Tentmaker Forum

Discussions Relating to Universal Reconciliation => Bible Verses Used to Assert Not All Will be Saved => Topic started by: clayton on May 25, 2011, 12:00:31 AM

Title: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: clayton on May 25, 2011, 12:00:31 AM
Hi everyone,

I'm new to the board. I need some advice.

My adult Sunday school class this coming weekend may touch on the Lake of Fire. The lesson book we are using treats it in the traditional way. I've never brought up in class or in church my own growing belief in UR and I am a little nervous about contradicting the orthodox view of the LoF. Any advice would be greatly appreciated on how I might GENTLY present a, let's say, differing viewpoint on the LoF without turning off folks who have probably never heard of such ideas.

Thank you in advance and I am very happy to be here. I hope I can contribute something to the board in the future.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Beloved Servant on May 25, 2011, 12:09:48 AM



http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW7.htm
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: shawn on May 25, 2011, 12:21:36 AM
Clayton,

Just make sure you are ready to accept the consequences of bringing something like that up.  Many in leadership could see you as a threat, and a heretic.  People have been kicked out of church for much less.  If that is a risk you are willing to take there are many topics on here about the LoF.  I would do a search and go through them. 
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on May 25, 2011, 01:45:04 AM
Over the past bit of believing in UR, and various attempts at sharing it, I've come to these thoughts;

easy does it;

perhaps "prime the pump" instead of tipping over the whole barrel;

i.e., "there are many things we've believed that bear further consideration.  There are mistranstralations of some key words having to do with eternal destiny (aion, gehenna) that affect our views of [the Lake of Fire, etc.]."     AND THE KICKER - "I believe there are many scriptures, when looked at in an accurate translation and keeping the above in mind, say that God's punishment is corrective - and He says in Habbakkuk, 'I will not cast off forever' ".   A good place to check this out further is ________/ I recommend reading________".

If you get "too far" into this, be prepared to never be seen the same way as before, and for your life to change.  The desert is a "lonely" place - but that is often where He calls us to and hence walks with us the closest.

Blessings, James.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: PaoloNuevo on May 25, 2011, 05:14:16 AM
J. Preston Eby, LOF:

http://www.savior-of-all.com/lakeoffire.html

Forever and Ever; a Poor Translation - from AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF WORDS: Louis Abbott

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter5.html
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on May 25, 2011, 08:40:41 AM
Hi and welcome Clayton,

Reread Shawn's answer a dozen of times...
If you go down the path make sure you know "everything".
Classic verses will be used to refute your view.
Matthew 25:46 ==> Clayton are you saying eternal life isn't eternal either?

Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Aleax on May 25, 2011, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on May 25, 2011, 08:40:41 AM
Hi and welcome Clayton,

Reread Shawn's answer a dozen of times...
If you go down the path make sure you know "everything".
Classic verses will be used to refute your view.
Matthew 25:46 ==> Clayton are you saying eternal life isn't eternal either?

I second that.
I made the mistake of trying to promote UR when I wasn't ready for it yet.
In the end I ran out of arguments, and the ET crowd thought they got me.
So practically I probably made more harm than good to our cause.
Sorry about that, folks...

Having said that... I do not know if you're ready or not. Maybe you really are. After all I do not know you at all.
I'm just saying that if you're going to take that step, be sure you have enough Scripture under your belt.
At least do read Martin Zender's (or Aldai Loudy's, or some other UR scholar's) take on Matthew 25:46.
Since that it THE PASSAGE that is going to be used to refute your case. I only speak from experience.

EDIT:

You could also take a look at the "God's Unfailing Love Revealed in the Cross" link in my sig.
Read the testimony, and take a look at the diagram.
The chances are it'll explain a lot of stuff for you.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: dboutwell on May 26, 2011, 08:58:49 AM
Definitely what Shawn said!  If you keep studying Universal reconciliation, it won't be very long until you will have a larger view of it that is connected with just about anything a "naysayer" can bring up.
Debbie :)
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: micah7:9 on May 26, 2011, 05:24:27 PM
bibletruths.com  or  bible-truths.com

http://not1lost.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Texas Son on May 28, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Most traditional ET's will intentionally walk in darkness unless the Lord illuminates the truth for them as He had done for me a few years back.

Here is one Scripture I use to get them to at least think though:

In Revelation Jesus is talking to the seven church's. To each He gives encouragement and admonishment. He also says "he who overcomes" and then shares a particular reward. Remember, He is talking to the Church's, so the ones He calls "overcomers" are specifically called out from the Church.

