Featured How To Get To Heaven When You Die

So you are content to have Jesus Christ in the Glory of the Godhead as well as the Saints in resurrected and glorified bodies living on this earth with mortal and sinful mankind! I suggest you study 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation 11:15-19 and Chapters 20-22!

Then you are denying Scripture:

Philippians 1:21-26
21. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
22. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
23. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
24. Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
25. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith;
26. That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Acts 7:57-60
57.Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58. And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
59. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

 

Greetings again OldRegular,

Yes, Jesus and the resurrected and glorified believers will be kings and priests for the 1000 years.
Isaiah 2:1-4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Revelation 5:9-10 (KJV): 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

1 Corinthians 15 definitely speaks of a transition period after the return of Jesus. Paul expounds aspects of Psalm 8 that speaks of things upon this earth, where Jesus will bring into subjection “all rule and all authority and power” v24, and the duration of the kingdom on earth until the end of the 1000 years where even death is destroyed v26.

I believe 2 Peter 3 is figurative language that must be balanced against many other passages such as Peter’s speech in Acts 3:19-21 that speaks of times of refreshing and restoration at the return of Jesus – not total destruction. Revelation 11:15-19 and Chapters 20-22 are again figurative language and must be balanced against Revelation 5:9-10 quoted above.

Paul explains his destiny when he was about to depart.
2 Timothy 4:1,6-8 (KJV): 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Could you please decide or explain whether it is an immortal soul or an immaterial spirit that goes to God at death, and do both or either of these retains the person’s character etc. I believe that the portion of God’s spirit that sustains us in life returns to God at death. I will await the resurrection if I die before the coming of the Lord.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Perhaps God will grant your delusion and let you sleep but I doubt it. As for me, like Paul and all the Saints of both the Old and New Testament, I will go to be with my GOD and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

Greetings again OldRegular,

It will be interesting when either of us face our destiny, who will be the most surprised. I expect you anticipate that as I am a heretic I will be sent to the fires of hell. I am not sure if all early Baptists, Congregationalists or non-conformists believed in heaven going immediately at death. Some at least believed in the resurrection and the Kingdom of God on earth for the 1000 years.

I find it difficult to understand what what would be the sequence for those who believe in an immortal soul. A preliminary assessment:
1. The immortal soul goes to heaven or hell at death. Those who go to heaven are in glory, paradise and bliss for eternity. Those in hell are tortured for ever with hell fire.
2. Christ returns and raises the dead. I assume he reunites the immortal soul or immaterial spirit that was in heaven with this resurrected body. Is the immortal soul incomplete without the body?
3. Christ then judges all mankind and even though they had been previously rewarded or condemned, he now judges them for the first time and rewards them again or condemns them again to burn in hell. Do immortal condemned bodies suffer more with flames than immortal souls?
Please note that a previous head of the Church of England in Australia believed in immortals souls going to heaven and hell at death, but rejected the resurrection of the body.

The historian Edward Gibbon could be called an independent witness as he was writing from a historical perspective. He may have been biased towards heaven going as he was most probably CofE or something similar. In “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” he speaks of the causes which operated the rapid progress of the gospel in the first two hundred years after Christ:

This is the impartial testimony of a man who was well acquainted with the literature of the times contemporary with, and immediately succeeding, those of the apostles. Gibbon’s testimony is important and useful and reveals:
1. That it claims that the nearer we approach to the times of the Apostles, the stronger and more universal was the belief of the Apocalyptic teaching concerning the Millennium, and reign of Christ and the Saints upon the earth;
2. That it was well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind;
3. That so long as it continued the reigning sentiment, the faith rapidly progressed;
4. That when the edifice of the Apostate Church was almost completed, the doctrine of Christ’s reign began to be abandoned;
5. That when they had completed the Apostasy, the doctrine was repudiated as heresy and fanaticism; and
6. That the Apocalypse itself had a narrow escape of being expelled from the canon of inspiration

One major contributor to this change of doctrine was the adoption of the Pagan and Grecian teaching of the immortality of the soul, and this was adapted to the concept of going to heaven or hell at death. This was contrary to the Biblical and Apostolic belief that man is mortal because of sin. Man was sentenced to return to the dust and to await the resurrection and judgement at the return of Christ when he comes to establish his Kingdom upon this earth for the 1000 years Genesis 2:7, 16-17, 3:19, Daniel 12:2, 2 Timothy 4:1,6-8.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Deny it if you wish but you are a Jehovah's Witness. No one else could have the twisted view of Scripture you have.

