Is there something in the text surrounding these passages that justifies the insertion of eternal consequences into the interpretation? I don't see it, these are ISRAELITES that Ezekiel was sent to, which to me typically [by type] is very significant. He wasn't sent to the Babylonians, he was sent to the Israelites.
I've already stated my opinion, no eternal consequences; and provided the example of Jonah having the blood of the Ninevites brought upon him.
his blood I will require at your hand?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by CarpentersApprentice, Jul 7, 2014.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
In Ezekiel 3 the Lord is having a dialog with Ezekiel. He informs Ezekiel about Israel's disobedience (vs. 7-9). God warns Ezekiel that he needs to discharge his duties faithfully or God will hold him accountable if he does not (vs. 18, 20). It is the same thing in Ezekiel 33. God is not telling Ezekiel that he will be eternally punished. God is telling Ezekiel he will be held accountable. If God wanted to, he could have taken Ezekiel's life because of his disobedience had he not carried out the Lord's command.
Look at the story of Jonah. Jonah was told to go preach to Nineveh, but he refused and fled instead. God held Jonah accountable for his actions by having him swallowed by a great fish (Jonah 1:17).
In Ezekiel the text does not indicate that if Ezekiel disobeyed God's command that his eternal life would be forfeit. We need to be careful not to exceed what scripture reveals about itself. -
I did not read the thread, but I suspect you got differing answers:1) We suffer loss in this life, but our eternal rewards are unaffected.
2) Since, by our inaction, we contributed to the loss of a soul, and God does not desire any to be lost, we suffer loss of rewards for our failures to warn the lost.
Answer #1 would tend to come from Calvinists, and answer #2 would tend to come from non-Calvinists.
So lets try another tact, what does scripture say? If we look at 2 Samuel 4:11 we see the phrase appears to refer to a death sentence. Could this support the Old Covenant loss of salvation for unfaithfulness theory, perhaps. But obviously it has no application, other than loss of rewards, for those with eternal life under the New Covenant. John 3:16 precludes that application to born anew believers. -
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you. Heb 13:17 -
As for Hodge and Bork, I don't care what they think. In rightly dividing the word of God we are not called to heed man's interpretation but the word of God itself. The idea that we should give credence to how the original audience interpreted the scriptures is simply wrong and downright dangerous. I have shown you in other discussions that even the Bible tells us that the original audience often got it wrong, very wrong (a point that you have neglected to even try to refute). We must interpret scripture according to what the author intended the audience to understand, not how they decided to understand it. It is the author that was inspired, not the audience. I do not add to the scriptures and I do not make it mean whatever I want it to, as you claim I do. I simply prefer the word of God over the word of man. If you prefer the advice of men over the instruction of the word of God, I feel that there is little common ground that we can come to. If this is not the case then I am glad of it and sorry to make such an accusation. As for myself I will continue to use the word of God as the only ruler by which all doctrine must be measured.
This does not mean that I am always correct. In fact far from it. I am more often wrong then right. But if you want to prove to me that I am wrong, do not bring me what man says, bring me what God says through his written word. Do this and I will believe.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
(Rom 6:23)
As far as I can tell, no one is saying that Ezekiel's eternal life would have been forfeit had he not preached to the Israelites. What is being said is that some of his rewards would have been forfeit. I hope this help to clarify the discussion. -
-
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
-
-
I agree with your summary in principle. I go farther though, in recognizing that we have been chosen for a task, sharing the gospel with those around us. As such these words apply to us as well. We see a picture of this working out in I Corinthians 3:11-15. If we build on the foundation of Christ with worthy works, such as sharing the gospel, we will be rewarded in heaven. If not, we will have no such rewards. I can think of few things worse for a Christian then to enter heaven empty handed, with nothing to law at Jesus' feet. Law on this the eternal knowledge that we had the opportunity to share the gospel with someone and we did not.
-
BTW, this is Hodge's first rule of interpretation, not his only rule.
Check out the 'original perception' here in this parable:
40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mt 21
Did 'the audience' perceive correctly? Or do you totally disregard their perception? -
Check out this other original perception:
"Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" (John 2:18-20)
The original perception here is that Jesus was speaking of the physical temple. Was this original perception correct? John goes on to say:
"But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." (John 2:21-22)
The original perception in this instance is clearly incorrect. How then can we say that we must read scripture in the light of the original perception? If we did that here we would be in terrible error. This is why I say we must read scripture in the light of original intent, not the original perception.
Page 2 of 2