Sooo... in Revelation 2:11 Jesus says "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches, He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death." Notice, He did not say they would not enter the second death, only they would not be "hurt" by it.

What is the "second death"? It is the Lake of Fire of course! (Revelation 20:14, and Revelation 21:8)

The second death, is simply death to death. We are already in death now in this life. When we are saved, we enter into Christ's life. We are born out of death into Life. Those who do not claim His Life in this life, will enter the second death, to die to death. It is God's purifying fire.

Notice the Church is not exempt from the "second death" or Lake of Fire. Even the elect will enter into God's all consuming fire, yet they will not be "hurt" or "injured" for they have already been purified and purged of any carnal nature.

One other Scripture I have recently been studying is Isaiah 33:14,14 "Sinners in Zion are terrified; Trembling has seized the godless. Who among us can live with the consuming fire" Who among us can live with continual burning? (The answer in verse 15) "He who walks righteously and speaks with sincerity, He who rejects unjust gain, and shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe; He who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed, and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil".

Notice, the question is "who can live with the consuming fire", or KJV I believe says "who can dwell in the consuming fire?" It does not say the righteous will be outside of the fire. Indeed we will be in the presence of God where no carnal or fleshy thing will stand. This is the Lake of Fire.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: CHB on May 28, 2011, 05:25:30 PM
I like what you said.  :thumbsup:

CHB
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: clayton on May 29, 2011, 03:48:44 PM
Thanks everyone,

I meant to reply earlier but I have been so busy following some of these links you have given me.

It's Sunday morning and I am just going to let things take their course in the Bible study.  IF and only IF the LoF subject comes up and people start railing on about ET I don't think I can just sit there and say NOTHING. This awful lie that makes our loving Father into a sadistic monster has to be opposed.

I'm not going to try to win the war all by myself in one little Sunday morning Bible study but maybe I can plant a little humble seed in somebody's mind. Who knows what a seed can grow in to?

I'm thinking I will just remind the class that scripture often uses fire to symbolize God's chastening and purifying and have a couple verses ready if called on to back it up. If the discussion begins to turn toward me and what I've said then I will remind everyone that the overall lesson is not about the Lof and let it go at that.

Thanks again.

I'll let you know how it goes.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on May 29, 2011, 05:24:55 PM
Clayton, another approach is to use their own words against them. No frontal attacks but guide them a liitle with questions so they start thinking. Like: I really loved lastr month sermon about God having ultimate power to make His will be done. But I couldn't sleep of last week's sermon that seems to say satan is stealing most people against God's will. I searched and searched my Bible for many hours last week but I couldn't figure out how an almighty God can loose 95% of what He desires. ==> http://home.online.nl/spamfree/christian_double_talk.htm

The Matthew 25:46 verse is a lot harder to answer directly. It involves things that can be debated for ages without agreeing. In that case adding another set of clear verses to the mix may be the way to go: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/bible_verses_used_assert_not_all_will_be_saved/hebrews_927_after_death_comes_judgement_9660.0.html


http://home.online.nl/spamfree/molten_sea.htm
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/fire.htm
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/ur%20in%202%20verses.htm


Most classic argumensts are discussed on this forum. Just start a topic about your pastor's favorite topic and I'm sure people will give you some good verses and links.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: shawn on May 29, 2011, 06:16:19 PM
Quote from: clayton on May 29, 2011, 03:48:44 PM
Thanks everyone,

I meant to reply earlier but I have been so busy following some of these links you have given me.

It's Sunday morning and I am just going to let things take their course in the Bible study.  IF and only IF the LoF subject comes up and people start railing on about ET I don't think I can just sit there and say NOTHING. This awful lie that makes our loving Father into a sadistic monster has to be opposed.

I'm not going to try to win the war all by myself in one little Sunday morning Bible study but maybe I can plant a little humble seed in somebody's mind. Who knows what a seed can grow in to?

I'm thinking I will just remind the class that scripture often uses fire to symbolize God's chastening and purifying and have a couple verses ready if called on to back it up. If the discussion begins to turn toward me and what I've said then I will remind everyone that the overall lesson is not about the Lof and let it go at that.

Thanks again.

I'll let you know how it goes.

I think this is a terrific approach.  We plants seeds, and God grows.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: micah7:9 on May 29, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
Quote from: CHB on May 28, 2011, 05:25:30 PM
I like what you said.  :thumbsup:

CHB


Double that  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on May 29, 2011, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: Texas Son on May 28, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Most traditional ET's will intentionally walk in darkness unless the Lord illuminates the truth for them as He had done for me a few years back.