Man is mortal because of sin. But man is more than flesh and blood which you apparently cannot understand. Your argument is that man ceases to exist at death which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture throughout. I would suggest that you throw away the heresy of the Watchtower Society and ask GOD for forgiveness and the fruit of salvation!

 

Greetings again OldRegular,

I appreciate the sincerity of your response but you are not very discerning and are thus mistaken. Perhaps you have not carefully considered the detail of their wrong doctrines. Please note what I stated at the end, but also at the beginning of this earlier Post, #20:

The JWs believe that Jesus “returned” 100 years ago in 1914, while I am patiently waiting for the literal return of Jesus Acts 1:11, 3:19-21. Do you believe in the return of Jesus? And what will this return achieve if the faithful dead are already in heaven?

The JWs do not believe that Jesus will reign from literal Jerusalem, nor do they believe in the restoration and conversion of natural Israel and the nations Isaiah 2:1-4, Micah 4:1-8. They do not believe that the body of Jesus was resurrected, but was somehow preserved, thus denying Acts 2:25-28. Would you like me to list or discuss 50 other JW doctrines that I disagree with, including some of their erroneous translations in the NWT?

I certainly endorse and appreciate your last phrase, that we need to “ask GOD for forgiveness and the fruit of salvation!” I also believe that we need to be renewed in this continually.

Yes, man is more than flesh and blood, as he has the capacity to absorb the moral character of God. Man was made in the image and likeness of God Genesis 1:26, but this is not speaking concerning an immortal soul or immaterial spirit. Genesis 2:7 is quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:45 to show that the soul is mortal and awaits the resurrection. At the return of Jesus after the resurrection “we shall be like him” 1 John 3:1-3.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

In a book by WL Lumpkin “Baptist Confessions of Faith”, Revised Edition 1969, the following is Clause XXII of the Standard Confession of 1660:

This is an indication of the faith of some of the early Baptists.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Since you are into Baptist Confessions consider the following from the Baptist Confession o=f 1677 {1687} from page 241 of Lumpkin:

For convenience he following is taken from {http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part3}

 

And then there is this from the Orthodox Creed of 1679 {Lumpkin, page 297}: {http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/orthodox-creed.pdf}

 

Greetings again OldRegular,

I appreciate your two Posts. There seems to be a marked difference between “The Standard Confession” of 1660 and what you have quoted. I would need to study the Baptist history of this period. I also need to study fully all these statements, but my initial impression is that there is an emphasis on the resurrection and the kingdom and no mention of immortal souls in that of 1660, and immortal souls, heaven going and no real emphasis on the Kingdom in those that you quoted. The only statement that I noticed so far is on Page 237 that states “The Calvinism of this Confession (1677) at points is more pronounced than that of the London Confession of 1644”. Again I have not considered “The London Confession, 1644” on page 144.

I have electronic copies of Thomas Crosby’s History of the English Baptists Volumes 1-4 1738, but I have not found reading electronic books easy, especially old books with strange fonts, with an "s" more like an "f", but only if the "s" is in the middle of the word. I usually only use electronic books for brief reference.

Also out of interest, what are the different features of the Congregational Church. Most of the Congregational Churches in Australia were absorbed into the Uniting Church, mainly Methodists and a few Presbyterians.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

:thumbsup:

God bless.

 

Scripture clearly shows that Christ will bring judgment when He returns, prior to the Millennial Kingdom. So in your first quote the question arises, does this passage teach only one judgment such as we see at the Great White Throne, thus negating the teaching of Christ in regards to the Sheep and Goat Judgment of Matthew 25, or do we simply recognize that Prophecy often has multiple fulfillments and we need to be careful not to confuse the near fulfillments with the culmination of Prophecy?

This principle applies to the second quote as well:

Does Paul contradict and disannul Christ's teaching? Not at all, Paul has in view, I believe, the temporal aspect of Christ's Return, at which time all things which offend will be cast out, as nothing that offends will enter into that Kingdom, but only those born again, as He taught.

In the third quote...

We can again see application to both the Return of Christ as well as ultimate fulfillment in the Eternal State. We see marked in Revelation a time in which crowns are already bestowed and what happens here...


Revelation 4:10-11

King James Version (KJV)

10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


Difficult to confuse this event with a timing which takes place after the Millennial Kingdom, but place it only prior to the Tribulation, seeing that after the crowns are cast...the Judgments of God begin.

The primary point would be that none of these speak of the nature or disposition of Paul's spirit, but refers to reward and existence following death. It is a conscious existence without question.

