So if there is no hell*, from what are we being saved?

here are some reasons;

Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables

While there may be more in numbers making claims I don't believe there is more in substance.

 

Mt 7:13-14 is prophetic, spoken by 'the Prophet, and directed to 'that generation' of Jews on whom the 'consummation of the age' was coming. 'Few are they that find it' is reminiscent of 'the Exodus (or wilderness) Generation' whose numbers have been estimated as high as 2.5 million and of which only two (2) (Joshua and Caleb ) of that generation were allowed to enter into the promised land. The rest entered not in because of unbelief. Even Moses and Aaron entered not in because of unbelief. The Exodus Generation is used several times as examples in the NT. I believe Christ is alluding to it here in the Sermon on the Mount meaning that few would be the number of Jews that would find or enter into the sabbath rest of Heb 4:9.

Question for you Ann:

Do you believe “few there be that find it” and “many are they that enter in thereby” denotes free will on the part of those finding life or walking the road to destruction?

 

I completely disagree with your assessment of this section of the Sermon on the Mount, and also you alluding to the consummation at 70. a.d. (I'm assuming you mean 70 a.d.)

I've read absolutely zero commentators, out of many, that even come close to this type of reasoning out of the sermon on the mount. R C Sproul is doing a great series now debunking this preterism and exposing its sources, from whence it came, and its errors. You should listen to them (not to change your mind) but as to know what he is saying. Just look up Ligonier Ministries. "Crisis in Eschatology" is the first message of the series.

I do like Martyn Lloyd-Jones on this also.

Which theologians do you have that support this?

Does your church preach the Gospel evangelistically? Support missions?

Just asking for clarification.

Also, to the OP. There is a hell. Symbolism always being weaker than what it represents is my belief. And, He came to save us from our sins, not from hell. Take it this way: no one really wants to go to hell (excluding the tough guy nonsense) so they would love to be saved from that, but, not too many want to be saved from their sins, accept of course, for His elect.

Missing the Hell part is just a bonus.

- Peace

 

Aion

Strong’s Concordance gives this definition for the word “aion:”
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age.

Some believe that punishment is just for a period of time, an age, so if you believe that then eternal life is just for a period of time, an age. So you are being saved from a period of time, an age of punishment.

 

There's a Bible Version out there that replaces "eternal life" with "length of days." So basically we get an extension on our years here. :wavey:

Yeah right.

I can't remember which "version" this is, but I believe it was an add-on Bible Module for e-sword. There were many other heretical modules being promoted by a site (e-sword-users.org) where this version was found.

Anyhow, its "interpretation" is utterly erroneous. Liberal theology has lended to this and other unfortunate misinterpretations of the Word.

- Peace

 

Just need to think Biblical on this!
IF hell is "gone when burned" than where would there really be justice for what satan hitler mao etc have all done?

Also, doesn't Bible use same age term for both duration of life in Christ and time in Hell to come?

Also, why wouldn't we see eternal life as in Christ as being "long but limited"?

 

OK.

OK. Is it a requirement with you to have commentators on your side?

You don't know what you're talking about p4t, period. You've gotten anxious to humiliate the Preterist view (or me), jumped the gun, and wrongly represented Sproul. Sproul is soundly, firmly in the Sovereign Grace Preterist camp.

Take your own advice and go back and listen not only to the first, but also the second message of the series:

http://www.myspace.com/video/philos/crisis-in-eschatology/53902268

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/53902527

....try not to get choked on the crow.

See also:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/s/sproul-rc_sr.html

Concerning Mt 7:13-14 none that I know of, I haven't looked. It's not a requirement with me. See my signature.

Your totally out of line here.

Oh, is that what it is? It sounds to me like you're lashing out in any way you can in order to discredit the Preterist view, like attacking my Church. Does it worry you that much?

Concerning Mt 7:13,14, do you believe it's referring to eternity in heaven or hell?

Do you believe “few there be that find it” and “many are they that enter in thereby” denotes free will?

[edit] Sproul, like me, is a PARTIAL Preterist.

 

Do you see support in the text for eternal consequences in heaven or hell?

Concerning Mt 7:13-14 none that I know of, I haven't looked. It's not a requirement with me. See my signature.

I thought you were Calvinist. If you see free will AND eternal consequences here, how do you reconcile the contradiction?

 

Simmer down there fellow. No crow to eat here. I've listened to them, hint, so I asked you to do the same. He is a partial, not this preterism or unorthodox theory you spout. That's my point.

Do I need commentary to support everything and by my side? Nope. But I am wise enough to see error and know it. No commentator supports your theory that I know of. So I await. Maybe you should get some commentary? It might not hurt.

If I am so "out of line" why not prove it and answer the question?

I ask again, does your church preach evangelisticly the Gospel? Support missions?

Nothing out of line with asking that. Most would jump to gladly answer.

You? Not so much.

 

How did a thread on hell get turned into a thread about, of all things, preterism?

 

So did you lie when you made this statement?:

" R C Sproul is doing a great series now debunking this preterism and exposing its sources, from whence it came, and its errors."

 

Answer my question that has you so twisted, which really amazes me, because it shouldn't.

 

Google Primitive Baptist (as if you haven't already).

 

Wow! I wonder how that flies with the posting rules or just Christian behavior in general?

 

Beauty of the BB!

Eventually all OP postings eventually get around to either cal Vrs Arm Gifts Vrs No Gifts or else eschatology!

 

R.C. Sproul is a preterist? I did not know that. Now I have even more to disagree with him about. :tongue3:

Why is it that there seems to be a connection among Cals to the preterist doctrine?

 

Because in both cases you have to read so much into scripture that it gives the hyper intellectuals a sense of self accomplishment. Hence the arrogance and accusations of stupidity when one disagrees with them. A rather Pharisaical attitude.

 

Think that you tend to see this much more prevalent in reformed cals circles than Baptist Cal circles though!

 

heheh?

You don't get it. He doesn't agree with your theory. That's my point.

Nor do many other noted theologians.

Why not just answer the questions? Put it out there like you do the rest.

You got all twisted that I asked it, I still find that amazing.

- Peace