Here is one Scripture I use to get them to at least think though:

In Revelation Jesus is talking to the seven church's. To each He gives encouragement and admonishment. He also says "he who overcomes" and then shares a particular reward. Remember, He is talking to the Church's, so the ones He calls "overcomers" are specifically called out from the Church.

Sooo... in Revelation 2:11 Jesus says "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches, He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death." Notice, He did not say they would not enter the second death, only they would not be "hurt" by it.

What is the "second death"? It is the Lake of Fire of course! (Revelation 20:14, and Revelation 21:8)

The second death, is simply death to death. We are already in death now in this life. When we are saved, we enter into Christ's life. We are born out of death into Life. Those who do not claim His Life in this life, will enter the second death, to die to death. It is God's purifying fire.

Notice the Church is not exempt from the "second death" or Lake of Fire. Even the elect will enter into God's all consuming fire, yet they will not be "hurt" or "injured" for they have already been purified and purged of any carnal nature.

One other Scripture I have recently been studying is Isaiah 33:14,14 "Sinners in Zion are terrified; Trembling has seized the godless. Who among us can live with the consuming fire" Who among us can live with continual burning? (The answer in verse 15) "He who walks righteously and speaks with sincerity, He who rejects unjust gain, and shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe; He who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed, and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil".

Notice, the question is "who can live with the consuming fire", or KJV I believe says "who can dwell in the consuming fire?" It does not say the righteous will be outside of the fire. Indeed we will be in the presence of God where no carnal or fleshy thing will stand. This is the Lake of Fire.

Good post.  The bolded is how I see it and have shared it as well.  There is still one thing about it that gives me pause though;  the scripture that says the Lake of Fire was prepared "for the devil and his angels".  Anyone have insight into that?
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Cardinal on May 30, 2011, 12:56:35 AM
 :cloud9: My  :2c:......Devil and his angels = a head and a body that is adversarial to THE Head and His body. Nothing is ever completely destroyed with God, including the smithy HE created to be an adversary for HIS purposes. God is a consuming fire and all it does is turn whatever is not like Him, into something that IS like Him. In centuries past, men wasted a lot of time trying to turn base things into gold. God turns everything into gold, ie. His nature, which is witnessed by the furniture of the Most Holy being composed of gold. Blessings.....
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Texas Son on May 30, 2011, 06:41:58 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on May 30, 2011, 12:56:35 AM
:cloud9: My  :2c:......Devil and his angels = a head and a body that is adversarial to THE Head and His body. Nothing is ever completely destroyed with God, including the smithy HE created to be an adversary for HIS purposes. God is a consuming fire and all it does is turn whatever is not like Him, into something that IS like Him. In centuries past, men wasted a lot of time trying to turn base things into gold. God turns everything into gold, ie. His nature, which is witnessed by the furniture of the Most Holy being composed of gold. Blessings.....

Amen!

I see satan or the devil as a spirit of religiosity within each of us. I don't know if the devil is as much of an entity as a spirit within man that tries to usurp God which began in the garden. The Lake of Fire was meant to burn off anything apart from God's image within us. The spirit of satan and his like messengers (angels) will be burnt out of the heaven and earth within each of us.

Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on June 01, 2011, 01:04:08 AM
Quote from: jabcat on May 29, 2011, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: Texas Son on May 28, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Notice, the question is "who can live with the consuming fire", or KJV I believe says "who can dwell in the consuming fire?" It does not say the righteous will be outside of the fire. Indeed we will be in the presence of God where no carnal or fleshy thing will stand. This is the Lake of Fire.

Good post.  The bolded is how I see it and have shared it as well.  There is still one thing about it that gives me pause though;  the scripture that says the Lake of Fire was prepared "for the devil and his angels".  Anyone have insight into that?

Anyone have input on the Lake of Fire being cleansing, yet "prepared for the devil and his angels"?
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: shawn on June 01, 2011, 01:59:23 AM
Quote from: jabcat on June 01, 2011, 01:04:08 AM
Quote from: jabcat on May 29, 2011, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: Texas Son on May 28, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Notice, the question is "who can live with the consuming fire", or KJV I believe says "who can dwell in the consuming fire?" It does not say the righteous will be outside of the fire. Indeed we will be in the presence of God where no carnal or fleshy thing will stand. This is the Lake of Fire.