Edited answer: I don't think genuine Scholars would see it as spurious, which might cast the sentiment in the verse as false, but rather question it's presence in earlier manuscripts. Theologically speaking the statement is true, so while we might question whether this was intended to end up in this translation by God, or was an error (whether intentional or unintentional) on the part of someone along the line, using it to deny the Deity of Christ which is found in a great many passages and teachings is as futile as trying to "prove" the Trinity by using it.

But we do not proof-text a position based on part of what Scripture teaches, but rather balance the Whole Counsel.

Unquestionably the fact that Christ states, to paraphrase, "In seeing Me you have seen the Father, and it is surprising that after having been with you so long you do not recognize that."

That John 1 teaches that the Christ was God, and is God is denied for questionable reasons. The text is very clear. It states clearly "God dwelt with men in the Person of Jesus Christ," and that that Person, Jesus Christ...was God.


Continued...

 

You need to consider the Historical and Cultural context in which Christ makes this statement. While modern exegetes might try to diminish the import of the statement, the first century Jew did not, hence their murderous rage at this "blasphemy."

John 10:33

King James Version (KJV)

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

And just as we saw in John 1...the Prophecy spoke of God manifesting and dwelling with God:


Matthew 1:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

I would agree with that in large part, as we are told this very thing.

What I would suggest for consideration is that the reason for this is the very flesh Christ dwelt in:


Philippians 2:5-8

King James Version (KJV)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


When the Son took upon Himself that form, which prior to was the form of God, that body veiled His Glory. The remedy for that veiling was in fact death of that body:


John 17:1 & 5

King James Version (KJV)

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


The "hour" was Christ's death, and the "glory" was that which the Son had prior to the Incarnation, which was veiled by the flesh inhabited.

The last thing I would mention would be the significance of that veiling, which was pictured in the earthly Temple made with hands:


Hebrews 10:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


The "True" is Christ's flesh dying, that man might have entrance to God in true, as opposed to the shadow (parable) found in the Law, which includes the Temple (where man met with God and came into His presence, the only available means for them in that Economy), the Sacrifice (which until this point for all Economies of world history was vicarious animal death), and the Priesthood (who stood continually offering sacrifice, as contrasted with the Completion achieved by Christ's death in regards to remission of sin).

I don't think anyone would argue that revelation comes from God, and we recognize the various means by which God has progressively revealed truth to men. Even in this, we see the declaration of Christ's Deity:


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


As we have discussed in the other thread, revelation is progressive throughout Biblical History. Here, once again, we see an unveiling of truth which was not given unto men in previous Economies.

We also see, to keep consistent with the theme of this response, that the Son of God created the world, even as John testifies in the first chapter of his Gospel.

The unveiling of the Glory of Christ was not an interjection of that which was new to the Son of God, but a removal of the veil which hid His glory from men. That veil was ever God's purpose from before the founding of the world, and was pictured in that veil that, like the body which the Son took upon Himself...was "rent in twain."

No longer would men seek to enter into God's presence through an earthly veil, but through the Veil prophesied and provided by God, when He took upon Himself the form of man with the express purpose of dying on the Cross.

We are to come into agreement with the Word of God, and recognize the many clear statements concerning this truth, lest we diminish both the Person and Purpose of Christ our Lord.


God bless.

 

Man is comprised of both body and spirit, as we see in the Creation of Man above.

Thus while his body, brain and thinking are indeed part of man, we must not forget that man has a spirit as well.

The spirit of man combined with his physical body make the "soul." When a man is in his natural state, and physically alive, he is considered a soul. When man dies physically, his spirit and body are divided, or separated, and while he can still be called a soul (as it refers to the individual him/herself), we do not neglect that division.

We see the Lord make this point here:


Luke 24:36-39

King James Version (KJV)

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


His point is that when a man is dead, as the disciples supposed Christ was, when one sees the immaterial aspect of man...they are seeing a spirit.

That is the definition given by Christ Himself, and I doubt many would try to argue against a clear statement that He makes.

He states that a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Thus when a man dies, his conscious being (that immaterial aspect that with the body comprises the "soul," even as Genesis states) is separated from his physical body, the physical body goes into the grave as the Lord's did, but His spirit was no longer with that body.

Those are the two parts of man as defined by Christ.

Not just sentenced, but sentence executed.

They did die, which we usually call "spiritual death," because at that time man became separated from God. The union Adam and Eve had with God ended, and thus being separated from the Source of Life (which was not the Tree, but the intimate relationship they had with God)...they were at that point dead.

