathies and empathize a great deal with his reasoning. In some sense I have come to similar speculative and assumptive conclusions but I am also cognizant that I could be completely wrong about quite a bit.Sorry. I wasn't trying to be presumptuous. I was just referring to the seeming widespread rejection of Bell based on the blogger backlash. I know that isn't authoritative, I was just being lazy in thinking that might reflect a majority view.I think the difference in views would be that Bell expresses his speculative assumptions out in books and promotes such jargon as the way we should look at things. The foundation for such thought is entirely to thin in any doctrinal sense, IMO. Yet Bell seems to want to lead others specifically in this direction. To me that is his error. I do see it as a bit of a marketing gimmick. But what he is selling is speculative.Certainly I can see the fascination you might have with another type of Christian that seems to head in the same general direction as yourself.Regards,MudcatI can appreciate those concerns. I don't think they are unique. Many LDS respond with similar hesitation to writers and speakers within our community who seem to be going off the rails.
zerinus Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 On the same basis I find Joseph Smith's teachings false.I find Evangelical theology false on the basis of the Bible.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 What there is no eternal damnation for everyone I don't like or I don't agree with!!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.