Good post.  The bolded is how I see it and have shared it as well.  There is still one thing about it that gives me pause though;  the scripture that says the Lake of Fire was prepared "for the devil and his angels".  Anyone have insight into that?

Anyone have input on the Lake of Fire being cleansing, yet "prepared for the devil and his angels"?

It shouldn't be an issue for those who believe the devil and his angels will also be cleansed and forgiven.  For me, it still makes me uncomfortable saying God will eventually reconcil the devil.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on June 01, 2011, 02:06:40 AM
That's what I see too Shawn.  However, I'm personally "OK" with God reconciling the devil, I see other ramifications there - as in, it was originally prepared for the devil and his angels, not men?  (I don't believe God went to a Plan B when mankind "ruined" His Plan A, so then I'm not sure how that all fits together.)   One writer I saw said the angels are messengers (which is what it technically means) and stated they are the preachers in the pulpits (and others in orthodoxy?) who are preaching a failed/weak God with an eternal torment. (!)      That was Mike Vinson (www.iswaswillbe.com).
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: shawn on June 01, 2011, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: jabcat on June 01, 2011, 02:06:40 AM
That's what I see too Shawn.  However, I'm personally "OK" with God reconciling the devil, I see other ramifications there - as in, it was originally prepared for the devil and his angels, not men?  (I don't believe God went to a Plan B when mankind "ruined" His Plan A, so then I'm not sure how that all fits together.)   One writer I saw said the angels are messengers (which is what it technically means) and stated they are the preachers in the pulpits (and others in orthodoxy?) who are preaching a failed/weak God with an eternal torment. (!)      That was Mike Vinson (www.iswaswillbe.com).

It's not that I am against anything God wants to do...will do or is doing.  It's just an uncomfortable stance for me.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on June 01, 2011, 06:09:22 AM
I think I understand.  I'm just not getting past the "prepared for" part, especially since I don't believe in a Plan B in God's intent.   :scratchhead:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 01, 2011, 08:37:02 AM
Quote from: jabcat on June 01, 2011, 01:04:08 AMAnyone have input on the Lake of Fire being cleansing, yet "prepared for the devil and his angels"?
Before that question can be answered two (three) other questions need to be answered.
a] What is LoF?
b] What is an angel (and devil)

We had that discussion before but it faded away...  :winkgrin:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Texas Son on June 01, 2011, 04:14:17 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 01, 2011, 08:37:02 AM
Quote from: jabcat on June 01, 2011, 01:04:08 AMAnyone have input on the Lake of Fire being cleansing, yet "prepared for the devil and his angels"?
Before that question can be answered two (three) other questions need to be answered.
a] What is LoF?
b] What is an angel (and devil)

We had that discussion before but it faded away...  :winkgrin:

Good questions WhiteWings.

My personal opinion about satan and his angels is that they are not "beings" but are spirits within us that drive us to religious doctrines, rituals, traditions and ceremonies which bypass and usurp God.

If you notice in the Garden of Eden, Adam never saw the serpent, nor did he accuse satan before God for his fall. He blamed woman. I believe the conversation between the serpent and Eve was in the heavens of Eve's mind.

Scripture says that the serpent was "more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made".   It doesn't say that the serpent was "made" just that he was "more crafty". Indeed satan is more crafty because it is a spirit within us that knows just where to strike for the best effect. It makes us question God and challenge His supremacy. When we are found to be "naked" we begin trying to clothes ourselves in religious acts to make ourselves presentable before God. Yet it is still all of "self" which is the seat or carnal thought.

Even pronouncing sentence on the serpent, I believe God is making him lower than any cattle or beast of the field that roam within our nature. The serpent will eat of the dust of which we came and always bring us the earthy thoughts rather than heavenly.

There is no need for satan or these fallen angels to be "saved" because they are only part of our corrupt fallen nature.

Just my  :2c: worth.

May
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Beloved Servant on June 01, 2011, 04:20:44 PM
   


:happyclap:   Very logical.   :happyclap:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 01, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
QuoteMy personal opinion about satan and his angels is that they are not "beings" but are spirits within us that drive us to religious doctrines, rituals, traditions and ceremonies which bypass and usurp God.