They still had a spirit, they still had a body, but they did not have union with God any longer.

This separation, this "death," was remedied through Christ's Work in which sin was forgiven, the man given cleansing, a new heart, a new spirit, and having God indwell them (Ezekiel 36:22-27). This is why it is called Reconciliation:


2 Corinthians 5:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.


It is because men are once again brought back into intimate relationship with God. That happens through the union of God and man in the New Birth, which includes man being made new (something he was not before, in his physical life) which is a direct result of the indwelling of God. Because the Source of Life is in us, we have eternal life, because we are in intimate relationship and union with God, Who is Eternal.

We do not have eternal life because it is a substance God pours into us, or merely a declaration of imputed standing, but it is a literal sharing with the Life of the Eternal Himself.

The tree of life is not he source of eternal life, but God is. While we might speculate nutritional properties to this tree, by which physical life can be sustained, we do not equate physical life with Eternal Life, which became available to men only after the Bread of Heaven came down. John 6 makes this clear:


John 6:33-35

King James Version (KJV)

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.



Again, we distinguish between the temporal and physical in Scripture with the spiritual and eternal. Adam and Eve may very well have sustained physical life by partaking of the tree of life, but that tree would never rectify the death they had undergone, which was spiritual. It would not be until the Source of Life was made available to men that men would be able to have their state of death remedied:


John 6:53-54

King James Version (KJV)

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


What that means, as Christ states here...


John 6:49

King James Version (KJV)

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.


...is that on an eternal level...no man had life, was still dead, even as Adam.

That does not mean that their spirits ceased to be conscious, as Christ makes it clear here:


Matthew 22:29-32

King James Version (KJV)

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.


The Sadducees, the original Annihilationists, had sought to debate the Lord over their view that when men died...that was it:

Christ makes it clear that they are not dead, but alive.


Continued...

 

Keep in mind that this is a quote from David, And Luke states...


Acts 2:29-31

King James Version (KJV)

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.


This speaks of the physical, Christ not still being in the grave as contrasted with David still being in the grave.

The primary point here being the Resurrection of Christ, which, while there is the added concept of glorification, still has in view the body of the deceased. It does not make the use of the word "soul" refer to an immaterial aspect of man, but simply speaks of the man himself.

Interesting that you see the curse being lifted at the Cross and Resurrection, yet still argue that New Covenant conditions are found in the Old Testament.

Christ came under no condemnation, for His taking upon Himself our sins does not impute sin to Him as God manifest in the flesh. Christ was never once under condemnation due to the curse, because, as you say, He was without sin. Christ was never separated from God as man is born into that condition, but His glory was veiled by the flesh He inhabited.


John 8:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Sorry, no. Their bodies will lie in the grave, but post-Cross believers go to be with the Lord in Heaven.

The Resurrection teaching of Daniel is a fundamental truth, however, the New Testament reveals quite a bit more about resurrection than the Old Testament did.

Another Mystery to consider:


1 Corinthians 15:50-52

King James Version (KJV)

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.



Now go back to the Lord's death and what happened to His spirit when He died. Did He cease to have a conscious being?

No. One argument I would offer to counter such a view would be...


Luke 23:42-43

King James Version (KJV)


42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.


Both the Lord and the thief would be, that day...in Paradise (which I believe to be Hades, not Heaven, but, Christ did lead captivity captive, which I view as Christ redeeming the Just from Hades).

Now we know the body of the Lord lay in the grave three days, and two days prior to that the Lord was in Paradise with the thief. So we have two who did not go into an unconscious existence, and while one might argue "But He is the Lord, of course He didn't cease to have a conscious state," one cannot say that about the thief.

If the spirit of men cease a conscious state, that is basically soul sleep. It is founded upon a misunderstanding of the use of terms like "Soul" which is thought to be an immaterial aspect of man (rather than speaking of the man in his totality), and "sleep," which is confused with natural sleeping and applied to those who have physically died.

And the misuse of this word undergirds a number of erroneous views, namely the disposition of the spirit after death. If we equate eternal separation, or, spiritual death, with the euphemistic phrases of the Old Testament, and equate a "soul sleeping in a grave to encompass their very conscious state, or, deny the conscious state of all men after death...

...then we trespass into a view of soul sleep, which while it might differ in some manner from a textbook teaching of Soul Sleep, still denies what Scripture actually teaches about the disposition of the spirits of men after death.

The final error that compounds this issue is the failure to recognize the distinctive difference between the physical/spiritual nature of the Old Testament, and the spiritual/Eternal nature of the revelation provided in the New.