If you notice in the Garden of Eden, Adam never saw the serpent, nor did he accuse satan before God for his fall. He blamed woman. I believe the conversation between the serpent and Eve was in the heavens of Eve's mind.
YLTGen 3
13 And Jehovah God saith to the woman, `What is this thou hast done?' and the woman saith, `The serpent hath caused me to forget--and I do eat.'
14 And Jehovah God saith unto the serpent, `Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all the cattle, and above every beast of the field: on thy belly dost thou go, and dust thou dost eat, all days of thy life;

Assuming it's a spirit then how can it be compared to beasts of the field? Field = our mind?
I wanted to ask something about crawling on the belley but I don't even know how tho phrase that question :winkgrin:

QuoteThere is no need for satan or these fallen angels to be "saved" because they are only part of our corrupt fallen nature.
So Satan isn't a red guy with a pitchfork as WillieH would say. But if I understand you correctly it isn't an autonomous spirit/demon/... either?

YLTJob 1
6 And the day is, that sons of God come in to station themselves by Jehovah, and there doth come also the Adversary in their midst.
7 And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Whence comest thou?' And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `From going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down on it.'

Was it Job himself requested to be tested?
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Texas Son on June 02, 2011, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 01, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
QuoteMy personal opinion about satan and his angels is that they are not "beings" but are spirits within us that drive us to religious doctrines, rituals, traditions and ceremonies which bypass and usurp God.

If you notice in the Garden of Eden, Adam never saw the serpent, nor did he accuse satan before God for his fall. He blamed woman. I believe the conversation between the serpent and Eve was in the heavens of Eve's mind.
YLTGen 3
13 And Jehovah God saith to the woman, `What is this thou hast done?' and the woman saith, `The serpent hath caused me to forget--and I do eat.'
14 And Jehovah God saith unto the serpent, `Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all the cattle, and above every beast of the field: on thy belly dost thou go, and dust thou dost eat, all days of thy life;

Assuming it's a spirit then how can it be compared to beasts of the field? Field = our mind?
I wanted to ask something about crawling on the belley but I don't even know how tho phrase that question :winkgrin:

QuoteThere is no need for satan or these fallen angels to be "saved" because they are only part of our corrupt fallen nature.
So Satan isn't a red guy with a pitchfork as WillieH would say. But if I understand you correctly it isn't an autonomous spirit/demon/... either?

YLTJob 1
6 And the day is, that sons of God come in to station themselves by Jehovah, and there doth come also the Adversary in their midst.
7 And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Whence comest thou?' And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `From going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down on it.'

Was it Job himself requested to be tested?

Eve blaming Satan is a bit harder to explain but Scripture never claims she saw satan, only heard him. Even in the wilderness the tempter was perceived to only speak with Jesus but I don't see a physical manifestation mentioned. Jesus had the same questions posed to His flesh challenging God yet He did not take the bait.

In Luke 10:18 Jesus says He sees Satan (adversary) fall from heaven. However it was after the Disciples came back from healing people and casting out demons. I believe Jesus was speaking of the adversary falling from the heavens of peoples minds.

I believe the "crawling on the belly" indicates that the spirit of religiosity is of the lowest spirit of our carnal nature. While it pretends to be godward the food it feeds of us earthy, carnal.

This I believe is illustrated in the story of Job when the sons of God brings with them the adversary. Scripture does not say but I believe the "sons of God" in this circumstance was a picture of the religious authorities of that day. When God asks satan (who was with the son's of God) "have you considered My servant Job. For their is no one like him in the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil" I believe this drove the flesh, the carnal nature of the religious leaders nuts! The same scenario is brought forth that the adversary wants Job to turn against God. In the story, God illustrates a truly godly heart in a man.

With all that set said, I am set in stone on this "theology". Brother Elwin Roach has a few good articles on "Satan", "Lucifer" and "The Traducer (Devil)" at www.godfire.net.

Blessings! TS

Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on June 02, 2011, 02:23:04 AM
Hi TS.  Interesting comments.  Clarifying;  you are, or are not "set in stone on this theology"?  (didn't know if you may have left out a word).  Thanks, blessings.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: shawn on June 02, 2011, 02:43:53 AM
Another issue I have with satan only being a symbol for our carnal minds is the testing of Jesus.  Are we suggesting Jesus was tempted by his own carnal thoughts?

Whatcha think?
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: rosered on June 02, 2011, 03:20:08 AM
Quote from: shawn on June 02, 2011, 02:43:53 AM
Another issue I have with satan only being a symbol for our carnal minds is the testing of Jesus.  Are we suggesting Jesus was tempted by his own carnal thoughts?