We would have to have the Lord using false concepts to teach, such as in the case of the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus, and we would have to deny Paul's teaching that to b absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord.


God bless.

 

Greetings again Darrell,

I have just noticed that you have replied to some of my Posts in this thread. I have used up all my spare time on your other thread. I will hopefully have time next week to selectively answer a few aspects of the Posts on this thread. I hope this does not upset you too much, as you seem to indicate that I was ignoring most of your answers and material in the other thread. I am a bit slow, but you either have a lot of spare time, or your output is remarkable.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Take your time, Trevor, nothing to get upset about, lol.

I do see you avoiding an address of some key issues, as the last response seeks to provide further substantiation to your view rather than addressing my response to those previously given. I was a little surprised to find in the other thread (which is not my thread) quoting your antagonist and addressing the points. Not sure why you would not do so in this thread. That is what is needful to thresh these matters out.

Again, take your time, and perhaps pick one post to respond to in detail. If those points have to be continuously reiterated in response to new statements, we will only spin our wheels.


God bless.

 

Greetings again Darrell, (Part 1 of 2)

I appreciate your four Posts #34-37. I intend to abbreviate some of the Quotes and I hope it is sufficiently clear. This will allow me to have smaller Posts. Please refer to each of your Posts as numbered below if you want full detail:

[Post#37]

It is interesting some of your sequence. The ebb and flow of people and ideas in my community allows lively discussion at times. We have much more common ground concerning the events leading up to and during and after the Second Coming amongst our community than some of the opinions mentioned on this forum and elsewhere. For example, who do you identify as the King of the North that invades the Middle East in Daniel 11:40-45? My main reason for quoting Acts 3:19-21, 2 Timothy 4:1,6-8 was to suggest that the hope of the Apostles and 1st Century believers was the Second Coming. I do not believe in heaven going at death, the subject of this thread. I do not believe Revelation 4:10-11 is “after the Millennial Kingdom”.

While we are speaking about the judgement seat, my main thoughts are that the judgement seat is very real for me. My heart will be examined and shown whether my heart is right before God and although forgiven of my past, there may be a severe or a gentle reminder of my many failures. Jesus’ questioning of Peter in John 21 is instructive. I do not know how an OSAS will feel before the judgement seat. Will he go with over-confidence because of OSAS, like the Pharisee praying in the Temple? And as you believe in going to heaven or hell at death, why reward first and then judge afterwards? This would be another reason to be over-confident. When you stated that you wanted to speak of OSAS, my mind reflected on our meeting’s present studies. Our Sunday Evening Seminars have two sessions on Abraham. The admonition “Remember Lot’s wife” is a sobering warning for me and seems to be against OSAS, or the warning could be simply dismissed by an OSAS as “it doesn’t apply to me”. Our Sunday School Senior class is considering the Book of Revelation. We are now considering the Letter to Ephesus in Revelation 2. For OSAS, consider that Paul in Acts 20 warned the Spirit-endowed eldership that from amongst themselves some would arise speaking perverse things. Paul exhorted the eldership as a whole needed to diligently give themselves to the word of God and its humbling and cleansing effects to guard against such an outcome. Also the Ephesians in Revelation 2 were in severe danger as they had lost their first love and Christ was ready to overthrow their lampstand for the truth. How can an OSAS lose their first love? As my ex-Baptist now Pentecostalist and part-time OSAS and Prosperity doctrine Pastor at work used to say “are you more powerful than the Spirit of God within you”? “There is no chance of failure for an OSAS”. “Not even Demas”. “He loved this present world, what is wrong with that”? “God loved the world.”

[Post#37]

The history of the inclusion of this passage in the KJV has been suggested in various writings. The exclusion from most other translations is evident. I was not using 1 John 5:7 to disprove the Trinity, but simply drawing attention to the fact that many scholars (and many of these are Trinitarian scholars) regard this passage as spurious. I stated my position on 1 John 5:7 in the “Trinity” thread Page 11 #104, 108 and Page 12 #111. The Trinity is not taught in the Scriptures and to seek support from 1 John 5:7 perhaps suggests how desperate Trinitarians are to find support texts.

[Post#37]

I have covered much of Scripture in the “Trinity” thread showing that the Bible teaches that there is one God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I stated my position on John 1:1,14 in the “Trinity” thread in a number of Posts, refer index Page 19 #185. The Word was pre-incarnate, not Jesus. Jesus was a man and came in the flesh.

Kind regards
Trevor