Whatcha think?
Hi Shawn ,   just a thought , maybe not His carnal mind , I do not think Jesus was carnal
  unless you  think a sheep /lamb is   animal like in nature ??  innocent and all

  but more of the carnal nature of the accusers of the brethren Satan    when Jesus  always done good works    satan  a symbol for a serpent /wisdom of the world

  I do believe  its more of the temporary  wisdom   verses the eternal Wisdom of God  battling
  remember when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness LED of the Holy Spirit ..   what all was there with him in that wilderness
the WILD BEASTS  as well as the angels    the wild beasts  were what made him tempted to loose it  with them     done a massive study on them wild beasts ,  they were wicked  hearted
it was outside of Jesus were he was tempted   ,  consider Moses loosing it with  the children of Israel  when tempted he struck the ROCK / JESUS metaphorically speaking twice  and said  it was him saving them ,  failing to give God the glory  , Jesus always gives God the glory /GOD with Him   
moses was  meek and man of God  , it took God in Jesus Christ to do it  right ...

Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses [was] very meek, above all the men which [were] upon the face of the earth.)
to me  anywhoo  :HeartThrob: You show me I am willing to learn ..
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on June 02, 2011, 07:12:47 AM
Oh, I remembered something I'd wandered away from with this topic.  Another piece of this is, I've often said that I believe the Lake of Fire is either God's direct presence, and/or a spiritual condition He sets that brings about remorse and repentance.    However, the point I was getting at is, if that's true, and since the Lake of Fire was prepared "for the devil and his angels" - if the devil and his angels are true beings as I've always believed, then "God's direct presence and/or spiritual condition was PREPARED FOR them"?  That doesn't seem right.  If they were beings, then a literal lake of fire might more sense, except it would still mean the original intention was for "them", not anything with mankind.

On the other hand, if the devil and his angels are "those dark things inside of each of us", etc., that could make more sense - that the Lake was prepared to extenguish those things in us - not literal (or spiritual) BEINGS.    But then there's Shawn's point about Jesus being tempted.."by his own thoughts" or "dark things inside of Him"?  Something somewhere's still not adding up for me.  I can't add 1+1+1 and quite get 3 yet...  :sorry:

I can see why a literal interpretation makes sense to ET'ers...dotting i's and crossing t's on the spiritual interpretation is a bit difficult (for me - and I'm not sure I've seen anyone fully explain all the intricacies of this, although some [Mr. Eby] have some excellent thoughts on it).
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: rosered on June 02, 2011, 07:42:40 AM


    on the other hand  :thumbsup:    good thoughts James  :HeartThrob:  I can see both sides  of what your saying the literal is alot harder  for me  to believe now ,

I also wonder if the  little member we each possess   the tongue /accusations  does not  place us in that LOF  makes me think of the rich man and Lazarus  parable .
  these explain  how the tongue and fire  set the course  , I  have no real answers , but its interesting to ponder  :HeartThrob:


Psa 39:3 My heart was hot within me, while I was musing the fire burned: [then] spake I with my tongue,
Psa 57:4 My soul [is] among lions: [and] I lie [even among] them that are set on fire, [even] the sons of men, whose teeth [are] spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword.
Isa 30:27 Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning [with] his anger, and the burden [thereof is] heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:
Jam 3:5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! Jam 3:6 And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

comparing these to those
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
   I wonder if the anger and fire   are  more  of the same meaning ?
seem to not be  helping answer  clear , but just a different   way of seeing   all them things
   :dontknow:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 07:55:45 AM
Quote from: shawn on June 02, 2011, 02:43:53 AM
Another issue I have with satan only being a symbol for our carnal minds is the testing of Jesus.  Are we suggesting Jesus was tempted by his own carnal thoughts?

Whatcha think?
Who's the greatest?
a] A man that is pure and incapeble of evil.
b] A man with a flaws just like us and can resist all flaws.  --> overcomer
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: jabcat on June 02, 2011, 08:08:17 AM
OK, interesting Wings.


Thanks Rosie.  You know, the orthodox explanation is, the Lake of Fire is hell and it wasn't originally intended for mankind.  It was intended for Satan and the demons.  But when Adam disobeyed and "fell", then God decided to use it for men too.   :sigh:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:10:09 AM
Quote from: rosered on June 02, 2011, 03:20:08 AM
remember when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness LED of the Holy Spirit ..   what all was there with him in that wilderness
the WILD BEASTS  as well as the angels    the wild beasts  were what made him tempted to loose it  with them     done a massive study on them wild beasts ,  they were wicked  hearted
Dunno if I understand you correctly but I think HS is not helping Jesus in any way. In fact HS causes trouble for Jesus.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121796.html#msg121796 (only the message you see when clicking teh link is relevant to this topic)
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: rosered on June 02, 2011, 08:14:02 AM
Quote from: jabcat on June 02, 2011, 08:08:17 AM
OK, interesting Wings.


Thanks Rosie.  You know, the orthodox explanation is, the Lake of Fire is hell and it wasn't originally intended for mankind.  It was intended for Satan and the demons.  But when Adam disobeyed and "fell", then God decided to use it for men too.   :sigh:
Thanks Bro J
   that never sat well with me neither  :sigh:   never  made  sense ?? God help  :HeartThrob:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: rosered on June 02, 2011, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:10:09 AM
Quote from: rosered on June 02, 2011, 03:20:08 AM
remember when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness LED of the Holy Spirit ..   what all was there with him in that wilderness
the WILD BEASTS  as well as the angels    the wild beasts  were what made him tempted to loose it  with them     done a massive study on them wild beasts ,  they were wicked  hearted
Dunno if I understand you correctly but I think HS is not helping Jesus in any way. In fact HS causes trouble for Jesus.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121796.html#msg121796 (only the message you see when clicking teh link is relevant to this topic)
Hi BroT ,
   How could Jesus be tempted in all points like us  IF    Jesus was never tempted ?
  Holy Spirit  knows   whats going on and does it perfectly  :icon_flower:
   How else we gonna believe  Gods Word if  we do not understand it ? 
Its Perfect    I tell ya no doubt about it .. :HeartThrob:

  ok I will read your link now  :icon_king:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:16:30 AM
Quote from: jabcat on June 02, 2011, 07:12:47 AM
Oh, I remembered something I'd wandered away from with this topic.  Another piece of this is, I've often said that I believe the Lake of Fire is either God's direct presence, and/or a spiritual condition He sets that brings about remorse and repentance.
What if it isn't spiritual at all?
When you look at very literal Hebrew Moses recieved  a "fire law" aka "fiery law".
So LoF is a lake of law/justice. People are cast into the law. Meaning being subjected by the law.
:dontknow:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:23:51 AM
Quote from: rosered on June 02, 2011, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:10:09 AM
Quote from: rosered on June 02, 2011, 03:20:08 AM
remember when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness LED of the Holy Spirit ..   what all was there with him in that wilderness
the WILD BEASTS  as well as the angels    the wild beasts  were what made him tempted to loose it  with them     done a massive study on them wild beasts ,  they were wicked  hearted
Dunno if I understand you correctly but I think HS is not helping Jesus in any way. In fact HS causes trouble for Jesus.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121796.html#msg121796 (only the message you see when clicking teh link is relevant to this topic)
Hi BroT ,
   How could Jesus be tempted in all points like us  IF    Jesus was never tempted ?
  Holy
That's my whole point. Jesus was tempted (a lot). Flawless people can't be tempted. The whole chapter would be a waste of ink and paper.
The verse says Jesus was tempted. The verse doesn't say satan tried to tempt Jesus but Jesus never felt temptation.
And that's why I gave you that link. Jesus had no help of HS at all. If I understand the 2 goats ritual correctly the HS left when Jesus was in the wilderness.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: rosered on June 02, 2011, 08:46:33 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:23:51 AM
Quote from: rosered on June 02, 2011, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:10:09 AM
Quote from: rosered on June 02, 2011, 03:20:08 AM
remember when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness LED of the Holy Spirit ..   what all was there with him in that wilderness
the WILD BEASTS  as well as the angels    the wild beasts  were what made him tempted to loose it  with them     done a massive study on them wild beasts ,  they were wicked  hearted
Dunno if I understand you correctly but I think HS is not helping Jesus in any way. In fact HS causes trouble for Jesus.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121796.html#msg121796 (only the message you see when clicking teh link is relevant to this topic)
Hi BroT ,
   How could Jesus be tempted in all points like us  IF    Jesus was never tempted ?
  Holy
That's my whole point. Jesus was tempted (a lot). Flawless people can't be tempted. The whole chapter would be a waste of ink and paper.
The verse says Jesus was tempted. The verse doesn't say satan tried to tempt Jesus but Jesus never felt temptation.
And that's why I gave you that link. Jesus had no help of HS at all. If I understand the 2 goats ritual correctly the HS left when Jesus was in the wilderness.


The verse says Jesus was tempted. The verse doesn't say satan tried to tempt Jesus but Jesus never felt temptation
it was by satan / devil  Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

saw     the High Priest  Jesus     being tempted  by all points like us YET   WITHOUT SIN ... this is what both  describe
Strong's G3985 - peirazō 1) to try whether a thing can be done

a) to attempt, endeavour

2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself

a) in a good sense

b) in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments

c) to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin

1) to solicit to sin, to tempt

a) of the temptations of the devil

d) after the OT usage

1) of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith

2) men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted

3) by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

Strong's G3987 - peiraō

1) to make a trial of, to attempt

a) taught by trial, experienced

2) to test, to make trial of one, put him to proof

a) his mind, sentiments, temper

b) in particular, to attempt to induce one to commit some (esp. carnal) crime

c) tempted to sin


and satan failed the test   Jesus wins  :HeartThrob:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:47:30 AM
Just found a verse posted by TT. I think it's very relevant in this thread.

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: rosered on June 02, 2011, 08:52:09 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:47:30 AM
Just found a verse posted by TT. I think it's very relevant in this thread.

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
GOOD  YES  :icon_flower:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: redhotmagma on June 02, 2011, 02:34:04 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:16:30 AM
Quote from: jabcat on June 02, 2011, 07:12:47 AM
Oh, I remembered something I'd wandered away from with this topic.  Another piece of this is, I've often said that I believe the Lake of Fire is either God's direct presence, and/or a spiritual condition He sets that brings about remorse and repentance.
What if it isn't spiritual at all?
When you look at very literal Hebrew Moses recieved  a "fire law" aka "fiery law".
So LoF is a lake of law/justice. People are cast into the law. Meaning being subjected by the law.
:dontknow:

ELM talks about God instituting the law for nonbelievers after the time of the anti-christ to bring them through the stages of religion as he calls them.  He says the corruption is so much by the antichrist that people will have to be educated in righteousness, starting with OT law.  Maybe thats the lake of fire?
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 02:54:13 PM
Could be Red.
I think most* OT laws are not done away as many Christians say.

*=The ones that are done away are the ones based on sacrifice, which has become useless after the final sacrifice by Jesus. Likely a few others but I think in God's eyes teh OT laws are far from done away.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Texas Son on June 02, 2011, 04:35:40 PM
Quote from: jabcat on June 02, 2011, 02:23:04 AM
Hi TS.  Interesting comments.  Clarifying;  you are, or are not "set in stone on this theology"?  (didn't know if you may have left out a word).  Thanks, blessings.

LOL, oops as many times as I proofread that I still missed adding that "not". Thanks for catching it.

I am NOT set in stone on that theology.  :bigGrin:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: eaglesway on June 03, 2011, 01:55:25 AM
http://hell-is-a-myth.webs.com/thefireofgod.htm (http://hell-is-a-myth.webs.com/thefireofgod.htm)

Jesus' eyes are as flames of fire. The eye is the light of the soul. If the eye is single, the whole body is full of light. Our God is a consuming fire. Light consumes darkness. We are 'children of the day'. Let us walk in the light. Even now the "day is dawning", "the dawn is becoming full noon", "the veil that covers many nations" is being removed.Those who walk in darkness will stand before Him on the Day when He discerns/exposes the secrets of mens' hearts, for He "tries the reigns and the hearts". His eyes will search them out for "all things are opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do". Those who are cast into the lake of fire will be tormented by exposure to the flame of light that consumes the darkness because "nothing is hidden that will not be brought to light", i.e. the secrets of every heart will be revealed. "Everything that is brought to the light becomes light"(Eph 5:13), in other words, the power of darkness is darkness/deception. Wen every secret is revealed and consumed by light , no longer in the dark having power as an adversary but humbled before Him, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father, consumed by the fire of love and the light of the cross of Jesus Christ and awakened into the glory of sacrificial love. That is why we have a wisdom that none of the principalities can understand. If they did they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory who says, BEHOLD I AM MAKING ALL THINGS NEW".
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: Cardinal on June 03, 2011, 02:31:03 AM
 :cloud9: Amen  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: shawn on June 04, 2011, 11:13:07 PM
Quote from: rosered on June 02, 2011, 08:52:09 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 02, 2011, 08:47:30 AM
Just found a verse posted by TT. I think it's very relevant in this thread.

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
GOOD  YES  :icon_flower:

Don't know why that verse has passed me up.  Good stuff.
Title: Re: How can I refute traditional concept of LoF?
Post by: rosered on June 04, 2011, 11:26:35 PM


good stuff last few posts   :icon_flower: Thanks  :HeartThrob: