Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 09:07 AM

My answer:
http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...rnity-and.html

Here's another (better) answer from:
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html

Witness Lee's Purgatory

What happens to these hypothetical non-overcoming believers?
According to Witness Lee the following verses apply to them:
Matt 8:12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mt 22:13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Mt 24:51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mt 25:30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Lu 13:28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Lee comments: "This is different than suffering the second death, which is to perish in the lake of fire for eternity. Although believers cannot be lost, they may suffer some dispensational punishment for their faults. This punishment will be worse than that received by those who broke the law of letters."
In other words they will suffer a worse punishment than under the Law of Moses when people were stoned to death or burned alive.

Matt 18:34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

A basic problem with the purgatory idea is that it contradicts the basic concept of the forgiveness of sins. I understand the distinction he tries to make between discipline and condemnation. But having been raised from the dead, there is no point to discipling these people. They have already been reckoned innocent by the blood of Christ, and although discipline would be helpful while they were in the flesh (as sin dwells in the flesh and they have to learn obedience), having been raised from the dead they are perfect. There's no point to discipling them. Does tormenting them make them any more perfect? Such torment would not be simply for discipline to help them learn, but as a penalty for sinning. Hasn't God saved us from such condemnation? Is this what Christ has earned for us - to be thrown into a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth? Is it by our good works that we escape from such a place of torment? Is this rather not the kind of judgment that unbelievers will experience:

Matt 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Which Lee also agrees applies only to the unsaved.
My interpretation of the difference between the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth? I think Lee is correct that the first refers to just during the Millenial reign and the second to the final judgment. But I think that both refer to the judgement of unbelievers or mere nominal Christians and unbelieving Jews.
But consider the correlation between Matt 24:50,51 and Luke 12:46
"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 24:50,51
"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers." Luke 12:46

If you read the context of these parables you find that these are parallel passages. Luke is recording the same parable as Matthew. Therefore "a place with the hypocrites" in Matthew is the same as "a place with the unbelievers" in Luke. Lee says that it is the non-overcoming believers that the Matthew passage is referring to. But in reality these are merely unsaved nominal Christians, which is why they are hypocrites. They do not believe with saving faith.
Lee denies the purgatory idea in its Catholic sense when he comments on 1Cor 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Lee comments: "Through fire surely indicates punishment. However, this is altogether not the purgatory heretically taught by Catholicism in its superstitious twisting of this verse. Nevertheless, this word should be a solemn warning to us today concerning our Christian works."

However, as I interpret this verse, it seems to me that it is not the man who is burned, but his works. God has to burn up our sins so as to forget our past sinful lives in accordance with His promise. What remains of our past are the times when we obeyed God. And for these we will be rewarded.

Isa 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions,
for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more."

But Lee seems to think that God will remember the sins of the believers and visits punishment upon us in the next life. This is contrary to the basic message of the gospel. Though he denies the Catholic purgatory idea, he may not realize that he may actually believe it. Or perhaps we can rename it the Protestant Purgatory. For he accepts the following verse as applying to non-overcoming saved Christians:

Matt 18:34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

Notice it says "until he should pay back all he owed". Such a person is paying the penalty for his sins by being tortured. This is what many accuse Catholics of believing. The basic object of our faith is Christ's atoning work on the cross. Christ payed the penalty for our sins. In describing the benefits of righteousness by faith in Romans 4, Paul quotes David saying:

"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 10:15-18

Throughout the history of Protestant theology, the Purgatory idea had been rejected, being relegated as heretical Catholic theology. But Lee and Nee have now attempted to reintroduce this concept into the Evangelical community and have had success to some extent. However, they have failed to show the consistency between the gospel message of grace according to traditional evangelical thought and the purgatorial idea. The contradiction between the concept of Purgatory and Biblical theology was the reason it was rejected in the first place. The leaven of this doctrine must be removed if their gospel is to be considered Biblical from the standpoint of historic Protestant thought.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 09:27 AM

Bible scholars seem to disagree if outer darkness is a region outside of the kingdom, or if it's another description of the lake of fire, or just the outer regions in the lake of fire or outside it. It's because there's only four references to it in the New Testament. Regarding this I'm not sure myself and perhaps others can chime in who have done more research in this area.

However most scholars would contend that the judgment in outer darkness is for eternity. No where in scripture does it suggest that those cast into the outer darkness are offered another chance to enter into the kingdom of God. If this was so, Paul would have written "will not inherit the kingdom of God for 1000 years", however verses like Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-5, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 all state unequivocally that those who are mastered by the lusts of their flesh and thereby practice sin will "not inherit the kingdom of God" or "have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God".

Ephesians 5:3-5
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Paul never hints at the kingdom of God being for a thousand years, rather scripture seems to indicate that it's for eternity.

The millennial reign of Jesus describes only one stage in the Messiah's kingdom. After the millennium is over, the New Jerusalem comes down to earth and there will be a new heaven and new earth. God's reign will continue into eternity from here on out as Revelation 21 describes.

Instead of limiting the term of God's kingdom to a thousand years, many places in scripture emphasize the kingdom of God being for eternity.

2 Peter 1:11
For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Luke 1:32-33
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

2 Samuel 7:16
And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.

Jesus words in Matthew 7:21-23 to those who claim him as Lord communicate that he wants nothing to do with those who profess him as Lord with their mouth but not their heart or their actions thereby living in lawlessness. No where is there an indication that Jesus will accept them back after a thousand years, instead it seems like he wants them to leave his presence forever in disgust that they and others would think that he could be associated with their works.

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

In the few references to outer darkness in the gospels, it's usually described as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth":

Luke 13:28
In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.

If there were still hope of eternity with Jesus, then there would be at least some glory to look forward to. But one can probably infer that because there is no hope, all one can do is weep and gnash their teeth.

According to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping...shing_of_teeth

The phrase "(there shall be) weeping and gnashing of teeth" (in the original Greek ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων) appears seven times in the New Testament as a description of the torments of the damned in Hell. It is thought to derive from a logion in the hypothetical Q source, which yielded Matthew 8:12 and Luke 13:28. The other five occurrences are all within the context of parables and are widely held to be redactional additions by Matthew.

In fact in Matthew 13:41–42, the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is used in the context of the "fiery furnace", presumably the lake of fire!

Matthew 13
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Lending credence to the idea that outer darkness is synonymous with the lake of fire or part of it. It's a place that's dark because there is no light, yet it is burning. This is because God is light and his presence is not there. Without God there is no light and only darkness.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

My answer:
http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...rnity-and.html

Here's another (better) answer from:
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html

Witness Lee's Purgatory

What happens to these hypothetical non-overcoming believers?
According to Witness Lee the following verses apply to them:
Matt 8:12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mt 22:13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Mt 24:51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mt 25:30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Lu 13:28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Lee comments: "This is different than suffering the second death, which is to perish in the lake of fire for eternity. Although believers cannot be lost, they may suffer some dispensational punishment for their faults. This punishment will be worse than that received by those who broke the law of letters."
In other words they will suffer a worse punishment than under the Law of Moses when people were stoned to death or burned alive.

Matt 18:34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

A basic problem with the purgatory idea is that it contradicts the basic concept of the forgiveness of sins. I understand the distinction he tries to make between discipline and condemnation. But having been raised from the dead, there is no point to discipling these people. They have already been reckoned innocent by the blood of Christ, and although discipline would be helpful while they were in the flesh (as sin dwells in the flesh and they have to learn obedience), having been raised from the dead they are perfect. There's no point to discipling them. Does tormenting them make them any more perfect? Such torment would not be simply for discipline to help them learn, but as a penalty for sinning. Hasn't God saved us from such condemnation? Is this what Christ has earned for us - to be thrown into a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth? Is it by our good works that we escape from such a place of torment? Is this rather not the kind of judgment that unbelievers will experience:

Matt 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Which Lee also agrees applies only to the unsaved.
My interpretation of the difference between the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth? I think Lee is correct that the first refers to just during the Millenial reign and the second to the final judgment. But I think that both refer to the judgement of unbelievers or mere nominal Christians and unbelieving Jews.
But consider the correlation between Matt 24:50,51 and Luke 12:46
"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 24:50,51
"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers." Luke 12:46

If you read the context of these parables you find that these are parallel passages. Luke is recording the same parable as Matthew. Therefore "a place with the hypocrites" in Matthew is the same as "a place with the unbelievers" in Luke. Lee says that it is the non-overcoming believers that the Matthew passage is referring to. But in reality these are merely unsaved nominal Christians, which is why they are hypocrites. They do not believe with saving faith.
Lee denies the purgatory idea in its Catholic sense when he comments on 1Cor 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Lee comments: "Through fire surely indicates punishment. However, this is altogether not the purgatory heretically taught by Catholicism in its superstitious twisting of this verse. Nevertheless, this word should be a solemn warning to us today concerning our Christian works."

However, as I interpret this verse, it seems to me that it is not the man who is burned, but his works. God has to burn up our sins so as to forget our past sinful lives in accordance with His promise. What remains of our past are the times when we obeyed God. And for these we will be rewarded.

Isa 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions,
for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more."

But Lee seems to think that God will remember the sins of the believers and visits punishment upon us in the next life. This is contrary to the basic message of the gospel. Though he denies the Catholic purgatory idea, he may not realize that he may actually believe it. Or perhaps we can rename it the Protestant Purgatory. For he accepts the following verse as applying to non-overcoming saved Christians:

Matt 18:34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

Notice it says "until he should pay back all he owed". Such a person is paying the penalty for his sins by being tortured. This is what many accuse Catholics of believing. The basic object of our faith is Christ's atoning work on the cross. Christ payed the penalty for our sins. In describing the benefits of righteousness by faith in Romans 4, Paul quotes David saying:

"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 10:15-18

Throughout the history of Protestant theology, the Purgatory idea had been rejected, being relegated as heretical Catholic theology. But Lee and Nee have now attempted to reintroduce this concept into the Evangelical community and have had success to some extent. However, they have failed to show the consistency between the gospel message of grace according to traditional evangelical thought and the purgatorial idea. The contradiction between the concept of Purgatory and Biblical theology was the reason it was rejected in the first place. The leaven of this doctrine must be removed if their gospel is to be considered Biblical from the standpoint of historic Protestant thought.

But you never answered my question.

You based your answer on "the history of Protestant theology, the Purgatory idea had been rejected, being relegated as heretical Catholic theology."

Protestants rejected purgatory because it became a money making scam for the Papists.

Since you have started a new thread, why don't you address all the scripture? Shouldn't we use the scripture to interpret the scripture? You seem to always fall back on the age-old controversies (calvin/armenian, Catholic/protestant) rather than reading the Bible for yourself, as ICA recently reminded us.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

But you never answered my question.

You based your answer on "the history of Protestant theology, the Purgatory idea had been rejected, being relegated as heretical Catholic theology."

Protestants rejected purgatory because it became a money making scam for the Papists.

Since you have started a new thread, why don't you address all the scripture? Shouldn't we use the scripture to interpret the scripture? You seem to always fall back on the age-old controversies (calvin/armenian, Catholic/protestant) rather than reading the Bible for yourself, as ICA recently reminded us.

Hi Ohio,

That's not my writing, but BCBSR's. I just added this information to set the background for the thread. Read my new post #2

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

However most scholars would contend that the judgment in outer darkness is for eternity. No where in scripture does it suggest that those cast into the outer darkness are offered another chance to enter into the kingdom of God.

But the Bible doesn't say that. Unfortunately we all can find "scholars" to say anything we want.

Matt 25.9-10 indicates that these virgins were forced to buy more oil since theirs was inadequate, and there was a way to buy more. They missed the marriage feast, but nothing indicates they burn forever in the lake of fire.

Purgatory, which comes from "place of purging," comes from I Cor 3.13-15. How can fire be a test for each one's work, with some receiving a reward and some obviously not, if we are still saved, though the fire has burnt up all our work?

Apostle Paul says a workman must rightly divide the word of God. You have not rightly divided the matter of sins and work. Most of your comments and the verses you have selected prove this.

Please do not think that the length of one's posts proves anything. Quality supersedes quantity.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

But the Bible doesn't say that. Unfortunately we all can find "scholars" to say anything we want.

Matt 25.9-10 indicates that these virgins were forced to buy more oil since theirs was inadequate, and there was a way to buy more. They missed the marriage feast, but nothing indicates they burn forever in the lake of fire.

Purgatory, which comes from "place of purging," comes from I Cor 3.13-15. How can fire be a test for each one's work, with some receiving a reward and some obviously not, if we are still saved, though the fire has burnt up all our work?

Apostle Paul says a workman must rightly divide the word of God. You have not rightly divided the matter of sins and work. Most of your comments and the verses you have selected prove this.

Please do not think that the length of one's posts proves anything. Quality supersedes quantity.

Sorry for my shoddy scholarship

If I have more time later I'll pull up the references. My data for this is simply that most bible scholars come from Lordship Salvation backgrounds and not free grace. Millennial exclusion is only found in seminaries that adhere to free grace theology. It really sounds like a case of eisigesis to me. I don't think you can come up with this doctrine from a plain reading of scripture without being bound by believing in eternal security after saying the sinner's prayer.

Despite this, I think the burden of proof should be on showing that outer darkness is for a thousand years. After all this is an eternity we're talking about! I haven't been convinced by WNee and WLee's arguments. Perhaps others here including Ohio could do better? How would you respond to "weeping and gnashing of teeth" being used to describe punishment in the fiery furnace in Matthew 13:41–42?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the few references to outer darkness in the gospels, it's usually described as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth":

Luke 13:28
In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.

If there were still hope of eternity with Jesus, then there would be at least some glory to look forward to. But one can probably infer that because there is no hope, all one can do is weep and gnash their teeth.

According to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping...shing_of_teeth
"The phrase "(there shall be) weeping and gnashing of teeth" (in the original Greek ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων) appears seven times in the New Testament as a description of the torments of the damned in Hell. It is thought to derive from a logion in the hypothetical Q source, which yielded Matthew 8:12 and Luke 13:28. The other five occurrences are all within the context of parables and are widely held to be redactional additions by Matthew."

In fact in Matthew 13:41–42, the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is used in the context of the "fiery furnace", presumably the lake of fire!

Matthew 13
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Lending credence to the idea that outer darkness is synonymous with the lake of fire or part of it. It's a place that's dark because there is no light, yet it is burning. This is because God is light and his presence is not there. Without God there is no light and only darkness.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 10:01 AM

Regarding 1 Cor 3:13-15, here is my take on it:

http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...5-promise.html

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

Despite this, I think the burden of proof should be on showing that outer darkness if for a thousand years.

How would you respond to "weeping and gnashing of teeth" being used to describe punishment in the fiery furnace in Matthew 13:41–42?

Matt 13.36-43 defines the parable of the tares to the disciples. They are sons of the evil one, sown by the Devil, they only look like the wheat, yet are different within, as the Lord describes in Matt 13.24-30, as evidenced by their fruit.

It appears that these tares are harvested by angels at the consummation of the age, and thrown in the furnace of fire. This is probably the lake of fire. It has long been my understanding that the ones who suffer outer darkness, and the ones who suffer the lake of fire will both be weeping and gnashing their teeth. But the fact that both are consumed with remorse doesn't mean they have the same destiny.

Those who are saved will have their works burnt, and then enter outer darkness. There is no mention of a fire there. The ones who are not saved with be judged for their sins, being in unbelief, and burn in an eternal fire.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Matt 25.9-10 indicates that these virgins were forced to buy more oil since theirs was inadequate, and there was a way to buy more. They missed the marriage feast, but nothing indicates they burn forever in the lake of fire.

Hello Ohio, a quick aside regarding this parable. According to WL, all 10 of the virgins were believers. The parable ends with the groom: and he answering said, Verily I say to you, I have not known you. (Matthew 25:12)

How do you understand this is light of John 10:14? " I am the good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and am known by mine" and John 10:27 "according as I said to you: My sheep my voice do hear, and I know them, and they follow me..."

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Hello Ohio, a quick aside regarding this parable. According to WL, all 10 of the virgins were believers. The parable ends with the groom: and he answering said, Verily I say to you, I have not known you. (Matthew 25:12)

How do you understand this is light of John 10:14? " I am the good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and am known by mine" and John 10:27 "according as I said to you: My sheep my voice do hear, and I know them, and they follow me..."

First of all the Lord knows everything and everyone, including all sinners, unbelievers, unrighteous, lawless, etc., so when He says, "I never knew you," was He then lying? Or was He voicing His disapproval?

Those foolish virgins took their lamps to meet the bridegroom. The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord. They had no oil of the Spirit in their vessels. We are vessels. These foolish ones were waiting to meet the Lord as their bridegroom, but they fell asleep, which means they died. They awoke at midnight, the end of the church day, and resurrected with all the other believers.

Since they were not prudent while alive, they must still buy oil. The Bible says little about how this will occur.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi Ohio,

That's not my writing, but BCBSR's. I just added this information to set the background for the thread. Read my new post #2

I have seen that site before, and always felt it was very sloppy scholarship.

OBW · 01-31-2014, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

My data for this is simply that most bible scholars come from Lordship Salvation backgrounds and not free grace. Millennial exclusion theology is only found in seminaries that adhere to free grace theology. It really sounds like a case of eisigesis to me.

Now there is as out-of-hand a dismissal as you can find.

You are defining something you call "Lordship Salvation" that is opposed to "free grace salvation" and presume that it is simply two totally diverse and internally unified camps. And your prejudice stands in the capitalization of your title for one group and simply "descriptive" lower case words for the other.

While there may be some general differences in the two general camps, there also are differences within those camps.

And most seriously ignored is the idea that salvation is a word of equivocation. Your Lordship salvation scheme is a view of the combination of what some call salvation and sanctification. Others simply use the term salvation to refer to both aspects of the Christian life (as do certain scriptures). But the only part of salvation that you ever refer to as lacking in the "free grace salvation" camp is what evangelicals often view as the line in the sand when a person first acknowledges Christ and, as is said in at least one place, passes from death to life.

While grace is always in play in our ongoing Christian lives, few take the position that sanctification is simply by grace. But then most don't recognize that grace teaches to obey (Titus?) and is not just "unmerited favor." Grace is not simply some passive activity on the part of man.

And when it comes to eisigesis, much of the same can be said for some of your interpretations. It is arguable that insisting that all references to punishment are permanent and eternal is simply reading into the verses what is wanted to be read.

Like others, you choose which verses you will read and include in your analysis and which you will ignore, or suggest that it must mean something else. For example, take Matt 18:34. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." Do you ignore this verse? Or do you presume that we can never pay all that is owed, therefore the words spoken are irrelevant? It does say until all is repaid. So there is given a sense of something in the punishment that does repay, not just torture. To presume that the punishment has to be forever and is considered repayment sort of flies in the face of the word "until." And even mobsters don't often kill those who owe them because dead people cant repay. It is generally bad for business.

I find that when God wanted to say that he was putting someone into eternal perdition, he tended to be rather straightforward about it. He didn't beat around the bush and hint at a lesser sentence.

And so far I have not seen a comment on Ohio's reference to 1 Corinthians 3. There is some question as to whether this is talking to Christians in general or more specifically to the teachers of Christians, but either way, it says that there will be a fire and that those whose work burns will be saved, yet as through fire. Care to comment directly on that? While the post you linked to does very limited reference to the "yet as by fire" part of the verse, it doesn't really do much more than dismiss it and/or ignore it. The verse very clearly says "be saved, yet as by fire."

I find nothing in the unrelated passages provided to make me think that this was simply some metaphorical way of saying "your stuff just burned, but you are simply OK. . . move on." If it is that simple, then there is not a lot of teeth in the earlier warning to take care what kind of building that is undertaken. If it has no impact on you personally, then why not just do whatever you think is the thing to do and let the fire sort it all out later. It's no skin off your back.

It reminds me of Nee's simple dismissal of home churches when establishing that his church=city rule was true. He couldn't deal with the contradiction to his rule, so he declared that his rule trumped the obvious meaning of the contrary verses and moved on.

And, as Ohio has since pointed out, weeping and gnashing of teeth is not simply relegated to the lake of fire. It appears in other places with other descriptions. Do you therefore presume that the common link of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" makes the two synonymous?

Mr. Dust Bunnies does not particularly impress me with superior reasoning. More like an ability to quote a lot of verses and then make the conclusion that he wants to make without any real evidence that it is correct. I'm busy here trying to help people get out of a group I call a cult who have been hoodwinked by men who approach scripture in just such a loose way. I don't need to be taking on yet another "I've got the decoder ring" approach to emphasizing some verses over others, or some phrases over others to arrive at the conclusion that is desired. Let's stick to dealing with the screwed-up theology of the LRC. We don't need to combat yet another screwed-up version. We've had several come along over the years. A couple even had their own modern-day messiah to push.

I will be the first to say that I really do not know clearly what it all means. But it is too clear that it is not just heaven and no downside v hell to waste my time fighting yet another kind of group playing selectively with their verses to read and verses to skip, and uncompromising positions on the meaning of words when viable alternatives are available. I am not saying that the meanings may not be as are suggested. But unwillingness to actually engage in the discussion as to how it is that you/they think it is so suggests an unwillingness to come together to reason, and instead a desire to teach and direct with the certainty that it is so without another thought. I've wasted enough time with those kinds of teachers in years past. Not again.

And not with you. Unless you actually address the passages and positions that I and others write about, you will become another Lee. You will be ignored as yet another wannabe MOTA. Or his John the Baptist. "Make way for the MOTA!"

Needless to say, for all the certainty that I may seem to display, it is rather certainty in my uncertainty. I distrust those who are so certain. Who always have a proof text for their position and do not even deal with the possibility that they may not be so certain or sure. I am not as sure as I once was. But I am more comfortable in my faith as a result. I am very sure of my salvation. It is neither simply "free grace" nor "Lordship salvation." Instead, it is believe. And believe means obey because if you don't obey, you really don't believe. Don't need to force any particular meaning out of those various verses we are discussing to arrive at that.

awareness · 01-31-2014, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Mr. Dust Bunnies does not particularly impress me with superior reasoning. More like an ability to quote a lot of verses and then make the conclusion that he wants to make without any real evidence that it is correct. I'm busy here trying to help people get out of a group I call a cult who have been hoodwinked by men who approach scripture in just such a loose way. I don't need to be taking on yet another "I've got the decoder ring" approach to emphasizing some verses over others, or some phrases over others to arrive at the conclusion that is desired.

I think this describes this kind of linking verses to paint a desired picture:

Parallelomania
"In historical analysis, biblical criticism and comparative mythology parallelomania refers to a phenomenon where authors perceive apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies without historical basis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 12:05 PM

Hi OBW,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I respect that you take care in all your posts, I've been busier at work so I'm sorry if I haven't been as thorough in my scholarship and responses.

I'm sorry for sounding dogmatic. Heck my views have been changing a lot as I get new revelation. I started out in free grace, moved into Arminianism then onto Calvinism, now I'm not sure where I am. We all see through a mirror dimly and won't have full knowledge of the truth until we become glorified. I hope you'll read my stuff as just one take on the scriptures, and I think it's fair to say my views are not that far out in the context of the Christian community, it reflects what many bible scholars believe from Arminian and Calvinist backgrounds.

Often when conflicting views are stated, it helps to bring both views into sharper focus. I know I'm stepping on some toes here, but I think this is a valid discussion to have for both side's sakes.

As I said earlier, I posted my thoughts on 1 Cor 3:13-15 on my blog. It's also discussion we had earlier on this forum that's been rehashed a couple times.

The view I posted is similar to the explanations I've heard from Arminians and Calvinists.

http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...5-promise.html

Regarding not paying back the debt. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. Jesus said unless we forgive others the Father cannot forgive us. Without forgiveness there is no atonement. The price of our sin is something we are unable to pay that only Jesus could have paid. Many people have languished in debtor's prison simply because being in jail also means you can't pay the debt, it's basically a death sentence for those who have no means of paying!

Psalms 49:8 says
for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice,

There's no amount of silver or gold we can pay for our sin. It's only a price that God could pay with the death of his only begotten son.

Psalm 49:7,15
No one can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for them—
But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead;
he will surely take me to himself.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 12:20 PM

To show that I'm not too far off from the views of mainstream Christianity here's GotQuestions take on outer darkness which they believe to be "eternal darkness":

http://www.gotquestions.org/outer-darkness.html

Here's another one with much more thorough scholarship from bible.org. They contend that those who go to outer darkness are not saved and make a great effort to explain both sides.

https://bible.org/article/%E2%80%9Co...suburb-or-hell

OBW · 01-31-2014, 12:31 PM

But you miss the question and instead go to other passages written concerning other things. The passage in front of us says that there is a debtor (who was a servant) that gets turned over to the torturers until all is paid. There is the clear reference up front to having been forgiven by the master before this happened. So we are not talking about pagans or outsiders.

Also note that it does not say that the servant was put into a condition in which he could not pay, then required to pay anyway. He was only given to torturers until he paid. We can surmise what that could mean, but it is not certain. And it is also unclear how much of the story to take as instructive.

But in any case, the set-up establishes someone who has been forgiven by the master. And there is a reference to his having a time or discipline until a debt is paid. As I mentioned before, scripture has generally not minced words about shortness or temporal-ness of punishment where it was perdition that was being discussed. Why now? To trick us into false hope?

Are you therefore arguing an Arminian position that the forgiveness can be withdrawn ( and salvation can be lost)? You claim you are not. But your analysis of this parable, or decision to skip it, leaves your position on "weeping and gnashing of teeth" only meaning hell/perdition as sketchy, at best. Probably full of holes.

And pointing to an Arminian understanding. Even if you don't see it as such.

I have no problem with you holding to that general belief. But you need to at least acknowledge that there are things that do not seem to agree with it that you have not managed to explain adequately. And if that is the case, then you would not be so strong to come insisting on the correctness of your position. Mine is clearly not insisted on as correct because I am not sure what it is. I just am pretty sure that what you are pushing is not adequately supported by scripture, or at least not sufficiently so for me to simply take it and move on.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 12:52 PM

To me it's not an issue of losing salvation because someone who is truly born again and given a new heart and new spirit will come to forgive everyone who has offended them.

Jesus was able to forgive his enemies, and because he's living in us, we're also able to by Christ who empowers us (Phil 4:13). He wouldn't have laid the burden on us if it were not possible.

Taking things back to the passage. If it were possible to repay our debt while suffering in this prison, wouldn't that be adding works to salvation? All the other cross referenced verses on forgiveness seem to speak towards this possibility. God's forgiveness of us is clearly stated to be conditioned on our own willingness to forgive others elsewhere in scripture. Such a thing is possible after we become born again because Christ lives in us and we'll come to adopt his value system as we abide in him and his words. We'll come to treasure the unseen spiritual and heavenly riches that abide forever and not the things of the world that are passing away.

Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mark 11:25
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Colossians 3:13
Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

If forgiveness was required for salvation, it'd seem like something that would be so important that Jesus would want us to pray for it daily. In fact Jesus does this in the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6. He also tells us to pray that we wouldn't yield to temptation but be delivered from the evil one. Perhaps because the consequences of being tempted and falling into unrepentant sin are very grave. But we have nothing to worry about if we abide in Christ and his words (John 15).

OBW · 01-31-2014, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

To show that I'm not too far off from the views of mainstream Christianity here's GotQuestions take on outer darkness which they believe to be "eternal darkness":

http://www.gotquestions.org/outer-darkness.html

Here's another one with much more thorough scholarship from bible.org. They contend that those who go to outer darkness are not saved and clearly explain both sides.

https://bible.org/article/%E2%80%9Co...suburb-or-hell

These are typical "can't lose your salvation and don't have a clue what to do about those who don't seem to stay on track until death" positions. Besides, "most" is not a very meaningful word when it comes to scholars. Most scholars follow other scholars. So we ultimately get back to two or three scholars from ages ago that probably did not exactly address this issue, but to the extent that they did, did not agree, nor did they speak in terms that are simply like those we use today to speak about these things.

And it is this kind of position that creates an Arminian position. If you can be saved, then not saved, then it is Arminian. And if a servant can become cast into hell, then he was not a servant under any kind of teaching other than Arminian.

Under your Lordship salvation, where do you find yourself if you believe and obey strongly for a lifetime, only to turn away in the end? To "backslide" into gross sin?

Oh for the ability to have died three years earlier. They might have ended up in heaven instead of hell.

That is absolutely an Arminian-like teaching. It argues loss of salvation. Something that was declared to be impossible.

And what exactly are the things that we have to do to remain "saved" all the way to the end? Is it more than believe and obey? Believe what? Obey what?

And what about those who believe but don't obey very well. Or who disobey? Do they just get a hall pass to heaven? Just no crown for them? This is the righteousness of God? Those who suffer to do as required only get a "star in their crown" while the marginal get in without ever facing suffering? You want to throw them into hell. My Bible is not so clear on this. But most scholars agree that the torturers is hell. That outer darkness is hell. And they either argue a "never actually got saved" or a "you can lose your salvation" approach to it. They completely avoid the possibility that there are true believers that are poor followers. That deserve the followers' equivalent of "saved yet as by fire."

I wish I didn't see it this way. But I can't avoid it. It could be my lot. Yet I am not certain enough about it to declare that it simply is the case. Or I know what it means. Or "this is it."

Since you can't deal with those verses other than to suggest that they don't mean what they say, I can only dismiss your positions as half-baked. Based on selective scripture tortured into supporting what it does not seem to actually support.

OBW · 01-31-2014, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

To me it's not an issue of losing salvation because someone who is truly born again and given a new heart and new spirit will come to forgive everyone who has offended them.

Jesus was able to forgive his enemies, and because he's living in us, we're also able to by Christ who empowers us (Phil 4:13). He wouldn't have laid the burden on us if it were not possible.

So you define away what it actually says.

That Jesus is in us provides us with the empowerment to do as you say. But it does not force it to be that way. You are assuming that getting the power will result in doing. If that is the case, then Peter would not need to remind his readers that they have all they need for godliness. Must be that some were not living as if it was true.

You seem to argue that it has to look true in a person's life or they are not really saved. If that were true, then there is no reason for admonishment. There is no reason for excommunication of the one sinning among them. They were admonished to treat them as (not call them) a heathen. And then welcome them back in when they had repented. Welcome back in suggests that they were in to begin with.

Too many evidences of the frailty of man continuing until the end to declare that we are either empowered and doing or going to hell. You have not exactly said that, but if you would stop and link all of your separate pieces together, you would see that it is the only conclusion that can be gathered from it. Yet you say that is not what you are saying. So you must be misrepresenting the scriptures that your are relying on because they are not that black and white on this matter.

awareness · 01-31-2014, 01:47 PM

What is outer darkness? It's not the lake of fire. Fire makes lightness not darkness. Is it being tossed into outer space? Where it's cold not hot?

I think all this is symbol-speak, in terms of images commonly understood back then. I don't think it should be taken literal. So much of it was common mythology tossed around long before and in common currency.

Make of it as you wish. To each his, or her, own.

But I'm not much on bogeyman Christianity. I grew up with fire and brimstone sermons, meant to scare people to Jesus, and everybody else.

As a result, I'm numb to hell-fire preachin. Overloaded, actually.

But I know people who awake with panic attacks from fear of damnation. Won't all these scary verses just exasperate those attacks ... not, perchance, bring needed salvation?

Scaring people to Christianity in the end is counter-productive. And why scare believers?

Some people love scary movies. So I guess some Christians like to be scared ... for those I present :

"The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood."
~ Sinners in the hands of an angry God - Jonathan Edwards
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So you define away what it actually says.

That Jesus is in us provides us with the empowerment to do as you say. But it does not force it to be that way. You are assuming that getting the power will result in doing. If that is the case, then Peter would not need to remind his readers that they have all they need for godliness. Must be that some were not living as if it was true.

You seem to argue that it has to look true in a person's life or they are not really saved. If that were true, then there is no reason for admonishment. There is no reason for excommunication of the one sinning among them. They were admonished to treat them as (not call them) a heathen. And then welcome them back in when they had repented. Welcome back in suggests that they were in to begin with.

Too many evidences of the frailty of man continuing until the end to declare that we are either empowered and doing or going to hell. You have not exactly said that, but if you would stop and link all of your separate pieces together, you would see that it is the only conclusion that can be gathered from it. Yet you say that is not what you are saying. So you must be misrepresenting the scriptures that your are relying on because they are not that black and white on this matter.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules

I believe God's grace will meet us at our will to obey him. By our flesh alone we are unable to even if we have the desire or will. Peter resolved in himself not to deny Jesus but he ultimately failed because he hadn't received the Holy Spirit yet.

The Holy Spirit empowers us to obey God's commands. If we live according to the Spirit we'll be abiding in Christ and be under no condemnation. The Spirit will lead us to forgive and to repent. However, if we exercise our free will to live according to our flesh then as Paul says in his epistles, we'll be in trouble.

Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Calvinists believe God's grace will cause his elect to live according to the Spirit, abiding in Christ and his words until the end of the Christian race.

Arminians believe man has to exercise his free will to do the same until the end, and God choses man based on foreknowledge who will persevere until the end.

Which one is correct is unclear to me because as you mentioned, many scripture tells us to perfect holiness with holy fear (2 Cor 7:1), and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12), these seem to emphasize man's free will rather than God's sovereignty. However if we're born again and abiding in God's word this should compel us by God's grace to exercise our free will to obey Jesus' commands because we love and fear him and he told us to in places like John 15.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

But I'm not much on bogeyman Christianity. I grew up with fire and brimstone sermons, meant to scare people to Jesus, and everybody else.

As a result, I'm numb to hell-fire preachin. Overloaded, actually.

But I know people who awake with panic attacks from fear of damnation. Won't all these scary verses just exasperate those attacks ... not, perchance, bring needed salvation?

Scaring people to Christianity in the end is counter-productive. And why scare believers?

Some people love scary movies. So I guess some Christians like to be scared ... for those I present :

"The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood."
~ Sinners in the hands of an angry God - Jonathan Edwards
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html

Jeremiah 32:40
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

Some Christians I've met actually view fear of God as a gift

Yet perfect love casts out fear. Fear of God has prevented me from doing many stupid things. It's saved me from a lot of trouble in recent years. I think it was well worth the negative aspects of the emotion of fear. But I think God took care of that in my life so I no longer dwell on the fear but on his love instead.

Don't you wish our former ministry leaders in the LC could have shared in the fear of God? Doesn't seem like any fear was present when Lee was setting up bank accounts to launder money, instead it seemed like greed, a lust of the flesh was controlling his behaviour. If he understood and practiced living according to the Spirit, the LCs would be totally different from what they are today.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

First of all the Lord knows everything and everyone, including all sinners, unbelievers, unrighteous, lawless, etc., so when He says, "I never knew you," was He then lying? Or was He voicing His disapproval?

Those foolish virgins took their lamps to meet the bridegroom. The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord. They had no oil of the Spirit in their vessels. We are vessels. These foolish ones were waiting to meet the Lord as their bridegroom, but they fell asleep, which means they died. They awoke at midnight, the end of the church day, and resurrected with all the other believers.

Since they were not prudent while alive, they must still buy oil. The Bible says little about how this will occur.

Of course the Lord knows everyone. Of course He does. Of course He wasn't lying. Should the virgins have said then, as you have, "But Lord, you know everyone. You can't say that!" And would their protest have won over the Lord? Of course not.
Jesus was obviously making a point here. A point that is related to the verses I mentioned in John. Those verses lose their meaning if we read them as you would have us. I know my sheep and I am known by mine Nothing special if the Lord just simply knows everyone. No reason for the verse.

So, according to you, after we die if we haven't been prudent enough (and is there a cut off line for an acceptable amount of prudence or should we just keep being prudent and hope we make it?) we'll have another chance to buy oil? And who are the people who sell the oil, both in this life and after death?

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

What is outer darkness? It's not the lake of fire. Fire makes lightness not darkness. Is it being tossed into outer space? Where it's cold not hot?

Many people who have had NDEs report seeing people burning in agony in hell, yet there was no light or any fire visible. It's described a place of total darkness, yet burning. Here's one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmtJF3YuhQ

UntoHim · 01-31-2014, 02:46 PM

We may want to keep in mind just who it was that the Lord Jesus was addressing. Was it just the Jews? Was it a mixed crowd? Should we take into account the norms and culture of the day? Is there any consensus of interpretation between a good number of well-known and trusted teachers and scholars?

Ohio gives a plausible interpretation....and I believe this was more or less what Nee and Lee taught regarding this parable. (which doesn't make this interpretation right or wrong) One problem I do have with this particular twist on this one is that if the oil represents the Holy Spirit then the five foolish virgins cannot be believers because they do not have any oil to start with...they do not have the Holy Spirit to start with....doesn't sound like believers to me.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 02:47 PM

OBW,
Your posts #16 & #18 have really made me think. I've been thinking a lot about overcomers lately and how the LC has interpreted them...(has a lot to do with outer darkness and the thousand years)

In post # 16 you mention the parable of the slave given over to the tortures until he pays back what he owes.

Previously to this, wasn't he forgiven? Matt. 18:27 says, Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
Isn't the final act, that of throwing him into prison and torturing him evidence that the forgiveness has been reversed?
Also, how should we read/interpret the torture? And if torture can cause us to pay back something doesn't that come close to God forcing people to conform..in some way? What is it that we can pay back to God that in the end only torture could get out of us?

I don't think I can lose my salvation once I've truly believed.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Of course the Lord knows everyone. Of course He does. Of course He wasn't lying. Should the virgins have said then, as you have, "But Lord, you know everyone. You can't say that!" And would their protest have won over the Lord? Of course not.
Jesus was obviously making a point here. A point that is related to the verses I mentioned in John. Those verses lose their meaning if we read them as you would have us. I know my sheep and I am known by mine Nothing special if the Lord just simply knows everyone. No reason for the verse.

So according to you, if a brother cannot know the Lord's speaking in a matter, then perhaps he was never the Lord's in the first place? "Real" sheep would know the Lord's voice!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

So, according to you, after we die if we haven't been prudent enough (and is there a cut off line for an acceptable amount of prudence or should we just keep being prudent and hope we make it?) we'll have another chance to buy oil? And who are the people who sell the oil, both in this life and after death?

It's not according to me. Did you read the parable? The foolish ones were admonished to buy oil.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One problem I do have with this particular twist on this one is that if the oil represents the Holy Spirit then the five foolish virgins cannot be believers because they do not have any oil to start with...they do not have the Holy Spirit to start with....doesn't sound like believers to me.

I agree. The footnote to that verse (Matthew 25:8) says that "going out proves that the lamps of the foolish virgins were lighted. The contained some oil but did not have an adequate supply." But Matthew 25:3 says "For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them." It seems the first set brought lamps while the second brought lamps and oil.

I don't think these or the other parables were meant to be read so allegorically, so in depth and so symbolically. This parable is among a few others that give a simple message or patience and watchfullness. Trust. That was the Lord's concern at the moment.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

To show that I'm not too far off from the views of mainstream Christianity here's GotQuestions take on outer darkness which they believe to be "eternal darkness":

So does "GotQuestions" now represent "mainstream" Christianity.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

Many people who have had NDEs report seeing people burning in agony in hell, yet there was no light or any fire visible. It's described a place of total darkness, yet burning. Here's one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmtJF3YuhQ

How could they see people in hell when the judgment of the Great White throne has not yet occurred.

To me it seems a little unwise to base our belief system on NDE's.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I don't think I can lose my salvation once I've truly believed.

How do you know that you have "truly believed?" or perhaps you are still hoping for that time to come?

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio gives a plausible interpretation....and I believe this was more or less what Nee and Lee taught regarding this parable. (which doesn't make this interpretation right or wrong) One problem I do have with this particular twist on this one is that if the oil represents the Holy Spirit then the five foolish virgins cannot be believers because they do not have any oil to start with...they do not have the Holy Spirit to start with....doesn't sound like believers to me.

That is not accurate. If they had no oil whatsoever in their lamps, then how could their lamps be "going out?" (Matt. 25.8)

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How could they see people in hell when the judgment of the Great White throne has not yet occurred.

To me it seems a little unwise to base our belief system on NDE's.

When most Christians say hell they mean Hades which is in the pit of the earth. The lake of fire is understood to be the second or final hell by most Christians. I'm not saying what he saw was what Jesus considered to be outer darkness, but it can explain how it's possible to have burning in a place with no light.

And I agree we shouldn't base our theology off NDEs but off the word of God. But sometimes these experiences can give us greater insight, with discernment of course, and we should reject that ones the clearly go against God's word or deny Jesus' words.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So according to you, if a brother cannot know the Lord's speaking in a matter, then perhaps he was never the Lord's in the first place? "Real" sheep would know the Lord's voice!

It's not according to me. Did you read the parable? The foolish ones were admonished to buy oil.

It is according to you. You interpreted their sleep to be death. I didn't ask specifically about buying, I asked about it happening after death. I think you're reading way too into this...Just my opinion.

As far as knowing the Lord's voice, it's not only one way. The demons know the Lord's voice.

Peter was unclear about the Lord's speaking numerous times. He had the Lord with him, as did the other disciples yet they asked who he was (Lk 8:25, Mt 11:3) Knowing the Lord's voice in the context of Jn 10:14 implies more than just recognizing his voice, don't you agree? It implies trust, faith, obedience...Everyone of us in unclear at times, but when we are clear, do we obey? That's knowing the Lord and being His, being not of this world.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So does "GotQuestions" now represent "mainstream" Christianity.

I concede that mainstream doesn't always mean correct, if that were true we all should still be in the Catholic church and I don't agree with everything on that site either.

Yet Google ranks their answers pretty highly so I think it is somewhat representative because it means people are reading the site and linking to it. Maybe it doesn't mean it's mainstream, but it does suggest that I'm not by myself and I believe this view of outer darkness as being for eternity deserves to be seriously considered.

What would be worse is to find out that it is for eternity when we hung on to the belief that it was temporary when we either die or when Jesus comes back, because then it will be too late for us and our loved ones and friends.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do you know that you have "truly believed?" or perhaps you are still hoping for that time to c
ome?

Every day my faith bears witness to my belief. Every day I experience the blood as I ask for forgiveness. Every day I am reminded of God's grace and mercy. I love those who love the Lord and struggle with loving my enemies.

I am not waiting for it. I am experiencing it and working it out (understanding it , working through what it means to trust God, to obey him) day by day.

Rest assured, I don't think I have the final word. I think there is a lot more to consider, but to me, the Gospel is Hope, and being able to lose faith is a prospect that because of our fallen nature working against us would bring despair. Conversely, thinking that, if I were to fall away just enough to not merit some special reward and somehow be able to make it up through torture or who knows exactly what doesn't seem to fit the righteousness of God that comes in Christ.

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Every day my faith bears witness to my belief. Every day I experience the blood as I ask for forgiveness. Every day I am reminded of God's grace and mercy. I love those who love the Lord and struggle with loving my enemies.

I am not waiting for it. I am experiencing it and working it out (understanding it , working through what it means to trust God, to obey him) day by day.

Rest assured, I don't think I have the final word. I think there is a lot more to consider, but to me, the Gospel is Hope, and being able to lose faith is a prospect that because of our fallen nature working against us would bring despair. Conversely, thinking that, if I were to fall away just enough to not merit some special reward and somehow be able to make it up through torture or who knows exactly what doesn't seem to fit the righteousness of God that comes in Christ.

Amen, living according to our Spirit causes us to live in increasing righteousness which confirms our calling and election.

2 Peter 1
For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers,[g] be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

It is according to you. You interpreted their sleep to be death. I didn't ask specifically about buying, I asked about it happening after death. I think you're reading way too into this...Just my opinion.

I didn't interpret sleeping to be death, the Bible does. See Matt. 27.52

Jesus says the same about Lazarus in John 11.11-14.

Stephen, the first martyr, died by stoning and it was said he "fell asleep." Acts 7.60

ABinF please get out a concordance and look up "asleep."

I just don't see how I am "reading way too much into this," but perhaps you are right, and I should get some sleep.

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

I concede that mainstream doesn't always mean correct, if that were true we all should still be in the Catholic church and I don't agree with everything on that site either.

Yet Google ranks their answers pretty highly so I think it is somewhat representative because it means people are reading the site and linking to it. Maybe it doesn't mean it's mainstream, but it does suggest that I'm not by myself and I believe this view of outer darkness as being for eternity deserves to be seriously considered.

What would be worse is to find out that it is for eternity when we hung on to the belief that it was temporary when we either die or when Jesus comes back, because then it will be too late for us and our loved ones and friends.

I agree.

If anyone knows what is "mainstream Christianity," it would be Google. Or perhaps the NSA.

Think about this: Won't 1,000 years be a longer time than eternity? If there is no more time, then how could eternity be a "long time?"

Ohio · 01-31-2014, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Every day my faith bears witness to my belief. Every day I experience the blood as I ask for forgiveness. Every day I am reminded of God's grace and mercy. I love those who love the Lord and struggle with loving my enemies.

I am not waiting for it. I am experiencing it and working it out (understanding it , working through what it means to trust God, to obey him) day by day.

I think that is wonderful, but bearbear needs to know if have you repented, been baptized, had a complete change in thinking, and been faithful unto death, otherwise you may be a deceived free-gracer.

How can you know for sure that you will not end up in the lake of fire, outer darkness, gnashing your teeth, or with the tormenters?

bearbear · 01-31-2014, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think that is wonderful, but bearbear needs to know if have you repented, been baptized, had a complete change in thinking, and been faithful unto death, otherwise you may be a deceived free-gracer.

How can you know for sure that you will not end up in the lake of fire, outer darkness, gnashing your teeth, or with the tormenters?

Isn't that what repentance means? Metanoia means a change of mind. I've also never said anywhere in this forum or even on my website that baptism is required. But I'm not the first to insist on the mindset that we're expected to do God's word and not just hear it, which I think Witness Lee was a genius at training his followers to go against. Because he seemed to master the art of hearing and speaking God's word but doing little of it. Sadly few in the LCs had a godly example to follow so it seems that many struggle to have faith that it's possible to overcome our flesh and live according to the Spirit. It's very important that all of us find a healthy church that has leaders who can set such an example.

James 1:22
But don't just listen to God's word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves.

Romans 2:13
For merely listening to the law doesn't make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight

Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Am I crazy for believing that our faith has to endure until the end, when you have verses like these below in the word of God? How do you guys read the bible? Do you just mentally blot out these verses... Not pointing fingers cause that's what I used to do

How come we're so willing to believe in the good promises of the bible but so quick to overlook the warnings or read them haphazardly?

Matthew 10:33
but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 24:13
But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Hebrews 3:14
For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

Ezekiel 18:24
But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

Hebrews 6:4-8
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

And it's not really fair to represent my beliefs like that because I am open to the idea of sovereign grace and perseverance of the saints. I acknowledge that there are many verses in the bible which support the idea that God will preserve his chosen ones with his grace and make sure they persevere until the end, beginning with the born again experience by which he gives us a new heart and new spirit.

Jude 1:24
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy,

Psalm 37:24
Though they stumble, they will never fall, for the Lord holds them by the hand.

UntoHim · 01-31-2014, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That is not accurate. If they had no oil whatsoever in their lamps, then how could their lamps be "going out?" (Matt. 25.8)

Touche.....well kind of. So some believers are going to come to the Judgement but not have quite enough of the Holy Spirit? So they are going to be a quart or so low when the holy dipstick is checked and that will get them thrown into outer darkness for 1,000 years? Really Ohio? Come on man, you're better than that

My original concerns still stand. WHO WAS JESUS TALKING TO HERE? IT WAS THE JEWS HE WAS CONVERSING WITH. THE FACT THAT HE WAS SPEAKING TO THE JEWS...DOES THAT HAVE ANY AFFECT ON THE MEANING AND OR INTERPRETATION OF THE PASSAGE? We all know now that neither Nee nor Lee cared about this kind of detail but most biblical scholars and teachers do, and they care for a very good reason - because it bares GREATLY on how one interprets such parables.

The people to whom Jesus was speaking to had very little concept of the Holy Spirit...in fact the Holy Spirit was a totally foreign term/concept to most of them. So why would Jesus use a metaphor to a people who wouldn't have the faintest idea of what he was speaking of?

Just sayin.......

awareness · 01-31-2014, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The people to whom Jesus was speaking to had very little concept of the Holy Spirit...in fact the Holy Spirit was a totally foreign term/concept to most of them. So why would Jesus use a metaphor to a people who wouldn't have the faintest idea of what he was speaking of?

Where do you come by this claim that the Jews didn't have the faintest idea of the holy Spirit?

A search of the KJV of the phrase "spirit of the lord," comes up with 858 occurrences ... only 22 in the NT.

And "spirit of God" pulls 415 hits ... 49 of them in the NT

And the "holy Spirit" is mentioned 4 times in the OT.

So the Jews had some idea of the holy Spirit.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]

My original concerns still stand. WHO WAS JESUS TALKING TO HERE? IT WAS THE JEWS HE WAS CONVERSING WITH. THE FACT THAT HE WAS SPEAKING TO THE JEWS...DOES THAT HAVE ANY AFFECT ON THE MEANING AND OR INTERPRETATION OF THE PASSAGE?

A resounding yes. Jesus knew his audience, Jews, and knew they were familiar with the wait that accompanied the bride being taken into the father-in-law's house. Jesus spoke to his disciples in terms they were familiar with and then explained the meaning in Matthew 25:13. Watch. Be ready. You don't know when. Remember, this parable is a response to the disciples' question in chapter 24. They wanted to know WHEN. Is there any further need for interpretation? Where do we stop? Aren't we the bride and not the bridesmaids? Who sells oil? What is the oil? How much is it? how much should I buy? What's enough? and so on....Each of the parables in this section is driving home a point: wait. Watch. Be ready.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-31-2014, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I didn't interpret sleeping to be death, the Bible does. See Matt. 27.52

Jesus says the same about Lazarus in John 11.11-14.

Stephen, the first martyr, died by stoning and it was said he "fell asleep." Acts 7.60

ABinF please get out a concordance and look up "asleep."

I just don't see how I am "reading way too much into this," but perhaps you are right, and I should get some sleep.

But you did interpret the parable. You chose to see death where it says sleep because in other places death is called sleep. But in other places sleep is just sleep. Ecc. 5:12 The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep.

1 Thes 5:7 Night is the time when people sleep and drinkers get drunk.

Acts 20:9 ( a clear disctinction) Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead.

Jer 31:26 At this, I woke up and looked around. My sleep had been very sweet.

These are just a few.

Here are some where sleep is, indeed, death:

Ps 13:3 Look on me and answer, LORD my God. Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep in death,

Jn 11:11 and 11:13 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."

11:13 They thought Jesus meant Lazarus was simply sleeping, but Jesus meant Lazarus had died.

Just because sleep is death in certain places doesn't mean it always is.

I think something similar was said about leaven here a few weeks ago...and the birds roosting in the mustard tree. Things sometimes mean multiple things. But I suspect you knew that-- having gone through your concordance so thoroughly.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Touche.....well kind of. So some believers are going to come to the Judgement but not have quite enough of the Holy Spirit? So they are going to be a quart or so low when the holy dipstick is checked and that will get them thrown into outer darkness for 1,000 years? Really Ohio? Come on man, you're better than that

My original concerns still stand. WHO WAS JESUS TALKING TO HERE? IT WAS THE JEWS HE WAS CONVERSING WITH. THE FACT THAT HE WAS SPEAKING TO THE JEWS...DOES THAT HAVE ANY AFFECT ON THE MEANING AND OR INTERPRETATION OF THE PASSAGE? We all know now that neither Nee nor Lee cared about this kind of detail but most biblical scholars and teachers do, and they care for a very good reason - because it bares GREATLY on how one interprets such parables.

The people to whom Jesus was speaking to had very little concept of the Holy Spirit...in fact the Holy Spirit was a totally foreign term/concept to most of them. So why would Jesus use a metaphor to a people who wouldn't have the faintest idea of what he was speaking of?

Just sayin.......

Didn't He leave the temple and speak to the disciples privately on the mount of olives?

Matt 24.3

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

But you did interpret the parable. You chose to see death where it says sleep because in other places death is called sleep. But in other places sleep is just sleep. Ecc. 5:12 The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep.

1 Thes 5:7 Night is the time when people sleep and drinkers get drunk.

Acts 20:9 ( a clear disctinction) Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead.

Jer 31:26 At this, I woke up and looked around. My sleep had been very sweet.

These are just a few.

Here are some where sleep is, indeed, death:

Ps 13:3 Look on me and answer, LORD my God. Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep in death,

Jn 11:11 and 11:13 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."

11:13 They thought Jesus meant Lazarus was simply sleeping, but Jesus meant Lazarus had died.

Just because sleep is death in certain places doesn't mean it always is.

I think something similar was said about leaven here a few weeks ago...and the birds roosting in the mustard tree. Things sometimes mean multiple things. But I suspect you knew that-- having gone through your concordance so thoroughly.

Little sarcastic here?

Obviously we need to interpret the parables of The Lord a little differently from that of a tired Psalmist.

UntoHim · 02-01-2014, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Where do you come by this claim that the Jews didn't have the faintest idea of the holy Spirit?
A search of the KJV of the phrase "spirit of the lord," comes up with 858 occurrences ... only 22 in the NT.
And "spirit of God" pulls 415 hits ... 49 of them in the NT
And the "holy Spirit" is mentioned 4 times in the OT.
So the Jews had some idea of the holy Spirit.

Harold, Harold, you may want to think twice before you use google as your bible teacher. Don't be so lazy. There are tons of good websites that will explain to you what the Jewish concept of the Spirit was back in the day. You may want to even speak to your local Jewish Rabbi, he will probably give you about the same interpretation as the Jews in Jesus' time. So why don't you run along now and do some actual research, and then maybe you can have something to contribute besides trying to be the Devil's advocate

UntoHim · 02-01-2014, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Didn't He leave the temple and speak to the disciples privately on the mount of olives?

Matt 24.3

Ok, so what's your point? All the disciples were Jews, were they not?

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, so what's your point? All the disciples were Jews, were they not?

I was wondering what your point was.

UntoHim · 02-01-2014, 09:09 AM

My point is/was...that is I guess if I have any....that part of interpreting the Bible, especially the New Testament, is knowing just who is talking and who are they talking to? Did Jesus address the Pharisees and Scribes in the same manner as the woman at the well? Did every parable and teaching of Jesus have direct application for those of us in "the Church age"?

Witness Lee had a great tendency to over simplify, and his interpretation of many of the parables is a perfect example. Now he wasn't the only one to interpret these parables in this manner, but he is the one we are all the most familiar with so let's not bring up the red herring of "well that guy said it too".

I am basing much of my "concern" off of your post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those foolish virgins took their lamps to meet the bridegroom. The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord. They had no oil of the Spirit in their vessels. We are vessels. These foolish ones were waiting to meet the Lord as their bridegroom, but they fell asleep, which means they died. They awoke at midnight, the end of the church day, and resurrected with all the other believers.

This interpretation does not take into account just WHO Jesus was speaking to. "They had no oil of the Spirit in their vessels"? If we are going to say that the oil represents the Holy Spirit then there is a problem - when we receive the Lord we receive the Holy Spirit. So are we to believe that somehow these five foolish virgins used up all the Holy Spirit during their lifetime, and based upon this they will be turned away during the Millennial kingdom? Sorry, this interpretation is too simplistic and rather weak.

ABrotherinFaith · 02-01-2014, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously we need to interpret the parables of The Lord a little differently from that of a tired Psalmist.

And the other references? The ones you ignored? And all the others I didn't mention? As I said, sometimes sleep's just sleep.

Why do you want/need/whatever MORE interpretation than the Lord Himself gave? He explained the parable at the end of it (Matt 25:13). But I've already shown you that. At this point I wonder if you're just not open to anything else.

Can you explain/point to anywhere in the Bible that shows we'll be able to buy oil/Holy Spirit AFTER we die?

At least admit that the Bible doesn't say they (the bridesmaids) died...at least admit you're interpreting or following an interpretation.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am basing much of my "concern" off of your post:

This interpretation does not take into account just WHO Jesus was speaking to. "They had no oil of the Spirit in their vessels"? If we are going to say that the oil represents the Holy Spirit then there is a problem - when we receive the Lord we receive the Holy Spirit. So are we to believe that somehow these five foolish virgins used up all the Holy Spirit during their lifetime, and based upon this they will be turned away during the Millennial kingdom? Sorry, this interpretation is too simplistic and rather weak.

Once again, the Lord is speaking to the disciples. That's WHO.

Yes, we receive the Spirit, when we receive the Lord, but many Christians do not "grow with the growth of God," and hence the Spirit they were regenerated with remained in infancy, having drunk little of the pure milk of the word, neither the solid meat of righteousness. Hence, their lamp was not burning brightly, and at the midnight cry, they came up short.

I never said they had NO OIL. I said, based on the parable, that what they had was insufficient, and thus they were called foolish virgins, and exhorted to buy more oil, which implies they will need to do what they should have done while alive. Of course I am going to say that "oil represents the Holy Spirit." Or we can say that Oil represents the anointing of Christ, since His title means the "anointed One."

"Too simplistic and rather weak?" Perhaps you like to reduce this parable to a children's bedtime story?

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

1 And the other references? The ones you ignored? And all the others I didn't mention? As I said, sometimes sleep's just sleep.

2. Why do you want/need/whatever MORE interpretation than the Lord Himself gave? He explained the parable at the end of it (Matt 25:13). But I've already shown you that. At this point I wonder if you're just not open to anything else.

3. Can you explain/point to anywhere in the Bible that shows we'll be able to buy oil/Holy Spirit AFTER we die?

ABinF, I didn't ignore any of your verses. The context of the word "sleep" gives us the meaning whether sleep is sleep, or sleep is death. It is you who ignored what I wrote.

2. It's a parable. Sometimes the Lord provided explanation of parables, as with the parable of the "tares," and sometimes He did not. Either way, a parable requires interpretation, or else it is not a parable.

Yes, the exhortation is to "watch," but many do not. The Lord here provides some description of future events to provide us with further incentive.

3. The Bible is filled with exhortations to "buy oil" in this life, while using other words, though the Laodicians were admonished to "buy salve to anoint." Why don't you explain to me what happens to all God's children who are foolish, who do not watch, who do not grow, who are not faithful, etc.?

The bible is a book for today, the age of faith. It is not a handbook for life after death, and life after the judgment seat of Christ. When that happens, apparently instructions will be given as to how to "buy oil."

ABinF, when you first came to this forum, we went round and round about the need for husbands "to please his wife." (I Cor 7.33) Apparently you don't like the way I read the words of scripture.

ABrotherinFaith · 02-01-2014, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

ABinF, I didn't ignore any of your verses. The context of the word "sleep" gives us the meaning whether sleep is sleep, or sleep is death. It is you who ignored what I wrote.

2. It's a parable. Sometimes the Lord provided explanation of parables, as with the parable of the "tares," and sometimes He did not. Either way, a parable requires interpretation, or else it is not a parable.

Yes, the exhortation is to "watch," but many do not. The Lord here provides some description of future events to provide us with further incentive.

3. The Bible is filled with exhortations to "buy oil" in this life, while using other words, though the Laodicians were admonished to "buy salve to anoint." Why don't you explain to me what happens to all God's children who are foolish, who do not watch, who do not grow, who are not faithful, etc.?

The bible is a book for today, the age of faith. It is not a handbook for life after death, and life after the judgment seat of Christ. When that happens, apparently instructions will be given as to how to "buy oil."

Well, I can see you're holding onto what you see and that's fine. Again, I am satisfied with Lord's interpretation, with His explaining of the parable. Beyond that is open, too open, to conjecture and leads to things like claiming we'll be able to buy oil after we die. You're comfortable with that. I'm not so comfortable with it. You would think such a big thing like a second chance AFTER DEATH (!) would at least be elaborated on a touch by Paul, Peter, James...someone...

As far as telling you what happens to the unfaithful, you know very well I can't tell you exactly, definitively what will happen to them just as you can't tell me how we'll buy oil AFTER we've died. As YOU said, "The bible is a book for today, the age of faith. It is not a handbook for life after death, and life after the judgment seat of Christ. " And if this is the case (I pretty much agree with you) then why not focus on this life? Why not see an application in THIS life and not after we've died? Why look beyond this life?

The context is right there. It's everything. The disciples want to know when. That's it. And Jesus tells them simply to watch. To be ready. To wait because it will come when they don't expect it, but if they are watching they'll be ready.

Again, I can't tell you exactly, definitively, conclusively what will happen to those who are unfaithful, but it won't be good. Perhaps they'll be shown to have never really believed. Enduring to the end will show what was genuine and what was not.

UntoHim · 02-01-2014, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

and hence the Spirit they were regenerated with remained in infancy, having drunk little of the pure milk of the word, neither the solid meat of righteousness. Hence, their lamp was not burning brightly, and at the midnight cry, they came up short.

"the Spirit they were regenerated with remained in infancy"? I'm sure you probably meant something else. Care to try again?

"their lamp was not burning brightly"? and this is why they were turned away? When they asked to be let in the Lord did not tell them that their lamps were not burning brightly enough - He said "I DO NOT KNOW YOU". This is not an indication of a lack in "growth in life" it is an absolute denial of acknowledgement of their person. Again, this appears to be an indication that this foolish virgins may not have been genuine believers.

However....

Look, this interpretation is not life and death for us in the here and now, and it does not really involve any essential items of the faith. The problem is that when people like Witness Lee are not challenged on these lesser matters of interpretation then it leaves the door open for him to teach things like his Christian purgatory (which can only be avoided by purchasing and pray-reading HIS ministry of course!)

Quote:

Too simplistic and rather weak? Perhaps you like to reduce this parable to a children's bedtime story?

It's not the parable that is simplistic and rather weak it is Lee's interpretations that are simplistic and rather weak....and the vast majority of Christian apologists, teachers and scholars who review his teachings say pretty much the same thing.

02-01-2014, 11:02 AM

Let the Bible answer the Bible.

Outer darkness is where all the sinners are who don't have access to the light, Jesus.

THIS WORLD is where the outer darkness is. Not some place you go to after death.

Weeping means pain and misery in this life. Gnashing of teeth means anger and frustration in this life.

It's not exactly rocket science. Just let the Bible do the interpreting instead of speculating.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Well, I can see you're holding onto what you see and that's fine. Again, I am satisfied with Lord's interpretation, with His explaining of the parable. Beyond that is open, too open, to conjecture and leads to things like claiming we'll be able to buy oil after we die. You're comfortable with that. I'm not so comfortable with it. You would think such a big thing like a second chance AFTER DEATH (!) would at least be elaborated on a touch by Paul, Peter, James...someone...

As far as telling you what happens to the unfaithful, you know very well I can't tell you exactly, definitively what will happen to them just as you can't tell me how we'll buy oil AFTER we've died. As YOU said, "The bible is a book for today, the age of faith. It is not a handbook for life after death, and life after the judgment seat of Christ. " And if this is the case (I pretty much agree with you) then why not focus on this life? Why not see an application in THIS life and not after we've died? Why look beyond this life?

The context is right there. It's everything. The disciples want to know when. That's it. And Jesus tells them simply to watch. To be ready. To wait because it will come when they don't expect it, but if they are watching they'll be ready.

Again, I can't tell you exactly, definitively, conclusively what will happen to those who are unfaithful, but it won't be good. Perhaps they'll be shown to have never really believed. Enduring to the end will show what was genuine and what was not.

Shall I take from this that you are convinced there will be only two classes of people after death -- those in heaven, and those in hell?

Shall I also take from this that Jesus tells us many nice stories, but they really don't mean anything, except for the final admonition to "watch."

If the answer to both questions is a simple "yes," then at least be brave enough to admit it.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthfinder

Let the Bible answer the Bible.

Outer darkness is where all the sinners are who don't have access to the light, Jesus.

THIS WORLD is where the outer darkness is. Not some place you go to after death.

Weeping means pain and misery in this life. Gnashing of teeth means anger and frustration in this life.

It's not exactly rocket science. Just let the Bible do the interpreting instead of speculating.

Where does the Bible say that this world is "outer" darkness?

Are you then interpreting outer darkness for this life then?

I think you have done way too much personal "speculation" and "interpretation" here.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"the Spirit they were regenerated with remained in infancy"? I'm sure you probably meant something else. Care to try again?

"their lamp was not burning brightly"? and this is why they were turned away? When they asked to be let in the Lord did not tell them that their lamps were not burning brightly enough - He said "I DO NOT KNOW YOU". This is not an indication of a lack in "growth in life" it is an absolute denial of acknowledgement of their person. Again, this appears to be an indication that this foolish virgins may not have been genuine believers.

However....

Look, this interpretation is not life and death for us in the here and now, and it does not really involve any essential items of the faith. The problem is that when people like Witness Lee are not challenged on these lesser matters of interpretation then it leaves the door open for him to teach things like his Christian purgatory (which can only be avoided by purchasing and pray-reading HIS ministry of course!)

It's not the parable that is simplistic and rather weak it is Lee's interpretations that are simplistic and rather weak....and the vast majority of Christian apologists, teachers and scholars who review his teachings say pretty much the same thing.

You seem too hung up on Witness Lee, but it is your forum ...

But, one more question, how can an unbeliever be a "virgin," and how can the unbelievers be resurrected at His coming back, and why would an unbeliever go forth to meet the bridegroom, and how can the Lord say He never knew them, when He knows everything and even formed us in the womb, and if they are unbelievers, why didn't the Lord exhort them to repent and believe the gospel.

UntoHim · 02-01-2014, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You seem too hung up on Witness Lee, but it is your forum ....

"Local Church Discussions A safe, open place to discuss the Lord's Recovery Movement and the teachings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee"
You know me...always wanting to keep on topic!

Quote:

But, one more question, how can an unbeliever be a "virgin," and how can the unbelievers be resurrected at His coming back, and why would an unbeliever go forth to meet the bridegroom, and how can the Lord say He never knew them, when He knows everything and even formed us in the womb, and if they are unbelievers, why didn't the Lord exhort them to repent and believe the gospel

I thought you said "one more question"...this looks like five or six

An unbeliever can be anything the Lord wants to call him. In a sense EVERYONE is going to be "resurrected"...EVERYONE is going to appear before God at the Judgment, the Jews, Christians and all unbelievers. To go forth and meet the bridegroom could very well be interpreted as the Judgment, and as I just said everyone is going to be there. "I never knew you" seems to mean "I will not acknowledge you", or maybe "I will not accept you". (But of course you knew this, you just were on a roll with your question binge) The Lord didn't exhort them to repent and believe the gospel because it was too late...they had already died and were appearing before him for Judgment.

ABrotherinFaith · 02-01-2014, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shall I take from this that you are convinced there will be only two classes of people after death -- those in heaven, and those in hell?

Shall I also take from this that Jesus tells us many nice stories, but they really don't mean anything, except for the final admonition to "watch."

If the answer to both questions is a simple "yes," then at least be brave enough to admit it. (your response to me) But, one more question, how can an unbeliever be a "virgin," and how can the unbelievers be resurrected at His coming back, and why would an unbeliever go forth to meet the bridegroom, and how can the Lord say He never knew them, when He knows everything and even formed us in the womb, and if they are unbelievers, why didn't the Lord exhort them to repent and believe the gospel.

Yes, I think there are believers and unbelievers. Those who accept Christ as their savior and are obedient/endure to the end and those who don't.
As far as bravery here, I don't think it's a factor. As I explained, I don't know. I can't know. And neither can you. I have ALREADY told you that I am satisfied with Christ's explanation. I don't reduce His words to a children's story. Christ spoke to His disciples in terms they understood. Then He explained the meaning of those things in that context. It's simple, not simplistic. You don't know for sure that the oil is the spirit. You don't know the sleep is death. You don't know that we can buy oil AFTER we die..but you have the courage to say you do.

Why didn't He say to repent? I don't know. Is it possible that they would now have to endure being shut out of the feast. How do you think the virgins would feel being outside? Don't you think they would repent. Perhaps they will have to wait until the feast is over and the marriage celebration is complete. You still haven't addressed the looming question. Where's you courage? It's an ominous one and it's been asked before (an hour or so ago in fact)....Where do you get the idea from scripture that we will be able to buy oil/Holy spirit AFTER WE DIE?

Do you think that there are those who go to a church, who believe there was a guy named Jesus,who believe that God created things but their belief is akin to knowledge. They have never really sought the Lord. They enjoyed the company of the church, the hymns, the idea that heaven was waiting...these are the ones, I think, to whom the Lord will say, "I never knew you." But as YOU say and keep saying, the Lord can't really mean it because He knows everyone. So when He says "I know My sheep, " he's not really saying anything special because, well, he knows everyone. You've reduced Jesus to someone who just plays around with words, saying things He can't really mean. What do you think He means when he says "I don't know you?" or "I haven't known you?"

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Local Church Discussions A safe, open place to discuss the Lord's Recovery Movement and the teachings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee"
You know me...always wanting to keep on topic!

I thought you said "one more question"...this looks like five or six

I thought the topic was "outer darkness?" You keep bringing up "Lee said ..."

It was a run-on question.

Doesn't look like you are interested in answering any questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

An unbeliever can be anything the Lord wants to call him. In a sense EVERYONE is going to be "resurrected"...EVERYONE is going to appear before God at the Judgment, the Jews, Christians and all unbelievers. To go forth and meet the bridegroom could very well be interpreted as the Judgment, and as I just said everyone is going to be there. "I never knew you" seems to mean "I will not acknowledge you", or maybe "I will not accept you". (But of course you knew this, you just were on a roll with your question binge) The Lord didn't exhort them to repent and believe the gospel because it was too late...they had already died and were appearing before him for Judgment.

Then are you saying that the believers and unbelievers will all be resurrected together? And that there is only one judgment seat for all? Then you must not distinguish between the judgment seat of Christ and the great white throne.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Yes, I think there are believers and unbelievers. Those who accept Christ as their savior and are obedient/endure to the end and those who don't.

That sounds like more than two here ....
1. believers
2. believers who accept Christ
3. believers who do not accept Christ
4. believers who accept Christ and are obedient
5. believers who accept Christ and endure to the end
6. unbelievers

All these situations (and more) will exist.

Perhaps you would like to give this more thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

As far as bravery here, I don't think it's a factor. As I explained, I don't know. I can't know. And neither can you. I have ALREADY told you that I am satisfied with Christ's explanation. I don't reduce His words to a children's story. Christ spoke to His disciples in terms they understood. Then He explained the meaning of those things in that context. It's simple, not simplistic. You don't know for sure that the oil is the spirit. You don't know the sleep is death. You don't know that we can buy oil AFTER we die..but you have the courage to say you do.

In the parable of the sower (Mt 13.1-23) and the parable of the tares, (Mt 13.24-30, 36-43) the Lord went into great length to explain to the disciples what all the details of these parables meant. But in this parable of the virgins, the Lord did not explain in detail what the parable meant. Do you expect me to believe that the Lord spent much time thinking up good parables in His early ministry, filled with meaningful details, but as His death approached, He ran out of time thinking them through? If that was the case, He should have just said, "don't forget to watch." That would be more "simple."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Why didn't He say to repent? I don't know. Is it possible that they would now have to endure being shut out of the feast. How do you think the virgins would feel being outside? Don't you think they would repent. Perhaps they will have to wait until the feast is over and the marriage celebration is complete. You still haven't addressed the looming question. Where's you courage? It's an ominous one and it's been asked before (an hour or so ago in fact)....Where do you get the idea from scripture that we will be able to buy oil/Holy spirit AFTER WE DIE?

If the only suffering the foolish virgins have to endure is missing dinner, then how bad can that be? But, didn't you say thy are going to hell?

So, am I the only one who has to answer questions? The Lord Himself said the foolish ones have to "buy oil." Can't you accept that? I told you where I got the idea -- it's in the parable -- but you don't think that parable has any meaning to it, so you happen to miss that detail. Obviously the "oil" means something here. I doubt if Pep Boys has this kind of "oil" on their shelves. Didn't you ever realize that the Lord speaks metaphorically at times?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Do you think that there are those who go to a church, who believe there was a guy named Jesus, who believe that God created things but their belief is akin to knowledge. They have never really sought the Lord. They enjoyed the company of the church, the hymns, the idea that heaven was waiting...these are the ones, I think, to whom the Lord will say, "I never knew you." But as YOU say and keep saying, the Lord can't really mean it because He knows everyone. So when He says "I know My sheep, " he's not really saying anything special because, well, he knows everyone. You've reduced Jesus to someone who just plays around with words, saying things He can't really mean.

When the Bible exhorts us to believe, it is to "believe into." It is not a mere credence, or an acknowledgement of a fact, like the demons who 'believe." Real faith regenerates us with a living hope. We are born again.

The bible calls those who fake the program as unbelievers. They are tares, and not real wheat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

What do you think He means when he says "I don't know you?" or "I haven't known you?"

It means He does not approve of their works, they have not done the will of the Father. The opposite is for Him to say "well done."

Look at the parable of the sower. Consider the seed sown on rocky places. (Mt 13.5-6, 20-21) This one heard the word with joy, the seed sprouted into a new life, but is short-lived, and persecution stumbles this one. Consider the seed sown in the thorns. (Mt 13.7, 22) This one hears the word, and the plant sprouts and grows more, but the thorns of anxiety and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word so that it becomes unfruitful.

ABrotherinFaith · 02-01-2014, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That sounds like more than two here ....
1. believers
2. believers who accept Christ
3. believers who do not accept Christ
4. believers who accept Christ and are obedient
5. believers who accept Christ and endure to the end
6. unbelievers

All these situations (and more) will exist.

Perhaps you would like to give this more thought.

Either your silly and like to pretend you can't read/understand well or you're intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying so you can have you way...either way, let me explain (again and again). I think (I am not certain beyond a doubt--I'm not that brave

) that there are two. 1. Believers. These are people who accept Christ and obey/endure to the end. 2. Non believers. These are people that do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior--as evidenced by either their not enduring/obeying to the end or by simply not believing at all.

I suspect you got this when you read what I wrote but wanted to sound clever in your own way.

ABrotherinFaith · 02-01-2014, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

But, didn't you say thy are going to hell?

Don't take too long interpreting this answer: No.

I never said that.

(But I suspect you knew that)

I did say HELLo in my first post. Perhaps you interpreted the o as meaningless!

bearbear · 02-01-2014, 04:17 PM

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

Children of God have no reason to fear God because they are born of him. Fear of God has to do with punishment. If there was possibility of punishment awaiting children of God at the end of our Christian race, then the Apostle John is lying in this verse by suggesting that we should not fear.

Suffering in outer darkness for 1000 years as God's children just doesn't jive with God's character because it's sadistic. I know my God and it's not like him to do this to his children. Nor does millennial exclusion fit anywhere in the bible. Instead it seems like a dangerous doctrine which can be used to keep members of church in line under an abusive ministry or leader, while at the same time preventing people from pressing into repentance so their hearts can become the good earth and they can become born again. Jesus said wisdom is justified by her fruit, and from the looks of it, this doctrine has produced nothing but bad fruit.

The lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. This includes children of the devil, which also includes men who claim to be Christians, but show that they are children of the devil by their actions (works of the flesh which include unrepentant unforgiveness, sexual immorality, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness).

1 John 3:8
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

Life is a gift and all of us have a chance to repent before the book of our life closes. There's no reason anyone of us has to go to outer darkness or hell for eternity. Hebrews 9:27 says judgment comes at the end of our Christian race. God is able to keep us from falling if we're willing to repent and in doing so, hold his hand and follow him.

Psalm 37:23-24
The Lord directs the steps of the godly.
He delights in every detail of their lives.
Though they stumble, they will never fall,
for the Lord holds them by the hand.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Either your silly and like to pretend you can't read/understand well or you're intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying so you can have you way...either way, let me explain (again and again). I think (I am not certain beyond a doubt--I'm not that brave

) that there are two. 1. Believers. These are people who accept Christ and obey/endure to the end. 2. Non believers. These are people that do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior--as evidenced by either their not enduring/obeying to the end or by simply not believing at all.

I suspect you got this when you read what I wrote but wanted to sound clever in your own way.

I am NOT trying to sound clever.

You have defined a believer as one who accepts Christ, obeys Him to the end, and endures to the end.

This is incredibly naive and idealistic to define every believer this way.

But sorry, I'm wasting your time.

Have a nice day!

UntoHim · 02-01-2014, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought the topic was "outer darkness?" You keep bringing up "Lee said ..."

Witness Lee is the only one that I know of (did you here me, that I know of) that teaches that there will be a period of 1,000 years of outer darkness and gnashing of teeth for genuine, blood-washed Christians. (that did not live up to the standards that Lee himself made up) For many years me, I and the VAST majority of Local Churchers that I knew, considered that it would only be Local Churchers that would be the "overcomers" - all other Christians would be thrown into outer darkness while the rest of us Local Churchers were going to be in the marriage feast of the Lamb.

Now I'm sure you're going to say that Titus Chu never taught any such thing and that you never once heard of any such a teaching. Great. No problem...I'm happy for you!

But Witness Lee did absolutely say this and other abominable kinds of garbage. He taught this kind of bizarre, unbiblical stuff day-in and day-out for about 50 years that we have a record of. If you do not want to discuss this particular teaching (by way of confirming, defending or denying) then you are free to abstain from this thread. But please do not be dismissive of the other posters. Your questions have been answered but you just don't like the answers. FAIR ENOUGH! Don't like the answers! Let's discuss! We can't discuss if we dismiss each other!

Quote:

Then are you saying that the believers and unbelievers will all be resurrected together? And that there is only one judgment seat for all? Then you must not distinguish between the judgment seat of Christ and the great white throne.

Now there is a fair question. Of course this assumes that the Millennial kingdom is a literal, actual 1,000 years. There are many wise, spiritual and highly educated people on both sides of this fence. I tend to lean towards the literal side, but I do not see any scriptural evidence that this will be a time of sever punishment for genuine Christians, much less a time of punishment for those who do not imbibe the ministry of any particular man or men.

bearbear · 02-01-2014, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am NOT trying to sound clever.

You have defined a believer as one who accepts Christ, obeys Him to the end, and endures to the end.

This is incredibly naive and idealistic to define every believer this way.

But sorry, I'm wasting your time.

Have a nice day!

I don't see what's wrong with saying that, isn't he just restating verses like the ones below? The Greek word translated to believe is pisteou, which means to trust or commit oneself to something. Jesus seemed to make it clear that this commitment was expected to be a lifetime in his teachings which include the parable of the sower. This is consistent with passages in the OT as well such as Ezekiel 18 where God expects us to live in righteousness until the end.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Matthew 24:13
But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

OBW · 02-01-2014, 05:16 PM

BB,

I think that one problem that is going on in this discussion is the notion of how extreme one must be to believe and obey. I would not say that it is simple, like mental belief. But neither do I think that the kind of extreme that is getting implied here is what it means.

I note that Jesus went throughout his ministry preaching righteousness and sending the people home to live right.

Not to become one of the people who followed him everywhere he went.

That is one of the millstone burdens of both the Pharisees of old and the "serious" Christians of this age. They think that life must be overanalyzed. That we must beat ourselves up for every mistake. That we must spend an hour in the word and prayer each morning. That we must never fail or fall. That we must be burning in the meetings. And go to more meetings than anyone else we know.

Problem is that we all fall. And we do it at some level every day. While there is clearly a level of failure that will be recompensed on "the day" by something other than a crown with many stars in it.

In the mean time, there really is not sufficient evidence of what that recompense is to insist on any particular understanding of it.

And it is evident that we have multiple understandings about outer darkness. We can go on brow-beating each other with wet noodles and get nowhere because we simply do not know. The only thing we do know is to believe and obey. Take care of that and it will pan out in the end.

Ohio · 02-01-2014, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I tend to lean towards the literal side, but I do not see any scriptural evidence that this will be a time of sever punishment for genuine Christians, much less a time of punishment for those who do not imbibe the ministry of any particular man or men.

That's because every time you see a "bad" verse directed at Christians, you immediately apply it to unbelievers.

I asked this before. Peter called Lot "righteous."

Will he go to heaven or hell?

awareness · 02-01-2014, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, Harold, you may want to think twice before you use google as your bible teacher. Don't be so lazy. There are tons of good websites that will explain to you what the Jewish concept of the Spirit was back in the day. You may want to even speak to your local Jewish Rabbi, he will probably give you about the same interpretation as the Jews in Jesus' time. So why don't you run along now and do some actual research, and then maybe you can have something to contribute besides trying to be the Devil's advocate

Untohim,

No need to get snotty. I didn't run to google. That's just your projection. I have a Bible program on my computer.

And talk about lazy. You say there are tons of good websites that explain Jewish concept of spirit, but don't present even one.

And I'm not "running along." You are not my mother. Even tho you remind me of her.

The truth is, your statement :

"The people to whom Jesus was speaking to had very little concept of the Holy Spirit...in fact the Holy Spirit was a totally foreign term/concept to most of them."

is ludicrous. These Jews were learned Jews. They studied at Hellenistic schools. Of course they knew the term pneuma. It wasn't foreign to them.

Maybe you should think twice before shooting off from the hip.

You could have at least countered with verses, instead of with ad hominem's :

Joh_7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Act_23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit ...

OBW · 02-02-2014, 05:41 AM

While not directly on topic, I note that this topic is mostly about doctrines and opinions and what each version has to say about the souls of those who believe any particular way.

In that context, I came across the following blog post from an unfamiliar writer that seemed to speak to the kind of "preaching" that is common in many groups, including the LRC, and is raising its head even among us at times in threads like this.

Here is the post in full (with reference) and three or so of the comments it received following. I cannot point at anything or anyone particularly. Just note that it pricked my conscience and thought that it was worthy of passing on.

- - - -

An Untitled Rant (from the blog "Phoenix Preacher")
http://michaelnewnham.com/?p=15996

This morning as I scrolled through my Facebook feed I was confronted with yet another old and dear friend who has pretty much left the faith once delivered to the saints.

She’s gone not because of weighing all the eternal verities and reaching reasoned conclusions about spiritual matters . . . but because the church as she’s known and experienced it are too damn dangerous and deadly to her soul.

We did not protect and defend her from the wolves among us . . . we defended the wolves and demeaned her.

Now, a nicer wolf has taken her in.

She has already been rejected by many former friends, some of whom have contacted me and asked me to call and correct her doctrine . . . as if her doctrine was broken before her heart and spirit were.

That is the lie we tell about people we break and dispose of in the church . . . that they were simply apostates in waiting who are now simply showing their true colors.

That lie enables us to keep believing that “sound doctrine” covers wicked character, that if your words are straight, your walk can be crooked.

It screams the unspoken lie that Jesus died for proper pedagogy and not for people . . . and if people are wounded by the practitioners of proper pedagogy, it’s an acceptable sacrifice.

It denies the reality of how badly we break the hearts spirits of people in favor of protecting power and position.

My Facebook feed is littered with these living sacrifices to ecclesiastical authority and idolatry, some of whom have told me that they have been waiting for me to “unfriend” them for their “heresies”.

I won’t do that because I don’t think Jesus has.

I have been accused of not caring for their souls because of that.

It’s not their souls I’m worried about . . . it’s the guys being fitted for a millstone.

- - - - -

Among the comments are the following:

I can remember my Grandfather, from way back in the fifties saying, “The church has the only army who shoots their wounded”. I was just a kid then, and I had no idea what he meant.
I do now.

My spiritual health is not dependent on “Jesus alone”. He has delegated my care to my fellow church members, my pastor, my close friends . . . the fellowship of the saints. I need them and they need me . . . and whenever one of us suffers we all do.

We shoot the wounded because they are much easier targets than the one who comes to cheat, steal, kill and destroy. And it makes us feel like we are doing something. Sad

InChristAlone · 02-02-2014, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee is the only one that I know of (did you here me, that I know of) that teaches that there will be a period of 1,000 years of outer darkness and gnashing of teeth for genuine, blood-washed Christians. (that did not live up to the standards that Lee himself made up) For many years me, I and the VAST majority of Local Churchers that I knew, considered that it would only be Local Churchers that would be the "overcomers" - all other Christians would be thrown into outer darkness while the rest of us Local Churchers were going to be in the marriage feast of the Lamb.

I'm not qualified well enough to debate the issue. But I grew in the Orthodox Church and also never heard about the period of 1,000 years of outer darkness for genuine Christians. As for the LC, I have never paid much attention, but think I have heard somethings about this doctrine. It's not good enough to be a good Christian. You must be an "overcomer".

Besides, in the LC, they do think they are superior to other Christians. I heard bro Ron saying, "One day all brothers will be kings. They will rule over people in the millennium kingdom".

Another excerpt from his message:

"Our destiny is to be sons of God expressing God and also kings reigning in the kingdom of God".

Please check out his "proof" - Rev.21:7; 22:5; 12:5.

ABrotherinFaith · 02-02-2014, 06:41 AM

Good morning everyone. Last night I was reading through this thread again and felt the need to apologize to anyone (in particular to OHIO) I have offended. If an unbeliever or even a believer were to read some of the bickering on this thread I don't feel they would see the Lord. I did not reason the way He must have reasoned with those around him. Again, forgive me, please.

Praise the Lord.

Eph 4:32

Ohio · 02-02-2014, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Good morning everyone. Last night I was reading through this thread again and felt the need to apologize to anyone (in particular to OHIO) I have offended. If an unbeliever or even a believer were to read some of the bickering on this thread I don't feel they would see the Lord. I did not reason the way He must have reasoned with those around him. Again, forgive me, please.

Praise the Lord.

Eph 4:32

Thanks.

But it was my fault too, for not just stepping away. I broke one of my own forum rules -- not letting confrontations exceed two, or at the most three, go-rounds.

Sorry.

UntoHim · 02-02-2014, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And I'm not "running along." You are not my mother. Even tho you remind me of her.

There ya go Harold, I thought a good theological debate would loosen you up!

I will repeat:
The people to whom Jesus was speaking to had very little concept of the Holy Spirit...in fact the Holy Spirit was a totally foreign term/concept to most of them. So why would Jesus use a metaphor to a people who wouldn't have the faintest idea of what he was speaking of?

Harold, the Jews were never "trinitarians"...not from the beginning, not at Jesus' day and not today. To Jews the Spirit is simply the "breath of God", the power of God as it may rest upon a person and in some cases the thoughts or even the word of God. The Spirit of God was not considered "holy" for only God himself (Jehovah, Yahweh) was holy. You will not find the term "Holy Spirit" in the Old Testament, at least not in the sense the term is used in the New Testament. Anytime you see this term in the Old Testament it is in the sense of "the spirit of his holiness" - a completely different idea/concept than "The Holy Spirit", the third person in the Christian doctrine of the trinity.

Anyway, this is taking us off the beaten path and I've forgotten why this whole matter was brought up... maybe to show how the metaphor of oil used in the parable of the 10 virgins may not necessarily be representative of the Holy Spirit?

Peace!

awareness · 02-02-2014, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There ya go Harold, I thought a good theological debate would loosen you up!

I will repeat:
The people to whom Jesus was speaking to had very little concept of the Holy Spirit...in fact the Holy Spirit was a totally foreign term/concept to most of them. So why would Jesus use a metaphor to a people who wouldn't have the faintest idea of what he was speaking of?

Harold, the Jews were never "trinitarians"...not from the beginning, not at Jesus' day and not today. To Jews the Spirit is simply the "breath of God", the power of God as it may rest upon a person and in some cases the thoughts or even the word of God. The Spirit of God was not considered "holy" for only God himself (Jehovah, Yahweh) was holy. You will not find the term "Holy Spirit" in the Old Testament, at least not in the sense the term is used in the New Testament. Anytime you see this term in the Old Testament it is in the sense of "the spirit of his holiness" - a completely different idea/concept than "The Holy Spirit", the third person in the Christian doctrine of the trinity.

Anyway, this is taking us off the beaten path and I've forgotten why this whole matter was brought up... maybe to show how the metaphor of oil used in the parable of the 10 virgins may not necessarily be representative of the Holy Spirit?

Peace!

Now that was a worthy and thoughtful response. Thanks.

Yes, peace bro.

And it is true we don't know the oil in the parable of the ten virgins is the Holy Spirit. That's speculation.

When I read this parable I have to ask if Jesus is promoting polygamy.

bearbear · 02-02-2014, 11:06 AM

When I first came to this forum I got pretty frustrated in that epic thread on repentance. That same night when I was reading bible with youth, we randomly chose to read 2 Timothy 2. As I read these words off the page, I felt God was speaking directly to me and convicting me of what I had done hours ago. The chances of us reading this passage were slim and I knew it was an act of God so I was driven to repent. I should do it again here if I have not come across as gentle to some. The verses below remind us not be quarrelsome but be kind to each other, lest we open up a way for Satan to stumble us.

2 Timothy 2
23 Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. 24 A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. 25 Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. 26 Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants.

Ohio · 02-02-2014, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

When I first came to this forum I got pretty frustrated in that epic thread on repentance. That same night when I was reading bible with youth, we randomly chose to read 2 Timothy 2. As I read these words off the page, I felt God was speaking directly to me and convicting me of what I had done hours ago. The chances of us reading this passage were slim and I knew it was an act of God so I was driven to repent. I should do it again here if I have not come across as gentle to some. The verses below remind us not be quarrelsome but be kind to each other, lest we open up a way for Satan to stumble us.

2 Timothy 2
23 Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. 24 A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. 25 Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. 26 Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants.

I doubt if these verses were from the Lord, except maybe for v.23.

Otherwise, do I and others oppose the truth for examining the parables of the Lord? Am I part of the devil's trap for speaking of our saving faith? Does the faith I have from God and into God hold me captive by the devil?

Don't you think I also know hundreds of verses which I could launch at others. Concerning the LAW, the book of Romans and Galatians are filled with useful verses. I remember the days of my youth, living in the brothers' house and playing these verse wars, what an awful feeling the Lord gave me.

I have read quite a bit of church history over the years. The saddest part of church history is not the many persecutions by the godless, rather it is that zealous part of His body which always tends to bully that gentler part. Which side do you want to be part of?

bearbear · 02-02-2014, 08:33 PM

Hi Ohio, I think you're reading too much into those verses I posted and I'm sorry for it's negative connotations. I meant for each of us to read it from the first person and not as the recipient. I just wanted to emphasize we should be kind and gentle in our discussions. There's nothing wrong with digging into the word of God, but if we start having a negative attitude and start ripping into one another, that doesn't glorify God. And in saying this I'm also trying to remind myself to be gentle and kind and I'm sorry for crossing this line in this thread.

Regarding the Law, I wouldn't mind you bringing up those verses in the other thread. It would help us to bring our own views into sharper focus.

Elden1971 · 03-24-2014, 06:04 PM

THE WISE AND FOOLISH VIRGINS
HAS it ever occurred to you that as we are waiting for the appearing of the Bridegroom, the ministry should be in keeping with preparation for the meeting? The preparation is to be ready for Him, to be in fact the bride. It is not merely that you are saved, or that you are useful, but that you are in heart prepared to meet the Bridegroom! Personal love alone keeps us in this expectancy; love not only for His service to us, but for His love; then we feel we Cannot be apart from Him.
He draws our hearts to Himself by the way He assures us of His love for us, and that is by the way He seeks our perfection. No one can resist the love that desires to see “no spot in thee”. It is a wonderful thing to be in the sense of that before Him. What is the difference between the wise virgins and the foolish? Apparently they were all alike, they all had lamps, and when the cry came they all trimmed them; the wise took oil in their vessels, the foolish had lamps but no oil. It is remarkable that there should be a profession to go forth to meet the Bridegroom when there was no power of the Spirit of God to sustain them! How did this great lack occur? If they had believed in Christ risen they would have received the Holy Spirit; there cannot be any personal acquaintance with Christ without the Holy Spirit. “This spoke he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive”. We see by this parable that there may be a profession of going forth to meet Him by those who have no conscious link with Christ risen from the dead. Hence when the test came the lamps were going out. If we had a deeper sense of the absence of Christ here, we should rejoice more in the great truth that the other “Comforter” is come; the disciples in Acts had the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit! J B Stoney

Elden1971 · 03-24-2014, 06:07 PM

https://sites.google.com/a/berean-tr...me-12/contents

Elden1971 · 03-24-2014, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

https://sites.google.com/a/berean-tr...me-12/contents

https://sites.google.com/a/berean-tr...&q=ten+virgins

Elden1971 · 03-24-2014, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

https://sites.google.com/a/berean-tr...&q=ten+virgins

http://www.stempublishing.com/

Elden1971 · 03-24-2014, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

http://www.stempublishing.com/

use the search engine at stem publishing for ten virgins and any other topic of interest

Elden1971 · 03-24-2014, 06:21 PM

Every one must admit that the assembly has failed as the candlestick; as the witness for Christ in the world, during His absence. True, all the light there is for God on the earth is found in the assembly, but where, in any part of it, can one find even accurate fragments of the truth, as it was at the beginning, except where our future state as the bride is before the soul, imparting its moral features and power? There is no clear knowledge of what becomes the assembly on earth, or at the present moment, but as it is prepared for what it shall be. The assembly at first was both the candlestick or lampstand and the bride; the one present, the other in prospect; and it is remarkable that as soon as the future was lost sight of by the servants in their hearts and practice, so did the assembly lose its proper energy and moral influence. We read (Matt. 25:1, 5), “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom ... While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.” A sleeping saint has neither the sense of life nor does he manifest the activity of life. When the assembly lost sight of the coming of the Lord, she lost the sense of internal power, and was no longer the expression of it to man. When the first love waned, when the saints were satisfied with the reception of grace, without the heart going out in the earnest desire to see the Lord, they were no longer the lampstand. Surely they had light still; there was no light elsewhere on earth, but they had forfeited the visible demonstration of the Holy Spirit, because they had failed in being in heart and practice the bride. If they were not active in heart to their absent Lord, they were not to be entrusted with the honour of the Lord on earth; nor would they be invested with His name and rights on the earth where He had been disallowed. While there was a true earnest purpose of heart in watching for His return, the assembly on earth was clothed with Christ’s power, as He said, “I am glorified in them”; but when she became supine, and indifferent to His coming, then there was a distinct withdrawal of visible favour; the office of candlestick or lampstand was no longer entrusted to her, and thus the church went on for centuries. At length, at midnight, there was a cry heard, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.” This cry reached with power the heart of every one with oil in his vessel — with life through the Holy Spirit. The affection was really there, but it was smothered and inoperative, because not called into occupation with the only object which could feed and enliven it, even Christ Himself. JBStoney

Elden1971 · 03-24-2014, 06:38 PM

http://www.stempublishing.com/author...ABLES.html#a13

OBW · 03-25-2014, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Every one must admit that the assembly has failed as the candlestick; as the witness for Christ in the world, during His absence. True, all the light there is for God on the earth is found in the assembly, but where, in any part of it, can one find even accurate fragments of the truth, as it was at the beginning, except where our future state as the bride is before the soul, imparting its moral features and power? There is no clear knowledge of what becomes the assembly on earth, or at the present moment, but as it is prepared for what it shall be. The assembly at first was both the candlestick or lampstand and the bride; the one present, the other in prospect; and it is remarkable that as soon as the future was lost sight of by the servants in their hearts and practice, so did the assembly lose its proper energy and moral influence. We read (Matt. 25:1, 5), “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom ... While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.” A sleeping saint has neither the sense of life nor does he manifest the activity of life. When the assembly lost sight of the coming of the Lord, she lost the sense of internal power, and was no longer the expression of it to man. When the first love waned, when the saints were satisfied with the reception of grace, without the heart going out in the earnest desire to see the Lord, they were no longer the lampstand. Surely they had light still; there was no light elsewhere on earth, but they had forfeited the visible demonstration of the Holy Spirit, because they had failed in being in heart and practice the bride. If they were not active in heart to their absent Lord, they were not to be entrusted with the honour of the Lord on earth; nor would they be invested with His name and rights on the earth where He had been disallowed. While there was a true earnest purpose of heart in watching for His return, the assembly on earth was clothed with Christ’s power, as He said, “I am glorified in them”; but when she became supine, and indifferent to His coming, then there was a distinct withdrawal of visible favour; the office of candlestick or lampstand was no longer entrusted to her, and thus the church went on for centuries. At length, at midnight, there was a cry heard, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.” This cry reached with power the heart of every one with oil in his vessel — with life through the Holy Spirit. The affection was really there, but it was smothered and inoperative, because not called into occupation with the only object which could feed and enliven it, even Christ Himself. JBStoney

This seems to be milking the story for more than is intended and more than the remainder (which is the larger part) of all scripture would suggest.

If the sleeping is the problem, then why did Jesus have only sleeping ones and make no reference to it other than to note that they were all awakened. What was the differentiating factor? It was not sleep. It was oil.

It would seem that the parable tells of some who started on a particular journey long before the necessary time. They had a focus, but because their singular aim was not imminent, they fell asleep. What is it to fall asleep? It is not even hinted at. But it could be nothing more than that the realities of life could not be ignored while "the bridegroom tarried."

Ever notice that there has been the anticipation of the return of the Lord since the time almost immediately after his ascension, yet here we are nearly 2,000 years after that time and it has not happened (at least if we assume that our understanding of the whole thing is correct — and I generally do believe that). Too often, those who get fired up for the eminent return are filled with exuberance, but it wanes in the face of normal life. In the face of work, troubles at home, aches, pains, and serious illness. As life goes along, some exist from re-ignition to re-ignition of exuberance. But often those begin to fade in their ability to recharge them toward the Lord. Others engage in regular, but less outward ways and seem to be steady, even if never (or seldom) outwardly on fire. Yet you will find them to be solid to the end.

I believe that sleeping in the parable is not the problem. It is the reality for all of us. Life continues. The bridegroom we are waiting for has not come for 2,000 years and may not come for another 2,000 years. But each life will come to a point of meeting. At death, we will "sleep" with the Lord. There is no more oil to be gained then. It is strictly about what has gone before. No one can pray us to get more oil, or pay for it. We either have it or we don't.

We initially go out to meet the bridegroom when we pass from darkness to life. But what do we do with the time from then until he comes to meet us? Eventually most of us will sleep. Unless we are the few who are alive at the actual return, sleep is inevitable. And many of us know it well. Some who we have known are already in that sleep. Some went earlier than others. Some may have years before it begins.

But oil is not better meetings. It is not some metaphorical better assembly that manages to remain as a candlestick. Frankly, given the extreme state of some of those churches in Revelation 2 and 3 who still had theirs, I am not as easy to persuade that lampstands are so quickly removed. I know there are some who will disagree, but I am not sure that the RCC has lost theirs. Oh, they have many things among them that ought not be. But they still have not lost sight of the only thing that saves them. And despite the rhetoric of us Protestants, it would appear that they do not believe that Christ is actually re-sacrificed every time they have communion.

The problem is that we spend too much of our time worrying about what kind of oil others have rather than worrying about our own. If there is a problem, it is not with the church. It is with those who would be the church. Any church. God is not after some uniform, glorious beacon of truth. He is after people who bear his image in everything they do. He is after their obedience, not their sacrifice of praise. Out of obedience will come the praise. But praise from those who are not obedient is hollow and is not what He seeks.

Cal · 03-25-2014, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But oil is not better meetings. It is not some metaphorical better assembly that manages to remain as a candlestick. Frankly, given the extreme state of some of those churches in Revelation 2 and 3 who still had theirs, I am not as easy to persuade that lampstands are so quickly removed. I know there are some who will disagree, but I am not sure that the RCC has lost theirs. Oh, they have many things among them that ought not be. But they still have not lost sight of the only thing that saves them. And despite the rhetoric of us Protestants, it would appear that they do not believe that Christ is actually re-sacrificed every time they have communion.

The problem is that we spend too much of our time worrying about what kind of oil others have rather than worrying about our own. If there is a problem, it is not with the church. It is with those who would be the church. Any church. God is not after some uniform, glorious beacon of truth. He is after people who bear his image in everything they do. He is after their obedience, not their sacrifice of praise. Out of obedience will come the praise. But praise from those who are not obedient is hollow and is not what He seeks.

Elden1971 (and thanks for being here, by the way) starts out with the common wisdom that the Church has "failed as the candlestick." On the one hand, anyone who can point to imperfection in the Church can thereupon point to failure. On the other hand, God knows we are not going to perfect, and doesn't discount our successes because of a lack of perfection.

I think much of the perception of "failure" of the church is tied up in our concept of what success looks like. In the case of the LC, we imagined this group of heavenly people whose holiness and transformation shown out like some kind of glowing orb over the whole city they lived in. It was a very Chinese vision of humanity, with everyone looking alike and all individual distinction swallowed up in the glory of the wonderful whole. We saw the Church as the precursor to the New Jerusalem, shining with beautiful colors and light.

But we sometimes forget that the Church is also the tabernacle, covered with the uncomely hides of common animals. Nothing bright and beautiful about that. The Church is made up of common-looking folk, each very distinct and different, not to mention the different cultures and backgrounds they represent. Its beauty is inward, and it is not a beauty of some homogenized glowing orb, but of real human beings who each have the character of Christ.

In the next age, the nations will bring their tribute to the shining city. In this age, they scoff at the shining because the shining is disguised with a common-looking exterior. If you look at the rough edges you see failure. But if you look closer, for what God is really looking for, you see successes.

I see evidence of the success of the Church being a shining light to the nations all over the place, in assemblies where, as OBW said, a critical mass of the individuals are obedient. If I were scanning for the idealized lampstand that the LC told us to be, I'd be disappointed. But I don't think that's really what God is looking for in the first place.

Ohio · 03-25-2014, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Elden1971 (and thanks for being here, by the way) starts out with the common wisdom that the Church has "failed as the candlestick." On the one hand, anyone who can point to imperfection in the Church can thereupon point to failure. On the other hand, God knows we are not going to perfect, and doesn't discount our successes because of a lack of perfection.

One prominent feature of the Darby exclusives, Nee and the Little Flock, and Lee's recovery is their starting point -- the church has failed!

That's how each has started out, and it is one of the connecting threads that is woven throughout all of their ministries.

Once a minister has successfully convinced his audience (and, of course, J.N.Darby had successfully done that long before Stoney began to minister) that "the church has failed," he immediately elevates his own ministry above all others, since, of course, others' ministries have only produced a "failed church," and then he simultaneously elevates his audience above all others, since they alone are no longer apart of the "failed church."

Cal · 03-25-2014, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

The assembly at first was both the candlestick or lampstand and the bride;

And the assembly at first was deeply in trouble and failing, with factions and opinions, squabbles and backstabbing, politics and posturing. Just like the assembly today, which also happens to be the lampstand and the bride.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...h.html?start=1

awareness · 03-25-2014, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

And the assembly at first was deeply in trouble and failing, with factions and opinions, squabbles and backstabbing, politics and posturing. Just like the assembly today, which also happens to be the lampstand and the bride.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...h.html?start=1

Good article bro Ohio. Thanks fer linkin ....

Elden1971 · 03-25-2014, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

One prominent feature of the Darby exclusives, Nee and the Little Flock, and Lee's recovery is their starting point -- the church has failed!

That's how each has started out, and it is one of the connecting threads that is woven throughout all of their ministries.

Once a minister has successfully convinced his audience (and, of course, J.N.Darby had successfully done that long before Stoney began to minister) that "the church has failed," he immediately elevates his own ministry above all others, since, of course, others' ministries have only produced a "failed church," and then he simultaneously elevates his audience above all others, since they alone are no longer apart of the "failed church."

http://www.stempublishing.com/author...sing_Days.html
this is hardly the message of a MOTA

Elden1971 · 03-25-2014, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

http://www.stempublishing.com/author...sing_Days.html
this is hardly the message of a MOTA

excerpt of letter from darby to w Kelly

The real question is, Is it addressed to all saints as possessing the Spirit so as to use it? They are the church. Ministry may be a means of communicating, and a very precious one, as Ephesians 4; but they are never a rule nor an authority. A rule must be an existing quantum of doctrine, but this no men are. That as an authority must be infallible, which none is but God. Infallible is not perfectly right. I may say what is absolutely right, but I am not infallible. Whenever the apostles spoke by inspiration, they uttered in revelation what was absolutely right from God, but this did not make them infallible. God is, because in His nature He never can say anything but what is right. When God spoke by them, as every true Christian believes He did, they were absolutely right: but God remained the alone infallible, who never could of Himself say anything wrong. This was not communicated to an apostle, since if he did not speak by inspiration, he was as another man - more experience perhaps, but a man. Inspiration comes from the infallible One, but does not render the inspired one infallible, but only perfectly right and divine in what he utters as inspired.

awareness · 03-25-2014, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

excerpt of letter from darby to w Kelly

The real question is, Is it addressed to all saints as possessing the Spirit so as to use it? They are the church. Ministry may be a means of communicating, and a very precious one, as Ephesians 4; but they are never a rule nor an authority. A rule must be an existing quantum of doctrine, but this no men are. That as an authority must be infallible, which none is but God. Infallible is not perfectly right. I may say what is absolutely right, but I am not infallible. Whenever the apostles spoke by inspiration, they uttered in revelation what was absolutely right from God, but this did not make them infallible. God is, because in His nature He never can say anything but what is right. When God spoke by them, as every true Christian believes He did, they were absolutely right: but God remained the alone infallible, who never could of Himself say anything wrong. This was not communicated to an apostle, since if he did not speak by inspiration, he was as another man - more experience perhaps, but a man. Inspiration comes from the infallible One, but does not render the inspired one infallible, but only perfectly right and divine in what he utters as inspired.

Isn't the predicate in the last sentence the catch? So what's the difference, in application, of being infallible and being "perfectly right and divine in what he utters as inspired."?

In the LC I was really hung on Darby. I was going thru his set on all the books of the Bible when my "storm" started brewing. Ended up giving the whole set, and all my other books, including Nee and Lee, four heavy boxes, to the library.

I let go of all of it. And except for these LC forums haven't went back. I've been an outsider of all that for a long time. I've forgotten most of what I knew back in my LC days.

So I don't know that much about the peebs, but enough to know better than to hook my wagon to Darby. Darby, in the end, for me, is a non-event in my life. Sorry if that offends anyone. It's not meant to.

Cal · 03-26-2014, 07:51 AM

@@@@@@@@@@

Cal · 03-26-2014, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Inspiration comes from the infallible One, but does not render the inspired one infallible, but only perfectly right and divine in what he utters as inspired.

Something always gets lost in translation. No uttering is or can perfect. By definition words are always somewhat inaccurate and incomplete expressions of whatever reality they are based on. In addition, the hearer's interpretation of the words will be imperfect, as will his speaking of what he heard.

Words bring us closer to God to the degree that they manage to convey truth to us. They take us away from God to the degree that they fail. And they always fail to some extent.

Ohio · 03-26-2014, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

excerpt of letter from darby to w Kelly

The real question is, Is it addressed to all saints as possessing the Spirit so as to use it? They are the church. Ministry may be a means of communicating, and a very precious one, as Ephesians 4; but they are never a rule nor an authority. A rule must be an existing quantum of doctrine, but this no men are. That as an authority must be infallible, which none is but God. Infallible is not perfectly right. I may say what is absolutely right, but I am not infallible. Whenever the apostles spoke by inspiration, they uttered in revelation what was absolutely right from God, but this did not make them infallible. God is, because in His nature He never can say anything but what is right. When God spoke by them, as every true Christian believes He did, they were absolutely right: but God remained the alone infallible, who never could of Himself say anything wrong. This was not communicated to an apostle, since if he did not speak by inspiration, he was as another man - more experience perhaps, but a man. Inspiration comes from the infallible One, but does not render the inspired one infallible, but only perfectly right and divine in what he utters as inspired.

For me this is like the fine print legal disclaimer which accompanies every purchase.

Neither the Catholics, nor the Exclusive Brethren, nor the Little Flock assemblies, nor the Recovery will ever say that their Pope, Chosen Vessel, or MOTA is perfect or infallible. They will always attribute that to his teachings and decisions. Herein lies the problem, however. Once we even acknowledge the very existence of a Pope, or a Chosen Vessel, or an acting God, or a MOTA, then we have automatically banished the ultimate authority of the Head and the word of God to a subordinate position.

aron · 03-26-2014, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

...we have automatically banished the ultimate authority of the Head and the word of God to a subordinate position.

Or, conversely, we have elevated a brother (or sister) to a place they cannot claim. On the right or left hand of Jesus.

Ohio · 03-26-2014, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Or, conversely, we have elevated a brother (or sister) to a place they cannot claim. On the right or left hand of Jesus.

Usually they elevate themselves, with the help of paid staff, rather than conversely the congregation elevating them.

Elden1971 · 04-11-2014, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee is the only one that I know of (did you here me, that I know of) that teaches that there will be a period of 1,000 years of outer darkness and gnashing of teeth for genuine, blood-washed Christians. (that did not live up to the standards that Lee himself made up) For many years me, I and the VAST majority of Local Churchers that I knew, considered that it would only be Local Churchers that would be the "overcomers" - all other Christians would be thrown into outer darkness while the rest of us Local Churchers were going to be in the marriage feast of the Lamb.

Now I'm sure you're going to say that Titus Chu never taught any such thing and that you never once heard of any such a teaching. Great. No problem...I'm happy for you!

But Witness Lee did absolutely say this and other abominable kinds of garbage. He taught this kind of bizarre, unbiblical stuff day-in and day-out for about 50 years that we have a record of. If you do not want to discuss this particular teaching (by way of confirming, defending or denying) then you are free to abstain from this thread. But please do not be dismissive of the other posters. Your questions have been answered but you just don't like the answers. FAIR ENOUGH! Don't like the answers! Let's discuss! We can't discuss if we dismiss each other!

Now there is a fair question. Of course this assumes that the Millennial kingdom is a literal, actual 1,000 years. There are many wise, spiritual and highly educated people on both sides of this fence. I tend to lean towards the literal side, but I do not see any scriptural evidence that this will be a time of sever punishment for genuine Christians, much less a time of punishment for those who do not imbibe the ministry of any particular man or men.

Who teaches such things? It is more common than one might think. Its origins go back to the 19th century or earlier with the writings of men such as Robert Govett, D.M.Panton, G.H.Pember and G.H.Lang. The modern resurgence of this teaching within Bible believing, dispensational circles can be traced primarily to the influence and writings of Zane Hodges, formerly a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and the author of numerous books and commentaries which promote this viewpoint.
Zane Hodges has influenced certain influential men toward this doctrinal position, including 1) Joseph Dillow, the author of The Reign of the Servant Kings, has systematized this teaching in this one, comprehensive, massive volume which may be considered as the key theology book for this movement; 2) Robert Wilkin heads up the Grace Evangelical Society which publishes a newsletter which is sent to a readership of 9,000 and a theological journal which also has a circulation of 900. This society also publishes a number of books by Hodges, Wilkin and others. They also highly recommend Dillow's book; 3) Charles Stanley, the well-known television preacher from Atlanta, embraces this position as seen in his book, Eternal Security. His reliance upon Hodges is seen in the footnotes. 4) Chuck and Nancy Missler, influenced by Dillow and others, strongly push this view in their book, The Kingdom, Power, & Glory--The Overcomer's Handbook (a 400 pages volume).
Another writer who divides the body of Christ into two distinct groups is J.D. Faust. Faust is the most extreme when it comes to the amount of punishment that will be experienced by believers who do not overcome. Faust actually teaches that saved people who do not measure up and who are not overcomers will actually be hurt of the second death (the lake of fire) for a brief period of time, and then will be punished in the fires of Hades in the underworld for a thousand years (see The Rod--Will God Spare It? by J.D.Faust , Schoettle Publishing Co., 2002). He follows the teachings of men like Govett, G.H.Lang and D.M.Panton (partial rapturists).Hodges, Wilkin and Dillow are horrified by Faust's extreme ideas regarding millennial punishment, but they share a common theology with him. They differ mainly in what kind of consequences the wicked saved people (non-overcomers) will suffer. They also differ in the length of time that the non-overcoming believers will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth. Faust has them suffering in the fires of Hades throughout the thousand years. Hodges and Wilkin say that the grief and remorse (the weeping and gnashing of teeth) will be short-lived and will take place at the judgment seat of Christ but will not extend into the kingdom. Dillow teaches that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will take place "in the kingdom" (p. 351, The Reign of the Servant Kings).

awareness · 04-11-2014, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Who teaches such things? It is more common than one might think. Its origins go back to the 19th century or earlier with the writings of men such as Robert Govett, D.M.Panton, G.H.Pember and G.H.Lang. The modern resurgence of this teaching within Bible believing, dispensational circles can be traced primarily to the influence and writings of Zane Hodges, formerly a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and the author of numerous books and commentaries which promote this viewpoint.
Zane Hodges has influenced certain influential men toward this doctrinal position, including 1) Joseph Dillow, the author of The Reign of the Servant Kings, has systematized this teaching in this one, comprehensive, massive volume which may be considered as the key theology book for this movement; 2) Robert Wilkin heads up the Grace Evangelical Society which publishes a newsletter which is sent to a readership of 9,000 and a theological journal which also has a circulation of 900. This society also publishes a number of books by Hodges, Wilkin and others. They also highly recommend Dillow's book; 3) Charles Stanley, the well-known television preacher from Atlanta, embraces this position as seen in his book, Eternal Security. His reliance upon Hodges is seen in the footnotes. 4) Chuck and Nancy Missler, influenced by Dillow and others, strongly push this view in their book, The Kingdom, Power, & Glory--The Overcomer's Handbook (a 400 pages volume).
Another writer who divides the body of Christ into two distinct groups is J.D. Faust. Faust is the most extreme when it comes to the amount of punishment that will be experienced by believers who do not overcome. Faust actually teaches that saved people who do not measure up and who are not overcomers will actually be hurt of the second death (the lake of fire) for a brief period of time, and then will be punished in the fires of Hades in the underworld for a thousand years (see The Rod--Will God Spare It? by J.D.Faust , Schoettle Publishing Co., 2002). He follows the teachings of men like Govett, G.H.Lang and D.M.Panton (partial rapturists).Hodges, Wilkin and Dillow are horrified by Faust's extreme ideas regarding millennial punishment, but they share a common theology with him. They differ mainly in what kind of consequences the wicked saved people (non-overcomers) will suffer. They also differ in the length of time that the non-overcoming believers will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth. Faust has them suffering in the fires of Hades throughout the thousand years. Hodges and Wilkin say that the grief and remorse (the weeping and gnashing of teeth) will be short-lived and will take place at the judgment seat of Christ but will not extend into the kingdom. Dillow teaches that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will take place "in the kingdom" (p. 351, The Reign of the Servant Kings).

So it ends up, according to these that are conjecturing about the thousand years, that likely I'm gonna suffer in Hades for a thousand years.

What happened to the loving and forgiving Jesus of the gospels? And is the cross of Jesus not efficacious enough to save us?

Ohio · 04-11-2014, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

So it ends up, according to these that are conjecturing about the thousand years, that likely I'm gonna suffer in Hades for a thousand years.

What happened to the loving and forgiving Jesus of the gospels? And is the cross of Jesus not efficacious enough to save us?

Could it be that he saved us from the curse of the law, but not from the discipline of a loving Father?

I just wish that those who reject the disciplines of genuine Christians at the Bema seat of Christ could explain to me what all those verses mean which seem to indicate suffering for God's children.

OBW · 04-11-2014, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Could it be that he saved us from the curse of the law, but not from the discipline of a loving Father?

I just wish that those who reject the disciplines of genuine Christians at the Bema seat of Christ could explain to me what all those verses mean which seem to indicate suffering for God's children.

I must agree. It is somewhat easy to cast off the teachings of Lee as being another hook to keep us in line.

But there are verses that indicate that those who have tasted of the goodness of the Lord and it has taken root will potentially fall away. Doesn't seem to stack up to "I can't jump out of his hand." There is clearly something that is not clear in all of this. And it might be that it is something complicated and neither "never saved" or "ticket to heaven" and for those who care to read the Word, they will understand that it is not easy and refuse to simply "rest on grace."

Lot more could be said, but I will refrain.

UntoHim · 04-11-2014, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Who teaches such things? It is more common than one might think. Its origins go back to the 19th century or earlier with the writings of men such as Robert Govett, D.M.Panton, G.H.Pember and G.H.Lang....

Thanks for digging this all up, Terry, I think the fact that others have taught that there will be a time of punishment/discipline for certain genuine believers is absolutely relative to the discussion at hand.....

However.......

I think it should be noted that there is a VAST difference between what Lee taught regarding this matter of punishment/discipline, and what has been taught by many of the folks you have mentioned in your last post.

How many of these men taught that to be an overcomer, and thus avoid said punishment/discipline in the age to come, one must be a devout follower of a certain man's ministry, and indeed be a devout member of a certain sect which was initiated by and lead solely by the very same man? I could be mistaken, but I doubt you will find such a thought or concept, much less a clearly defined doctrine or teaching, such as we find in Witness Lee.

As I think I have made clear in some of my previous posts in this thread, I think there is strong biblical evidence to suggest that there will be some sort of discipline for those Christians who fall short in this age, but I think there is strong biblical evidence that the punishment and or discipline will be in the form of the lack of a reward, such as we see given to the overcomers. I don't have time now to give the verses and such, but I will this weekend if I can find the time.

Thanks again for your post.

Ohio · 04-11-2014, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think it should be noted that there is a VAST difference between what Lee taught regarding this matter of punishment/discipline, and what has been taught by many of the folks you have mentioned in your last post.

How many of these men taught that to be an overcomer, and thus avoid said punishment/discipline in the age to come, one must be a devout follower of a certain man's ministry, and indeed be a devout member of a certain sect which was initiated by and lead solely by the very same man? I could be mistaken, but I doubt you will find such a thought or concept, much less a clearly defined doctrine or teaching, such as we find in Witness Lee.

I definitely agree that the whole matter has been muddied by Recovery claims that only those in the Recovery could possibly be the rewarded overcomers. Decades ago I believed this wholeheartedly, but there is no way one can look at the sobering facts of Recovery history and still be convinced that God has special perks for these crooked folks.

Yet . . . . . Lee took the teachings of Robert Govett, D.M.Panton, G.H.Pember, G.H.Lang, and others and passed them on to us. I for one would like to know the truth.

UntoHim · 04-11-2014, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I for one would like to know the truth.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, a million times thank you Ohio!

This is the most profound statement made on this forum, maybe EVER!

Members, lurkers, detractors, anybody out there - this is why this forum is here. TRUTH. Not just the truth as it relates to "facts" or to "facts of history" or even to "biblical facts" - this forum is here so that we can discuss, discover, debate about, argue about, agree to disagree about....the TRUTH. The truth as it relates to the life and times of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, the truth as it relates to the movement we all know as the Local Church, the truth as it relates to everything that many of us lived and breathed for decades, and even the subjective truth that all of us have been seeking after since the day that the Lord God placed such a longer in our hearts.

Brothers, Sisters, lurkers, friends, let's do this thing!

"A thing that is useful may be useful for some and not for others, but a thing that is true remains true for all people and beyond the end of time." J. Gresham Machen

InChristAlone · 04-11-2014, 09:49 PM

I want to share the Orthodox Church point of view about the millennial reign of Christ.

Quote:

The Book of Revelation and 666

http://www.orthodoxservices.org/Rapture.htm

InChristAlone · 04-11-2014, 09:56 PM

Millennialism (from millennium, Latin for "thousand years"), or chiliasm in Greek, is a belief held by some Christian denominations that there will be a Golden Age or Paradise on Earth in which "Christ will reign" for 1000 years prior to the final judgment and future eternal state (the "World to Come" of the New Heavens and New Earth). This belief is derived primarily from the Book of Revelation 20:1–6. Millennialism as such is a specific form of Millenarianism.

Millennialism is strongly rejected as a heresy by the Orthodox Church. In AD 230, the Synod of Iconium declared that baptisms performed by the Montanist sect were invalid. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381 supported the Synod of Iconium and further declared millennialism to be a heresy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism

Quote:

On the Thousand Year Reign (Chiliasm)

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec...yearreign.aspx

InChristAlone · 04-11-2014, 10:06 PM

The Coptic Orthodox Church teaching about the millennial reign.

Quote:

The 1,000-year reign of Lord Jesus Christ (Chiliasm – Gr. chilioi – meaning ‘thousand’) is mentioned
in chapter twenty of the Holy Book of Revelation:
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lec...chlecture3.pdf

awareness · 04-12-2014, 07:11 AM

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Is two thousand years later "at hand."

InChristAlone · 04-12-2014, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Is two thousand years later "at hand."

I believe there are things that were lost in translation.

Quote:

the time is near
The Greek phrase is καιρὸς ἐγγύς [kairos engys] . Kairos is a key eschatological term indicating a coming time of crisis associated with the last times.

The word used in Revelation Rev. 1:3+ . . . is kairos . It does not speak of an era or time span, but signifies “the right time,” “the right moment,” “the opportune time.” It is used in Galatians Gal. 4:4 wherein the Bible states, “But when the fulness of the time [kairos] was come, God sent forth His son. . .” Christ came at just the right moment. The time was “ripe” for the coming of God’s Son.

[Engus] can refer to any event predicted by the prophets, as when Mark indicates that “the time [kairos ] is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand [engus]” (Mark Mark 1:15). Something was “at hand” that has to do with kairos time. It was the Kingdom hope and aspiration of every Old Testament Jew who knew the writings of the Hebrew prophets.

This word for “time” differs from chronos which generally refers to what we would call chronological time:
Καιρός [Kairos] (“time”) frequently has a technical sense in the NT, referring to the end times when the earthly kingdom of Israel will be instituted (cf. Acts Acts 1:7; Acts 3:20; 1Th. 1Th. 5:1). The events of this book are thus identified with the last of the critical epoch-making periods foreordained of God. From the perspective of prophetic anticipation this period is declared to be ἐγγύς [engys] (“near”).

Time does not translate chronos, which refers to time on a clock or calendar, but kairos, which refers to seasons, epochs, or eras. The next great era of God’s redemptive history is near.

James makes an almost identical statement using the same Greek verb concerning the coming of the Lord for believers (not in judgment): “Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand (ἤγγικεν [ēngiken] )” (Jas. Jas. 5:7-8). The meaning in James is that “of approaching in time . . . [and concerns] the Lord’s return.” Peter uses the same term: “the end of all things is at hand” (1Pe. 1Pe. 4:7). As with the previous statement concerning things which must shortly take place (Rev. Rev. 1:1+), this perspective of time is that of God and concerns the last times when prophetic predictions would come to pass.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/comme...ation-1-3.html

Elden1971 · 04-12-2014, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I definitely agree that the whole matter has been muddied by Recovery claims that only those in the Recovery could possibly be the rewarded overcomers. Decades ago I believed this wholeheartedly, but there is no way one can look at the sobering facts of Recovery history and still be convinced that God has special perks for these crooked folks.

Yet . . . . . Lee took the teachings of Robert Govett, D.M.Panton, G.H.Pember, G.H.Lang, and others and passed them on to us. I for one would like to know the truth.

Christ is the TRUTH!

HE IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE.

May we in childlike simplicity look to Him and Him alone.

Govett was wrong

Panton was wrong

M.E. Barber was wrong

Nee was wrong

Lee was wrong

Blended Brothers are wrong

We were all wrong but it is not too late to repent

"This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased......

HEAR YE HIM"

awareness · 04-12-2014, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I believe there are things that were lost in translation.

"At hand" Rev. 1:3
Strong's
G1451
ἐγγύς
eggus
eng-goos'
From a primary verb ἄγχω agchō (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of G43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time): - from, at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready.

InChristAlone · 04-12-2014, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

"At hand"
eng-goos'
From a primary verb ἄγχω agchō (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of G43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time): - from, at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready.

I agree with the Orthodox Church teaching that says that we already live in the thousand-year reign of Christ (it's a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly one). So it's not only at hand. It's now.

Quote:

The Orthodox Church does believe in the Millennium period but not the Pre or post-millennial Protestant fundamentalist or evangelical concepts. The Orthodox view is that the Millennium period is Amillennial, a position that is in concert with Catholic and mainstream Protestant teaching which states that the Millennium exists from His resurrection to the Second Coming.

The early Fathers taught, and the Orthodox Church teaches today, that the Millennium period is here and now. The Fathers taught that the Millennial period began with Christ's Resurrection because this signaled the defeat and binding up of Satan. This is also called the beginning of the Church age. There are many references to Satan being defeated and bound up in order for the Church to flourish such as:

Rev 20:3 his specific purpose to being bound up was that nations should not be deceived for 1000 years (read this as a long time), also see Acts 5:3, 1 Cor 5:5, Eph 6:11, 1 Pet 5:8.
Jude 6 says the angels are bound.
Christ's first advent, He defeats Satan as prophesied in Gen 3:15.
Christ lifted up defeats Satan, John 12:31, 32.
Son of God was manifested for this purpose, 1 John 3:8
Lord disarmed principalities and powers, Col 2:15.
He led captivity captive, Eph 4:8.
Christ destroyed him who had the power of death, Heb 2:14.
Because Satan has been cast down and bound, we now have authority over him through Christ, Matt 28:18.
Kingdom has arrived, Matt 12:28, 29.

http://www.orthodoxservices.org/Rapture.htm

Quote:

The 1,000-year reign is a symbolic and spiritual period that started from the day of Lord Jesus’ crucifixion
and will continue until His Second Coming for judgment:

Our Lord said, “Now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth,
will draw all peoples to Myself.” (Jn 12:31,32)

“I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in
his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him
for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on
him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after
these things he must be released for a little while.” (Rev 20:1-3)

Our Lord said, “NOW” Satan will be bound when He was talking about His crucifixion. Thus the
thousand years reign of Lord Jesus Christ has started when, by His redemption of humanity through His
blood. He bound and restrained the power of Satan over mankind as St. Paul said, “Having wiped out the
handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the
way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle
of them, triumphing over them in it [the cross]” (Col 2:14,15).

http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lec...chlecture3.pdf

awareness · 04-12-2014, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I agree with the Orthodox Church teaching that says that we already live in the thousand-year reign of Christ (it's a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly one). So it's not only at hand. It's now.

So Rev 1:3 is speaking of what's already taken place ... has been going on for 2 thousand yrs, and is going on right now?

UntoHim · 04-12-2014, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I agree with the Orthodox Church teaching that says that we already live in the thousand-year reign of Christ (it's a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly one). So it's not only at hand. It's now.

One of the biggest problems (among many) that I find with this view is that Satan is supposed to be "bound into a pit" and made powerless to deceive for this kingdom period. (Rev 20) It sure seems to me that Satan is very much active and very effectual in "deceiving the nations" as we speak. And this is to say nothing of the Old Testament prophesies that mention: "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them"(Isa 11:6) I do understand and can appreciate the reasoning of those who would lean towards the non-literal interpretation of much of Revelation, however I don't think it makes sense to interpret that Christ's "reign" is literal, but the time and place are not literal. Just my opinion...for what it's worth

Ohio · 04-12-2014, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Christ is the TRUTH!

HE IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE.

May we in childlike simplicity look to Him and Him alone.

Govett was wrong

Panton was wrong

M.E. Barber was wrong

Nee was wrong

Lee was wrong

Blended Brothers are wrong

We were all wrong but it is not too late to repent

"This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased......

HEAR YE HIM"

There is no way we should be instructed to categorically reject numerous teachers of the scripture as "wrong," by alleging that Christ alone is "the way, the truth, and the life."

Elden1971, do you have any idea how extreme you sound?

With that kind of logic, lets cast out this whole forum, since we are endeavoring to learn from one another, rather than from Jesus directly.

While we are at it, let's eradicate all the epistles of the New Testament since they are the words of man, and not the words of His Beloved Son.

And for that matter, why would we risk reading any of the gospels at all since we can never be sure that they are exactly what Jesus actually said while here on the earth.

Elden1971, I am really surprised you would write something so extreme as this.

Ohio · 04-12-2014, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I agree with the Orthodox Church teaching that says that we already live in the thousand-year reign of Christ (it's a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly one). So it's not only at hand. It's now.

I have not been able to read all your quotes, but Israel would never accept this teaching either. There are far too many promises given to Israel/Judah concerning the son or seed of David ruling on the throne in Jerusalem to say that the kingdom literally is "at hand."

Any interpretation of the future millennial kingdom must fulfill both the Old and New Testament prophecies, concerning both Israel and the Church.

Elden1971 · 04-12-2014, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no way we should be instructed to categorically reject numerous teachers of the scripture as "wrong," by alleging that Christ alone is "the way, the truth, and the life."

Elden1971, do you have any idea how extreme you sound?

With that kind of logic, lets cast out this whole forum, since we are endeavoring to learn from one another, rather than from Jesus directly.

While we are at it, let's eradicate all the epistles of the New Testament since they are the words of man, and not the words of His Beloved Son.

And for that matter, why would we risk reading any of the gospels at all since we can never be sure that they are exactly what Jesus actually said while here on the earth.

Elden1971, I am really surprised you would write something so extreme as this.

I don't think I am EXTREME enough, but perhaps I am wrong.....

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have not been able to read all your quotes, but Israel would never accept this teaching either. There are far too many promises given to Israel/Judah concerning the son or seed of David ruling on the throne in Jerusalem to say that the kingdom literally is "at hand."

Any interpretation of the future millennial kingdom must fulfill both the Old and New Testament prophecies, concerning both Israel and the Church.

Israel doesn't recognize Jesus as Messiah. So it's up to the Jews. Most of them are not Christians and they have a different understanding of the Old Testament prophecies. The Ancient Israelites expected Messiah to be a great earthly warrior, military leader, prophet, and king that would give them freedom and drive the Romans out of their home land, but He came as a spiritual Savior and Redeemer.

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." John 18:36

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One of the biggest problems (among many) that I find with this view is that Satan is supposed to be "bound into a pit" and made powerless to deceive for this kingdom period. (Rev 20) It sure seems to me that Satan is very much active and very effectual in "deceiving the nations" as we speak. And this is to say nothing of the Old Testament prophesies that mention: "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them"(Isa 11:6)

Christ destroyed Satan who had the power of death, Heb 2:14. Because Satan has been cast down and bound, we now have authority over him through Christ, (Matt 28:18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth). Kingdom has arrived. (Matt 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you).

Satan is bound and he doesn't have much power over people as before but he is able to roam. (1 Peter 5.8). Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I do understand and can appreciate the reasoning of those who would lean towards the non-literal interpretation of much of Revelation, however I don't think it makes sense to interpret that Christ's "reign" is literal, but the time and place are not literal. Just my opinion...for what it's worth

Christ's "reign" is literal but it's not an earthly reign. His Kingdom is not of this world. It's a spiritual kingdom. Though all power is given unto Jesus in heaven and in earth. That's why we now have authority over Satan through Christ.

Protestants lost mysticism and metaphysics that the Orthodox Church still keeps. The material Earth is not the center of the universe, be it physical or spiritual. Our material world is not Christ's kingdom. In John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world."

---
I don't want to promote any teachings. I just want to explain my point of view and where it comes from. Just for your information:

The Orthodox Church is not simply another denomination. It is the original Church, founded by Christ Himself and described in the New Testament. She traces her history in unbroken continuity all the way back to Christ and His Twelve Apostles. Today, we see thousands of Christian bodies, who seldom agree on important points of doctrine and practice.

However, for the first thousand years of Christian history, there was one unified worldwide Church. In the eleventh century, for reasons of doctrine and practice, the Church suffered a tragic split, separating East and West. Eventually, the western Church experienced further ruptures when certain European religious and political leaders broke ties with her over conflicts of doctrine and politics, establishing their own independent church bodies. Over the years, those bodies further splintered and fragmented, and continue to do so to this very day.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Church maintained unchanged the "faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3); it never experienced a Reformation, or a counter-Reformation, or a restoration, or a revival; it is and has for twenty centuries been the living fulfillment of the continuing New Testament Church, the very "Body of Christ" (Col 1.18,24).

The Orthodox Church is today the second largest Christian body in the world. It is not reserved for certain ethnic communities, but welcomes every ethnicity, every race, every heritage. The word "orthodox," which comes from the Greek word meaning "correct belief," not only identifies, but also describes the Orthodox Church, which has maintained the correct belief, practice, and worship of the New Testament Church, unaltered and undiminished, for two-thousand years. The Church has preserved the Faith, neither adding to nor subtracting from it; confessing the original Nicene Creed and guiding her people to growth in Christ through union with Him.

http://orthodoxdetroitoutreach.org/W...istianity.html

Of course, it's up to you to decide where the truth is. It's just some food for mind.

I for one would like to know the truth, too. And I ask the Lord to grant me wisdom not to take the truth for something else when I see it.

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

So Rev 1:3 is speaking of what's already taken place ... has been going on for 2 thousand yrs, and is going on right now?

1 000 years are not literal. It means a long period of time. It can be any number of years - 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 thousand years.

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 12:30 AM

Brother Awareness, UntoHim, Ohio and other brothers, unfortunately, I am not an expert. My knowledge is limited by my personal ignorance, my poor Orthodox Church background, and the links that I can find in the Internet. I’ll try to summarize them. I am sorry, if my summary will be a bit awkward and repetitive.

The Holy Book of Revelation contains many mystical, symbolic, and allegorical expressions that cannot be interpreted literally but carry exalted and spiritual meanings often completely different from that readily apparent.

The book of Revelation is a book of visions. However the early Church Fathers understood that those visions were not in chronological order. Fundamentalists take a literal read on the visions and thus they see a chronology, an opinion unknown to the early Fathers.

The Orthodox Church does believe in the Millennium period but not the Pre or post-millennial Protestant fundamentalist or evangelical concepts. The Orthodox view is that the Millennium period is Amillennial, a position that states that the Millennium exists from His resurrection to the Second Coming. The early Fathers taught, and the Orthodox Church teaches today, that the Millennium period is here and now.

Those who teach that Lord Jesus is coming to reign on earth for one thousand years and then will come again for judgment are in fact teaching that there are three comings for the Lord; the first in His Incarnation, the second for the earthly kingdom, and the third for Judgment – This is totally absurd. The Second and final Coming of Lord Jesus Christ will be for Judgment (Mt 24; 25; Jn 5:28,29).

The Fathers taught that the Millennial period began with Christ's Resurrection because this signaled the defeat and binding up of Satan. This is also called the beginning of the Church age.

Satan has been bound and he has been bound since our Lord's resurrection and that has been for more than 1900 years. Satan is in chains BUT, as other scripture indicate, he is able to roam (1 Peter 5.8). This shows the chains are figurative and that he is only restricted in his actions having been defeated by Christ.

The 1,000-year reign is a symbolic and spiritual period that started from the day of Lord Jesus’ crucifixion and will continue until His Second Coming for judgment. Our Lord said, “NOW” Satan will be bound when He was talking about His crucifixion. Thus the thousand years reign of Lord Jesus Christ has started when, by His redemption of humanity through His blood. He bound and restrained the power of Satan over mankind.

St. John states that those who enjoy the 1,000-year reign of Lord Jesus Christ have participated in the “first resurrection” (Rev 20:5) – as we have explained in Lecture I, the first resurrection is a spiritual one from the death of sin. Thus those who repent and believe are considered to have joined the spiritual reign of Lord Jesus Christ– “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall … reign with Him a thousand years.” (Rev 20:6) – Notice that this reign is not earthly for it extends beyond the life on earth, “I saw
the souls [not bodies] of those who had been beheaded …they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4)

At the end Of the Church age, Satan will be released, "for a little while", the Antichrist will come, the Tribulation will be upon us and the Second Coming of Christ will shorten the days. This Second Coming is the one spoken by Matthew at the end of his Gospel when the Angel said He (Christ) would return as he ascended. And these verses at the end of Matthew also are part of the objections to the rapture issue because the Angel did not say there would be multiple returns by Christ. The early Church Father's understood the Millennial Kingdom as now and to re-enforce that understanding, included
"and His Kingdom will have no end" in the Apostolic Creed. And they also understood that when He came back, it would be as the great Judge, i.e., "and He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead", again included in the Apostolic Creed. Our Lord will return, but as He stated, only the Father knows the day and the hour of His return.

Holy Scripture points in the direction of a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly one. Our Lord never spoke of an earthly kingdom for Himself. In fact, He spoke against such a kingdom, He said it clearly, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18:36) – also, “when Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed...” (Jn 15:6) – again, “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom 14:17) Moreover, our Lord said, “Indeed the Kingdom of God is within you.” (Lk 17:21) – this is a spiritual
kingdom, not an earthly one for the Lord said afterwards, “The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.” (Lk 17:22) This clearly contradicts any notion of an earthly kingdom.

So the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world (Jn. 18:36), it's spiritual and will reign over the internal world of man, while externally being revealed in the righteousness, peace and joy of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). His reign will not endure for a thousand years, but eternally (Lk. 1:33). Its inhabitants will include all faithful Christians from all the peoples of the world (Ps. 116:1-2), it will reign over all creation, and it will be a kingdom of righteousness (Dan. 7:13-14). It will be a kingdom made up of souls (Mt. 28:18) - souls that have already entered and lived within it in this present life.

Holy Scripture speaks to us about the thousand-year reign in prophetic and symbolic terms. This spiritual kingdom does not have a time limit of 1,000 years or any number of years. The one thousand year reign referred to in the book of Revelation signifies an infinite number of years, i.e. a kingdom that shall have no end.

Believers in the literal millennial reign speak of earthly rewards and earthly joy. However, Lord Jesus Christ said, “great is your reward in heaven.” (Mt 5:12) – St. John also said, “Do not love the world or the things in the world … the world is passing away, and the lust of it” (1 Jn 2:15-17) – It was written, “Here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.” (Heb 13:14) – Thus St. Paul said, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil 3:20) – “I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.” (Phil 1:23,24) If an earthly kingdom was to be expected St. Paul would have said, “I can’t wait until the Lord comes to reign over His people here on earth” but on the contrary we see him
wanting to depart from this vain world.

No one can enter into this reign of God except through baptism (Rom. 6:3), which is to say by being born again from above or being born of water and the spirit, according to the word of the Saviour: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).

The adoption and entrance into this kingdom takes place only through the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5) or birth from above (Jn. 3:3). No one can enter into this reign of God except through baptism (Rom. 6:3), which is to say by being born again from above or being born of water and the spirit, according to the word of the Saviour: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). This heavenly birth by the power of the All-holy Spirit is a true resurrection from the dead (Col. 2:12-13), and hence the reason why Baptism is so often referred to as resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5). Thus, also, it is that the Orthodox Christian baptism is a renaissance of life and a resurrection from the dead. When the Apostle Paul writes awake
thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light, (Eph. 5:14) he has in mind precisely this internal regeneration and resurrection through Christian Baptism, for no one can enter the Kingdom of Christ unless he has first been brought out from among the dead by Christian Baptism.

“And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.”

From this passage we can ascertain the following:

1 The thousand-year reign of Christ is a period in which Christ has bound the power of the Devil over men. Christ entered into His dominion and bound the Devil, that is, by the redemption of humanity by His Blood He bound and restrained his power over mankind. (This reign started from the Resurrection and goes on till nowadays). The 1000 years are figurative, not literal. It means a long time, not a definite period of time.

Christians entered into this spiritual kingdom through baptism. This resurrection through baptism is the first, in comparison to the second, the general one, of the body, which is also called the last resurrection, as when Martha spoke to Christ concerning her brother: I know that he shall rise again at the resurrection on the Last Day. (Jn. 11:24)

2 At the end of this kingdom or reign, the Devil will again be let loose to deceive the people and with power and mania to assault and oppress holy Christians in the person of the antichrist, the beast or false prophet.

The duration of this period will be brief and yet it will constitute one of the signs signalling the immediacy of the Second Coming of Christ. (Mat. 24:22; Rev. 13:5, 20:3)

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall
be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. ”

3 The members of this kingdom will be those alone who do not submit to the beast and accept his engraved seal, and who have a part in the first resurrection.

4. Those who were not worthy of this resurrection will be raised at the end of the thousand years, that is at the second resurrection, as this resurrection, relative to the first, is the second.

5. Death will have no power over the sharers in the thousand-year reign.

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.”

“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 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 forever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another
book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Rev. 20:1-14)”

6. At the end of these thousand years and after a gruesomely violent persecution against the saints, the devil and his followers will be cast into the lake of fire - the second death.

The first resurrection is the baptismal resurrection and the second resurrection is that which we await on the last day, the last resurrection. Furthermore, it should also be clear that the first death is the natural one or the separation of the soul from the body, while the second death is the eternal torment [of hell] (Mt. 18:8), so called due to its opposition to the blessed life of eternity (Jn. 5:24). It should also be clear that this second death has no power over those made worthy of the first resurrection. Likewise, from this it follows that the first death, from which not even the saints are delivered, is the natural or bodily death. Saint John the Evangelist renders precisely the words of the Saviour concerning the two resurrections: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (Jn. 5:24-25). As this passage concerns the resurrection of those who will hear the voice of the Son of God, i.e. that resurrection which now is, this cannot be interpreted as referring to the last resurrection, but only to the present resurrection of those who are raised from the death of sin to the life of Christ, to the new life of Christian faith entered, as the Apostle and Evangelist himself relates elsewhere, through Christian baptism (Jn. 5:24-25).This is the first resurrection referred to in the book of Revelation.

Further on the Saviour speaks about another kind of resurrection, a resurrection which even now is and yet will, however, will happen at the end of the world, which is not of the soul but of the body, and specifically of the dead in the graves. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (Jn. 5:28-29). In other words, marvel not at the power of Christ to raise spiritually (i.e. in the first resurrection), for indeed He will raise all the dead from the graves as well. This passage excludes outright the possibility of their being a period of a thousand years between the resurrection of the righteous and the
resurrection of the sinful, for it shows clearly that the last or general resurrection is one and only and will happen to all. This is the second resurrection. As for the first, we saw that it is that resurrection which now is, the present resurrection, and not the general or last.

Holy Scripture is explicit and categorical in many places concerning the Second Coming of Christ, namely, that it will be one single date for all, righteous and sinners alike, without there being a period of one thousand years between the resurrection and judgement of some and that of others. The Saviour said: For the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (Jn. 5:28-29).

Although the duration of the reign of Christ is designated on the whole as a thousand years, we should understand this to signify an era immeasurable and undesignated. Therefore, its length is nothing else except the period between the first and second comings of the Lord, or more precisely, the period of the consolidation of the Kingdom of God until His Second Coming. The date of the Second Coming of Christ cannot be determined, as neither the angels nor even the Son of Man, as man, have been informed of it (Mat. 24:36-44), then surely neither can the date of the beginning of the millennium be determined.

One cannot make human calculations and determinations for mysteries that are unknown to the angels, and even, in His humanity, to the Son of God Himself. The Orthodox Church understands the millennium of Holy Scripture mystically and symbolically to mean an indeterminate number of years. Time, for God, is not fixed or appointed, but, rather, one day before God is considered as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day or as a night watch (2 Pet. 3:8). It does not follow from this that figures from Holy Scripture represent a certain number of days, which we then reckon as years. In this way precisely would we then also be able to consider that which they represent as a thousand years. Conversely, we would also be able to say, with the same logic, that the thousand years of the millennium really means one day. And in this case, what would remain any longer of the calculations and analysis of the Millennialists? All their calculations are contradictory and refuted by the truth of things.

The Reign of Jesus Christ, as man, and His Glory will never come to an end, but will endure eternally.Yet, this means the submission of the entire world before the Father and the cessation of His redemptive activity (1 Cor. 15:25-28), as it is His own work, which He assumed at His incarnation.

http://www.orthodoxservices.org/Rapture.htm
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec...yearreign.aspx
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lec...chlecture3.pdf

awareness · 04-13-2014, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICA

The Orthodox Church does believe in the Millennium period but not the Pre or post-millennial Protestant fundamentalist or evangelical concepts.

When you speak of The Orthodox Church do you mean the Eastern Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox (of the Eastern Orthodox)?

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

When you speak of The Orthodox Church do you mean the Eastern Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox (of the Eastern Orthodox)?

It's the same church.

"Many names have been used throughout the centuries to describe our Church and its over 250 million adherents. "Greek, "Eastern', "Orthodox", "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" are all appropriate designations of the Church.

Our Church is called the "Greek Church" because Greek was the first language of the ancient Christian Church from which our Faith was transmitted. The New Testament was written in Greek and the early writings of Christ's followers were in the Greek language. The word "Greek" is not used to describe just the Orthodox Christian peoples of Greece and other Greek speaking people. Rather, it is used to describe the Christians who originated from the Greek speaking early Christian Church which used Greek thought to find appropriate expressions of the Orthodox Faith .

"Orthodox" is also used to describe our Church. The word "Orthodox" is derived from two short Greek words orthos meaning "correct" and doxa meaning "belief" or "glory". Thus, we used the word "Orthodox'' to indicate our conviction that we believe and worship God correctly. We emphasize Apostolic tradition, continuity and conservatism over a 2,000 year history.

Our Church is also spoken of as the "Eastern Church" to distinguish it from the Churches of the West. "Eastern" is used to indicate that in the first millennium the influence of our Church was concentrated in the eastern part of the Christian world and to show that a very large number of our membership is of other than Greek national origin. Thus, Orthodox Christians throughout the world use various ethnic or national titles: "Greek", "Russian", "Serbian", "Romanian", "Ukrainian", "Bulgarian", "Antiochian", "Albanian", "Carpatho-Russian", or more inclusively, as "Eastern Orthodox".

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7061

As far as doctrine, Holy Tradition, understanding of Scripture, etc., there is no difference between Greek, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Antiochian, Albanian, Carpatho-Russian Orthodox churches. The key word is “Orthodox,” with the ethnic designation in front being a secondary consideration. We all share the same faith.

awareness · 04-13-2014, 06:36 AM

ICA I think it's funny that the Eastern Orthodox didn't accept the book of Revelation in the canon until the 5 century, and now they have complete hermeneutics developed upon it.

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

ICA I think it's funny that the Eastern Orthodox didn't accept the book of Revelation in the canon until the 5 century, and now they have complete hermeneutics developed upon it.

Maybe, but there was no other church those days and, sadly, there were not so many great minds, like now (especially Lee, Nee, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and other sects), who could understand and interpret it literally.

The Revelation of John was one of the most uncertain books. It took a few centuries for the ancient and generally influential Christian theologians to study it, come to common ground, and accept the Book of Revelation universally.

BTW, in Protestantism, Martin Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers.

"Revelation was the last of the traditional books to be accepted as part of the Christian biblical canon, up to 100 years later than the other books. According to Denzinger, Revelation was accepted at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD; according to McDonald & Sanders it was added at the later 419 council. Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, however, with doubts raised as far back as the 2nd century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship. These doubts have been regularly expressed through Church history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

Ohio · 04-13-2014, 07:26 AM

Unfortunately, there are just too many issues and conflicts with the scriptures to accept the Orthodox teaching that we are now in the millennial kingdom.

I'm surprised that Elden1971 has not come forward to declare, "Orthodox was wrong!"

awareness · 04-13-2014, 07:29 AM

The book of Revelation wasn't firmly canonized until the printing press in the mid 15th c. Before that it was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo.

Eusebius (first church historian - at the council of Nicaea) called it spurious. Those that rejected it in early Christian days did so because they believed it would cause nothing but trouble.

Irenaeus (early 2nd c. - connected to John the Apostle thru Polycarp) rejected it.

To me this means the book of Revelation isn't something you want to base your convictions on ... not to mention it's wild imagery and mythological symbolism & content.

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unfortunately, there are just too many issues and conflicts with the scriptures to accept the Orthodox teaching that we are now in the millennial kingdom.

It's fine with me.

Maybe I am too much into Orthodox Christian mysticism, or rather have a simple and ignorant mind, but the figurative interpretation makes sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm surprised that Elden1971 has not come forward to declare, "Orthodox was wrong!"

I think brother Terry would say, "Only Jesus is right." And I would have peace with this statement.

Ohio · 04-13-2014, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The book of Revelation wasn't firmly canonized until the printing press in the mid 15th c. Before that it was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo.

Eusebius (first church historian - at the council of Nicaea) called it spurious. Those that rejected it in early Christian days did so because they believed it would cause nothing but trouble.

Irenaeus (early 2nd c. - connected to John the Apostle thru Polycarp) rejected it.

To me this means the book of Revelation isn't something you want to base your convictions on ... not to mention it's wild imagery and mythological symbolism & content.

The book of Revelation was given by Jesus Christ to John the apostle for us. It is as trustworthy as any other book in the New Testament.

I would trust the writings of John before I would trust Eusebius, Irenaeus, or Luther.

InChristAlone · 04-13-2014, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The book of Revelation wasn't firmly canonized until the printing press in the mid 15th c. Before that it was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo.

Eusebius (first church historian - at the council of Nicaea) called it spurious. Those that rejected it in early Christian days did so because they believed it would cause nothing but trouble.

Irenaeus (early 2nd c. - connected to John the Apostle thru Polycarp) rejected it.

To me this means the book of Revelation isn't something you want to base your convictions on ... not to mention it's wild imagery and mythological symbolism & content.

Brother Awareness, I don't know much about it. There is only one thing I know for sure: I know too little and I understand even less. So maybe you are right.

At this point let me repeat once again, that the Orthodox Church believes that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, i.e. Orthodox Christians don't limit our universe by the physical Earth. For them (and for me), physical world is secondary. Spiritual world or Heaven is the kingdom of God. It's our home where we long to return one day. As for "the millennial kingdom" on earth, it started after the Church was established.

What is true and what is not - only God knows. As for me, I just want the Lord to have mercy on me so that I be faithful, choose the right path, and don't become blinded with details.

Ohio · 04-13-2014, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I think brother Terry would say, "Only Jesus is right." And I would have peace with this statement.

And I am at peace with this statement too.

What I didn't understand was his extensive list of all those who are wrong.

I felt slighted because he left me off that list.

awareness · 04-13-2014, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And I am at peace with this statement too.

What I didn't understand was his extensive list of all those who are wrong.

I felt slighted because he left me off that list.

Me too ...

And for the record I don't want to spend a thousand yrs in Hades ... if I have a choice, that is.

I figure if I just hang with God, and cast my being into his hands, I should be okay.

Elden1971 · 04-13-2014, 09:12 AM

https://archive.org/details/TheTheoc...mPetersVols1-3

For those of you who want an in depth study of the Kingdom this is a must read.

Elden1971 · 04-13-2014, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And I am at peace with this statement too.

What I didn't understand was his extensive list of all those who are wrong.

I felt slighted because he left me off that list.

Don't feel slighted the "we" was all inclusive....

Elden1971 · 04-13-2014, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And I am at peace with this statement too.

What I didn't understand was his extensive list of all those who are wrong.

I felt slighted because he left me off that list.

My reference to the wrong teaching was specifically pointed at those who originated and perpetuated this erroneous teaching of Christians being cast into outer darkness and to all of us who accepted it (and who now have questioned and rejected it hopefully}. The thread is outer darkness and most scholars credit Govett with originating the teaching.

Ohio · 04-13-2014, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

https://archive.org/details/TheTheoc...mPetersVols1-3

For those of you who want an in depth study of the Kingdom this is a must read.

Online description ...

Quote:

"The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ," by George Peters. Contains all 3 volumes published in 1884. The 63.3 MB pdf file contains bookmarks to where Peters critiqued Charles Taze Russell and N.H. Barbour regarding their belief that Christ returned invisibly to the earth in 1874. Barbour and Russell were associated together in the 1870s and from them arose the Bible Student movement and later Jehovah's Witnesses. After severing ties with Barbour, C.T. Russell began publication of The Watch Tower magazine in 1879. This file contains numerous references to Russell's and Barbour's writings. Volume 3 of the Theocratic Kingdom was dedicated to W.H. Conley, who was first president of the Watch Tower Society from 1881 to 1884 (see Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, p. 576), but who later left fellowship with Russell.

I suppose that I'm not liking the connections to the Jehovah Witnesses.

JayDubs are wrong!

Friedel · 04-13-2014, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As I think I have made clear in some of my previous posts in this thread, I think there is strong biblical evidence to suggest that there will be some sort of discipline for those Christians who fall short.

"For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives" (Hebrews 12:6, ESV). The Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ has cleansed us from all sin. We are forgiven and cleansed. Why do we have to be punished again?

Consider this.

The biggest difficulty for most people starts with Matthew 24 (as well as Mark 13 and Luke 13), known as the Olivet Discourse. I am not going to expound it here but the Olivet Discourse in its entirety focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It does not speak about some future, postponed events 2,000+ years later.

No, the Olivet Discourse is about what was going to happen to Jerusalem and the temple 40 years later (that generation, as the Lord Jesus Himself predicted, and a generation in the Bible is taken as 40 years). And it all happened as the Lord Jesus Himself prophesied.

Interestingly, although John was also present when the Lord gave the Second Sermon on the Mount (as the Olivet Discourse is sometimes also referred to) he curiously made no mention of it in his gospel narrative. Instead, he wrote a long epistle about the destruction of the temple and the city (plus many other things). We know that as the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the last book of the New Testament.

John Nelson Darby and the Brethren (also those of Benjamin Wills Newton) popularized the teaching of dispensations so that this whole system is known as Dispensationalism. For good measure it has a firm footing in Daniel 9 and the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks with the last “week” (seven years) even more curiously postponed to some indeterminate seven years in the future. It also hooks on Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Nehemiah and others.

Then about a century ago there came a man with a dishonorable personal history, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, who published the Scofield Bible, incorporating all the Brethren teachings and leading millions astray.

Then came Witness Lee… (and many other Dispensationalists) teaching all this grandiose nonsense.

And in the process the Bible and the teachings of God’s Word have become secondary even if none of these teachings make sense.

Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD.

We now live in His Parousia (presence), His Kingdom. We are supposed to live in the Spirit and walk in the Spirit.

God will raise up a testimony that is worthy of Himself; not some man-made structure teaching fallacies and nonsense.

awareness · 04-13-2014, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

https://archive.org/details/TheTheoc...mPetersVols1-3

For those of you who want an in depth study of the Kingdom this is a must read.

Got it Terry. But it's very poorly formatted, with many OCR errors.

awareness · 04-13-2014, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Online description ...

I suppose that I'm not liking the connections to the Jehovah Witnesses.

JayDubs are wrong!

I understand your disbelief in Russell and the JWs. They and the 7th Day Advents came out of the William Miller movement, that are responsible for the Great Disappointment <-click. And instead of them declaring William Miller a false prophet, they picked up where Miller left off. And their prophecies have fail over and over again ... but say they came true "spiritually." Like we can believe that.

awareness · 04-13-2014, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

"For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives" (Hebrews 12:6, ESV). The Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ has cleansed us from all sin. We are forgiven and cleansed. Why do we have to be punished again?

Consider this.

The biggest difficulty for most people starts with Matthew 24 (as well as Mark 13 and Luke 13), known as the Olivet Discourse. I am not going to expound it here but the Olivet Discourse in its entirety focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It does not speak about some future, postponed events 2,000+ years later.

No, the Olivet Discourse is about what was going to happen to Jerusalem and the temple 40 years later (that generation, as the Lord Jesus Himself predicted, and a generation in the Bible is taken as 40 years). And it all happened as the Lord Jesus Himself prophesied.

Interestingly, although John was also present when the Lord gave the Second Sermon on the Mount (as the Olivet Discourse is sometimes also referred to) he curiously made no mention of it in his gospel narrative. Instead, he wrote a long epistle about the destruction of the temple and the city (plus many other things). We know that as the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the last book of the New Testament.

John Nelson Darby and the Brethren (also those of Benjamin Wills Newton) popularized the teaching of dispensations so that this whole system is known as Dispensationalism. For good measure it has a firm footing in Daniel 9 and the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks with the last “week” (seven years) even more curiously postponed to some indeterminate seven years in the future. It also hooks on Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Nehemiah and others.

Then about a century ago there came a man with a dishonorable personal history, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, who published the Scofield Bible, incorporating all the Brethren teachings and leading millions astray.

Then came Witness Lee… (and many other Dispensationalists) teaching all this grandiose nonsense.

And in the process the Bible and the teachings of God’s Word have become secondary even if none of these teachings make sense.

Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD.

Just to be clear, this is a Preterist<-click view.

Friedel · 04-13-2014, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Just to be clear, this is a Preterist<-click view.

I do not care for labels. Call it what you want. If you consider this a preterist view, that is fine. But it so happens to be what the Bible teaches.

I listened to Witness Lee expounding his fanciful theories for almost a quarter of a century but I got no life from it. When I looked at the Bible, I found his teaching nonsense.

But if you find my views offensive, I will just stop here. No problem.

awareness · 04-13-2014, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

I do not care for labels. Call it what you want. If you consider this a preterist view, that is fine. But it so happens to be what the Bible teaches.

I listened to Witness Lee expounding his fanciful theories for almost a quarter of a century but I got no life from it. When I looked at the Bible, I found his teaching nonsense.

But if you find my views offensive, I will just stop here. No problem.

I take no offense whatsoever. Some however consider the full Preterist view as heretical. I guess we're all heretical to someone or some group.

Elden1971 · 04-13-2014, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Online description ...

I suppose that I'm not liking the connections to the Jehovah Witnesses.

JayDubs are wrong!

This is no way negates the scholarship of the work. Peters devoted his life to this study and as a Lutheran his work was rejected by the Lutherans so he had no financial or emotional support. His bibliography of over 2,000 references is rather comprehensive and his devotion to the word of God is remarkable. His life was spent in obscurity and poverty but he stayed the course and completed the most exhaustive , thoroughly annotated and logically arranged study of biblical prophecy written in the US in the 19th century.

Elden1971 · 04-13-2014, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for digging this all up, Terry, I think the fact that others have taught that there will be a time of punishment/discipline for certain genuine believers is absolutely relative to the discussion at hand.....

However.......

I think it should be noted that there is a VAST difference between what Lee taught regarding this matter of punishment/discipline, and what has been taught by many of the folks you have mentioned in your last post.

How many of these men taught that to be an overcomer, and thus avoid said punishment/discipline in the age to come, one must be a devout follower of a certain man's ministry, and indeed be a devout member of a certain sect which was initiated by and lead solely by the very same man? I could be mistaken, but I doubt you will find such a thought or concept, much less a clearly defined doctrine or teaching, such as we find in Witness Lee.

As I think I have made clear in some of my previous posts in this thread, I think there is strong biblical evidence to suggest that there will be some sort of discipline for those Christians who fall short in this age, but I think there is strong biblical evidence that the punishment and or discipline will be in the form of the lack of a reward, such as we see given to the overcomers. I don't have time now to give the verses and such, but I will this weekend if I can find the time.

Thanks again for your post.

If we were more emptied of self and occupied with Christ, we should have more simple and correct thoughts about the judgment seat as well as about everything else.
May the Lord keep our hearts true to Himself in this the time of His absence, so that when He appears we may not be ashamed before Him! May all our works be so begun, continued and ended in Him, that the thought of having them duly weighed and estimated in the presence of His glory may not disturb our hearts! May we be constrained by the “love of Christ,” not by the fear of judgment, to live unto Him who died for us and rose again! We may safely and happily leave everything in His hands, seeing He has borne our sins in His own body on the tree. We have no reason to fear, inasmuch as we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. The moment Christ appears we shall be changed into His image, pass into the presence of His glory, and there review the past. We shall look back from that high and holy elevation upon our course down here. We shall see things in a different light altogether. It may be we shall be astonished to find that many things of which we thought a great deal down here, will be found defective up there. On the other hand, many little things which were done in self-forgetfulness and love to Jesus, will be diligently recorded and abundantly rewarded. We shall also be able to see in the clear light of the Master's presence, many mistakes and failures which had never before come within the range of our vision. What will be the effect of all this? Just to evoke from our hearts loud and rapturous hosannas to the praise of Him who has brought us through all our toils and dangers, borne with all our mistakes and failures, and assigned us a place in His own everlasting kingdom, there to bask in the bright beams of His glory and shine in His image forever. CHM on the Judgment Seat

awareness · 04-13-2014, 02:07 PM

What is outer darkness anyway ... could it just be symbolism for being far from God? It's not just ordinary darkness ... but outer ... far from any light ... far from burning fire too. Not so hot, in other words.

Ohio · 04-13-2014, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

"For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives" (Hebrews 12:6, ESV). The Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ has cleansed us from all sin. We are forgiven and cleansed. Why do we have to be punished again?

Some believers are punished for burying their treasure.

Some don't have enough oil in their lamps.

Some are beating up the other servants.

Some did not prepare.

Some did not do according to His will.

Some did not watch for his Master's return.

Paul says to Corinth, "we all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each may be recompensed for what he has done." 2 Cor 5.10

The Lord Jesus told His disciples, "to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. He who saves his soul shall lose it, and he who loses his soul shall save it... For the Son of Man shall come in glory and will reward each according to his doings. Matt 16

Friedel, you are confusing the judgment for the unbelievers' sins with the discipline of God's children for their unfaithful walk.

Ohio · 04-13-2014, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

This is no way negates the scholarship of the work. Peters devoted his life to this study and as a Lutheran his work was rejected by the Lutherans so he had no financial or emotional support. His bibliography of over 2,000 references is rather comprehensive and his devotion to the word of God is remarkable. His life was spent in obscurity and poverty but he stayed the course and completed the most exhaustive , thoroughly annotated and logically arranged study of biblical prophecy written in the US in the 19th century.

Elden1971, you can overlook all of Peters' failures because you happen to like what he teaches, and yet you have nothing good to say about numerous other teachers (Panton, Pember, Govett, the Exclusives, Nee, etc.) whose teachings you happen to disagree with.

Ohio · 04-13-2014, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD.

John wrote Revelation some 20 years after it was fulfilled?

Some of Mark 13 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 26-27 were not.

Some of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27-30 were not.

Some of Luke 21 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27 was not.

Elden1971 · 04-14-2014, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Elden1971, you can overlook all of Peters' failures because you happen to like what he teaches, and yet you have nothing good to say about numerous other teachers (Panton, Pember, Govett, the Exclusives, Nee, etc.) whose teachings you happen to disagree with.

Nee and Lee got the majority of their teachings from the "exclusives" and except for the ground of locality and a few minor points I largely agree with the exclusives. Unfortunately Nee and Lee followed the teaching of Govett in relation to the partial rapture, overcomers and punishment of believers which led to the spiritual elitism and laodicean spirit of todays blended brothers. Lee proclaimed himself to be the MOTA years after I left so other than Satan I do not know who he got that idea from as he certainly was not the MOTA when I knew him for seven years nor did he claim to be. I never heard anyone other than the Texas brothers ascribe apostleship to him so one can see why he promoted them and why they now believe "we have the authority". Anyway I strayed from my point that being that Govett, Panton, Pember , Lang are all Brothers in the Lord who have much positive that may be said of them and their ministries, but where they are wrong....they are wrong and the fruit of their errors are clearly manifested within many groups of Christians not just the LRC. Only the Lord's coming will resolve all the confusion and division until then my wife and I rest in the Lord and thank, praise and worship Him for His Love and Mercy and Grace. We can and do testify that in His Presence is FULNESS of JOY! May God Bless you Bro. Ohio and all who read these posts.

Elden1971 · 04-17-2014, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unfortunately, there are just too many issues and conflicts with the scriptures to accept the Orthodox teaching that we are now in the millennial kingdom.

I'm surprised that Elden1971 has not come forward to declare, "Orthodox was wrong!"

Somehow missed this post so here is my quote " Orthodox were and are wrong on there millennial views. And for Panton being wrong read the following and decide for yourself,

http://roel.velemaweb.nl/panton/file...20Reprints.pdf

Elden1971 · 04-17-2014, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Somehow missed this post so here is my quote " Orthodox were and are wrong on there millennial views. And for Panton being wrong read the following and decide for yourself,

http://roel.velemaweb.nl/panton/file...20Reprints.pdf

Margaret Barber, Surrey Chapel and the Visitors from China
Around the beginning of 2009 the Surrey Chapel office received a request from a Christian group organizing a tour of Chinese Christians, which included a visit to Norwich. Could they come and visit Surrey Chapel, because they were on a study tour looking at various places of worship? Thinking that Surrey Chapel would be the last place tourists would want to look at – our present building is high on functional but decidedly low on numinous – we politely declined. We then received an email telling us not to be surprised if we see a coach pulling up outside the Chapel, because they were so keen to see our building that they would just come and look at it from the outside! It was something to do with the histories of our church and their church.

Well, in that case, we thought we had better make arrangements to welcome them and show them round. So, one of our elders, Derek Haylock, met the group of 47, led by a Professor Chen, at the Chapel (in Botolph Street, near Anglia Square) at 8.30 am on 25 February. It turned out to be a wonderful and encouraging experience!
Derek told them a little of the history of the Chapel, showing them the plaques for the first two pastors, Robert Govett and D.M. Panton, that had been brought from the original Surrey Chapel in Surrey Street. They were given copies of 150 Years at Surrey Chapel written by Rosamunde Codling (2004). Derek told them about why the church had moved from its original building in Chapel Loke off Surrey Street (now the site of John Lewis Car Park). But, in fact, they seemed to know the history already because it was all written and illustrated in their study guides! They were particularly keen to see some of Govett’s and Panton’s books in the Govett Room and to take photographs of everything. In the main Chapel upstairs, as they sat excitedly on the old Surrey Chapel wooden chairs, Professor Chen reminded them of why they were there. The story was inspiring.
D.M. Panton became Pastor of Surrey Chapel in 1901. A lady missionary called Margaret Barber (1866–1930), who had returned to England from service in China, left the Church of England and joined the Chapel around 1907. There were some suggestions of a possible romance between Panton and Barber, but in the end the call to return to China for Margaret Barber was stronger. It was a period of missionary fervour in the Chapel, when, during the years 1906 to 1917, as many as nine individuals went to serve in China. Margaret Barber went back to China as an independent missionary, sent and supported by Surrey Chapel in 1909.
So this year, 2009, is the centenary of her sending to China by Surrey Chapel. For the Chinese visitors this was a most significant event in their own history. In China, Margaret Barber met an 18-year-old Christian man, Watchman Nee. She personally tutored him in God’s word, directed his study and encouraged him in his spiritual development. Watchman Nee became one of the most influential Christian leaders in the history of the Chinese church – and the visitors to Surrey Chapel in 2009 were all from churches whose roots are in Nee’s ministry. And this is why they were so excited to be visiting Surrey Chapel in Norwich. As they saw it, in the sovereign purposes of God, they were Christian believers today because Surrey Chapel had sent Margaret Barber to China one hundred years ago!
There in the Chapel, we sang together a hymn written by Margaret Barber and enjoyed a thrilling time of prayer and thanksgiving. More photographs and numerous handshakes and hugs and then they returned to their coach – on their way to visit the John Lewis car park!
Jesus said, ‘The Kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree …’ (Matthew 13.31–32).
Derek Haylock, March 2009

Ohio · 04-17-2014, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Nee and Lee got the majority of their teachings from the "exclusives" and except for the ground of locality and a few minor points I largely agree with the exclusives.

It's doubtful that Nee came up with the ground of locality on his own.

If you ever read about the heart-breaking, shameful excommunication of old Dr. Cronin while Darby was on his deathbed, and you will understand the operation of "one city, one table, one assembly" under the administration of the zealous Exclusives. Then Darby, the great defender of the faith, sheepishly agreed with the expulsion of Cronin, with a "must be God's will" sort of statement. Cronin, by the way, was meeting with the Brethren before Darby came even along.

This Darby death-bed division showed how the operation of "one city, one table, one assembly" took on a life of its own that not even Darby could control. After Dr. Cronin, the next one to be taken to the gallows was Wm. Kelly himself. The exclusive leader to emerge from the ashes of war was JB Stoney himself, and with Kelly effectively expelled, his leadership was secure.

It became more than evident, with an aging Darby no longer able to maintain command over his followers, that the London band of early-Blendeds were able to use many of Darby's own extra-biblical teachings to eliminate one-by-one any potential rival, whether it be the kindest, most-loving elderly Doctor Cronin or the brilliant William Kelly, Darby's greatest follower. Thus Darby died knowing that his closest ally Kelly was now his enemy due to the same exclusive principles established in full when Darby expelled Newton, Muller, and the rest of the "Open" brothers.

This is how exclusive systems were able to use the teaching of "one city, one table, one assembly." And that is why I have often said that distorted oneness is perhaps the most pernicious of Christian vices.

Ohio · 04-17-2014, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Somehow missed this post so here is my quote " Orthodox were and are wrong on there millennial views. And for Panton being wrong read the following and decide for yourself,

http://roel.velemaweb.nl/panton/file...20Reprints.pdf

That's 223 pages! In other words, that's two hundred and twenty three pages.

No thanks. I read too slowly.

Like you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Ohio · 04-17-2014, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Margaret Barber, Surrey Chapel and the Visitors from China

D.M. Panton became Pastor of Surrey Chapel in 1901. A lady missionary called Margaret Barber (1866–1930), who had returned to England from service in China, left the Church of England and joined the Chapel around 1907. There were some suggestions of a possible romance between Panton and Barber, but in the end the call to return to China for Margaret Barber was stronger. It was a period of missionary fervour in the Chapel, when, during the years 1906 to 1917, as many as nine individuals went to serve in China. Margaret Barber went back to China as an independent missionary, sent and supported by Surrey Chapel in 1909.
So this year, 2009, is the centenary of her sending to China by Surrey Chapel. For the Chinese visitors this was a most significant event in their own history. In China, Margaret Barber met an 18-year-old Christian man, Watchman Nee. She personally tutored him in God’s word, directed his study and encouraged him in his spiritual development. Watchman Nee became one of the most influential Christian leaders in the history of the Chinese church – and the visitors to Surrey Chapel in 2009 were all from churches whose roots are in Nee’s ministry. And this is why they were so excited to be visiting Surrey Chapel in Norwich. As they saw it, in the sovereign purposes of God, they were Christian believers today because Surrey Chapel had sent Margaret Barber to China one hundred years ago!
There in the Chapel, we sang together a hymn written by Margaret Barber and enjoyed a thrilling time of prayer and thanksgiving. More photographs and numerous handshakes and hugs and then they returned to their coach – on their way to visit the John Lewis car park!
Jesus said, ‘The Kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree …’ (Matthew 13.31–32).
Derek Haylock, March 2009

So .... Elden1971 .... has this little story changed your mind about Barber, Panton, Govett, or Nee?

Elden1971 · 04-17-2014, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So .... Elden1971 .... has this little story changed your mind about Barber, Panton, Govett, or Nee?

Not at all it just confirms how messed up Nee's followers have become and the romantic interest between Panton and Barber might explain why she was so enamored with his ministry.

Ohio · 04-17-2014, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Not at all it just confirms how messed up Nee's followers have become and the romantic interest between Panton and Barber might explain why she was so enamored with his ministry.

Perfectly appropriate for two single believers desirous to find a suitable mate, wouldn't you say?

Elden1971 · 04-17-2014, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So .... Elden1971 .... has this little story changed your mind about Barber, Panton, Govett, or Nee?

Imagine what Nee might have accomplished if Barber had not fed him with erroneous teachings. The fact is the majority of Chinese Christians have never heard of Nee or Lee and I do thank God for that....

Elden1971 · 04-17-2014, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Imagine what Nee might have accomplished if Barber had not fed him with erroneous teachings. The fact is the majority of Chinese Christians have never heard of Nee or Lee and I do thank God for that....

By 1949, the American Southern Baptist Mission in China had 220 missionaries working in 392 congregations, 410 outreach points, serving a total of 123,000 Baptist Christians.[3] The bulk of the work was located in the provinces of Kwangtung, Kwangsi, Kiangsu, Honan, Ahnwei, and Shantung and it included institutions like hospitals, schools, and colleges in Pingtu, Longkow, Kweilin, Yangchow, K'aifeng, and a few other cities and towns.[4] By 1951, most foreign missionaries were expelled from mainland China with the establishment of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement.

Ohio · 04-17-2014, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Imagine what Nee might have accomplished if Barber had not fed him with erroneous teachings. The fact is the majority of Chinese Christians have never heard of Nee or Lee and I do thank God for that....

But it is probably only you who has decided that Panton and Govett are filled with erroneous teachings.

awareness · 04-17-2014, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

By 1949, the American Southern Baptist Mission in China had 220 missionaries working in 392 congregations, 410 outreach points, serving a total of 123,000 Baptist Christians.[3] The bulk of the work was located in the provinces of Kwangtung, Kwangsi, Kiangsu, Honan, Ahnwei, and Shantung and it included institutions like hospitals, schools, and colleges in Pingtu, Longkow, Kweilin, Yangchow, K'aifeng, and a few other cities and towns.[4] By 1951, most foreign missionaries were expelled from mainland China with the establishment of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement.

Good work Terry. I checked out your embedded links. Thanks.

I guess we can't blame a country for protecting it's long standing culture and customs from an invasive species. If missionaries would bring just Jesus and Christianity without bringing their culture and customs in, the gov'ment wouldn't be as likely to contend with it.

aron · 04-18-2014, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Margaret Barber, Surrey Chapel and the Visitors from China
Around the beginning of 2009 the Surrey Chapel office received a request from a Christian group organizing a tour of Chinese Christians, which included a visit to Norwich. Could they come and visit Surrey Chapel, because they were on a study tour looking at various places of worship? Thinking that Surrey Chapel would be the last place tourists would want to look at – our present building is high on functional but decidedly low on numinous – we politely declined. We then received an email telling us not to be surprised if we see a coach pulling up outside the Chapel, because they were so keen to see our building that they would just come and look at it from the outside! It was something to do with the histories of our church and their church.

They were particularly keen to see some of Govett’s and Panton’s books in the Govett Room and to take photographs of everything. In the main Chapel upstairs, as they sat excitedly on the old Surrey Chapel wooden chairs, Professor Chen reminded them of why they were there. The story was inspiring.

Interesting, and ironic, for me, that this testimony is sandwiched in a discussion mentioning the Orthodox believers and their use of relics & icons. Are not these wooden chairs become icons for the disciples of Watchman Nee?

"Professor Chen reminded them of why they were there" ... yes indeed; why they were there: to excitedly sit in Surrey Chapel's wooden chairs, and to take videos of the building.

Ohio · 04-18-2014, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Imagine what Nee might have accomplished if Barber had not fed him with erroneous teachings. The fact is the majority of Chinese Christians have never heard of Nee or Lee and I do thank God for that....

And these would be the erroneous teachings of Panton and Govett?

I am obviously having difficulty understanding your many generalizations.

Perhaps there are other readers like myself.

Ohio · 04-18-2014, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting, and ironic, for me, that this testimony is sandwiched in a discussion mentioning the Orthodox believers and their use of relics & icons. Are not these wooden chairs become icons for the disciples of Watchman Nee?

"Professor Chen reminded them of why they were there" ... yes indeed; why they were there: to excitedly sit in Surrey Chapel's wooden chairs, and to take videos of the building.

Could this not be considered a more contemporary version of Christians visiting the holy lands?

Ohio · 04-18-2014, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting, and ironic, for me, that this testimony is sandwiched in a discussion mentioning the Orthodox believers and their use of relics & icons. Are not these wooden chairs become icons for the disciples of Watchman Nee?

"Professor Chen reminded them of why they were there" ... yes indeed; why they were there: to excitedly sit in Surrey Chapel's wooden chairs, and to take videos of the building.

So aron, you have not been convinced of the inherent value of icons, vestments, and theosis?

Perhaps you also are obsessed with the external side of things, and have missed the true meanings? Possibly you also have been misinformed?

InChristAlone · 04-18-2014, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So aron, you have not been convinced of the inherent value of icons, vestments, and theosis?

Perhaps you also are obsessed with the external side of things, and have missed the true meanings? Possibly you also have been misinformed?

I am sorry, I am not Aron. I don't have his intelligence, knowledge, and spirit. But I believe that "obsessed" means "preoccupied or filled the mind of (someone) continually and to a troubling extent".

Brother, the Orthodox Church is not about icons, vestments, and theosis. It's about leading a spiritual life that leads one to Christ.

I am glad that in your spiritual life you are not like those lowly and ignorant Orthodox Christians. You don't focus on icons, vestments, and theosis, but Christ alone. God bless.

Elden1971 · 04-18-2014, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And these would be the erroneous teachings of Panton and Govett?

I am obviously having difficulty understanding your many generalizations.

Perhaps there are other reader like myself.

Yes the teaching of Kingdom exclusion, etc by Govett and perpetuated by Panton, Pember, and introduced by Margaret Barber to Nee and Nee to Lee and now championed by Faust. The subtlety of the enemy is injecting just a little leaven a little "light" that no one else has....You see the same thing with the early church fathers with the introduction of one false teaching after another... Paul warned Timothy of the dangers...We now live in the full blown reality of the result of error upon error.....May the Lord have mercy on us and enable us to bring every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ. We need not be afraid to examine every teaching that we hold so dear and be willing to repent when we see we are in error and all of us have been in error especially in regard to Nee and Lee.

Ohio · 04-18-2014, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Yes the teaching of Kingdom exclusion, etc by Govett and perpetuated by Panton, Pember, and introduced by Margaret Barber to Nee and Nee to Lee and now championed by Faust. The subtlety of the enemy is injecting just a little leaven a little "light" that no one else has....You see the same thing with the early church fathers with the introduction of one false teaching after another... Paul warned Timothy of the dangers...We now live in the full blown reality of the result of error upon error.....May the Lord have mercy on us and enable us to bring every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ. We need not be afraid to examine every teaching that we hold so dear and be willing to repent when we see we are in error and all of us have been in error especially in regard to Nee and Lee.

Can you provide some of the highlights of the teaching of "kingdom exclusion" so we can at least be on the same wavelength?

Where did Paul warn Timothy of these dangers?

You seem to imply that I or others should repent of these errors, while you have not specified what the error is, and how the scripture instructs us.

Your views seem to differ from the earlier discussions on this thread with bearbear and the existence of purgatory.

aron · 04-18-2014, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Could this not be considered a more contemporary version of Christians visiting the holy lands?

Yes, it could. I find the irony in that the Lee ministry, anyway (I don't know much about Nee) made such hay about "fallen" and "natural" and "degraded" Christianity.

Yet they do the same thing. They venerate their history, and condemn others for essentially doing what they also practice.

That was what I was pointing out. It's fine to go look at buildings and sit in old wooden chairs where ME Barber might have once sat. But to then condemn other Christians for their pilgrimages and relics is simply hypocritical.

"You who condemn, do you not also do the same thing?" Cf Rom. 2:1; Luke 6:37

aron · 04-18-2014, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

the Lee ministry, anyway made such hay about "fallen" and "natural" and "degraded" Christianity.

Yet they do the same thing. They venerate their history, and condemn others for essentially doing what they also practice...

"You who condemn, do you not also do the same thing?" Cf Rom. 2:1; Luke 6:37

Someone told me about going to Anaheim in the mid 1990s. The Chinese would gather around Witness Lee's leather chair between meetings and pose for photos. The bold ones would sit in the chair for a photo.

Of course the "ministry" would condemn such practices. But they do promote ancestor worship, or whatever they want to call it. "Closely following the teachings of the apostles" or some such. Or, "our rich heritage." So is anyone shocked when busloads of Chinese tourists show up at Surrey Chapel for photo ops?

It's the same old, same old. "When we do it, it's okay, but when other Christians do it, then it's fallen humankind, and must be exposed and rebuked."

Friedel · 04-21-2014, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

John wrote Revelation some 20 years after it was fulfilled?

Some of Mark 13 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 26-27 were not.

Some of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27-30 were not.

Some of Luke 21 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27 was not.

Ohio: I have never been unkind to you or any other poster. Why you had to adopt this tone of superiority towards me, I do not know.

You apparently determined to be facetious and to belittle me, hence your statements.

Let us forget about your remarks regarding Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 but let us consider the other remark about the time of writing of Revelation. (By the way, I reject your remarks about Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.)

Traditionally, it is stated that Revelation was written around 95-96 AD, during the reign of Domitian.

Here is my challenge to you: provide me with one (yes, only ONE) external piece of evidence that any date after 70 AD is correct (external: from history or whatever). Also, provide me with one (yes, only ONE) piece of internal evidence (internal: from within the 22 chapters of Revelation) that John wrote it around 95-96 AD.

I wait in great anticipation.

Ohio · 04-21-2014, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

Then about a century ago there came a man with a dishonorable personal history, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, who published the Scofield Bible, incorporating all the Brethren teachings and leading millions astray.

Then came Witness Lee… (and many other Dispensationalists) teaching all this grandiose nonsense.

And in the process the Bible and the teachings of God’s Word have become secondary even if none of these teachings make sense.

Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

John wrote Revelation some 20 years after it was fulfilled?

Some of Mark 13 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 26-27 were not.

Some of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27-30 were not.

Some of Luke 21 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but v 27 was not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

Ohio: I have never been unkind to you or any other poster. Why you had to adopt this tone of superiority towards me, I do not know.

You apparently determined to be facetious and to belittle me, hence your statements.

Let us forget about your remarks regarding Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 but let us consider the other remark about the time of writing of Revelation. (By the way, I reject your remarks about Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.)

Traditionally, it is stated that Revelation was written around 95-96 AD, during the reign of Domitian.

Brother Friedel, this must be some misunderstanding here. This last post of mine was not unkind, nor did it have a tone of superiority towards you. Read my short post again. It was only an honest negation into your statement that those chapters and the book of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70. There was nothing in my tone that was either facetious or belittling towards you.

That said, you have stated some extreme views which I have every right to challenge, or at least question on an open forum. If another poster disagrees with any or all of your views, please don't take it personally.

Elden1971 · 04-21-2014, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother Friedel, this must be some misunderstanding here. This last post of mine was not unkind, nor did it have a tone of superiority towards you. Read my short post again. It was only an honest negation into your statement that those chapters and the book of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70. There was nothing in my tone that was either facetious or belittling towards you.

That said, you have stated some extreme views which I have every right to challenge, or at least question on an open forum. If another poster disagrees with any or all of your views, please don't take it personally.

Bro. Freidel I must agree with Ohio. His comments are just factual. The preterist viewpoint which you espouse is simply not defensible. Scofield incidentally did not do any of the prophetic footnotes in the Scofield Bible ...all were done by Arno Gaebelein and I personally find him to be one of the most sound prophetic teachers ever that always leads you to Christ in all his writings.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 04-21-2014, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

provide me with one (yes, only ONE) external piece of evidence that any date after 70 AD is correct (external: from history or whatever)

Irenaeus

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).
Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

Evidences provided by author of this article, Wayne Jackson - "When was the book of Revelation Written?" www.christiancourier.com

awareness · 04-21-2014, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

(By the way, I reject your remarks about Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.)

Don't wish to jump in the middle of this tussle but I'm itchin' to know why you reject Ohio's remarks.

Humor me please ....

Friedel · 04-21-2014, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't wish to jump in the middle of this tussle but I'm itchin' to know why you reject Ohio's remarks.

Humor me please ....

Awareness:

I responded to remarks by Ohio, not by you. So I will not humor you.

I respectfully decline your invitation.

Friedel · 04-21-2014, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Irenaeus

NFNL: Thank you for the laborious quote by Wayne Jackson, which I am familiar with. Irenaeus usually crops up due to an obscure and ambiguous piece he wrote in Greek 100 years+ after the death of John. Then it survived in Latin and was eventually translated back into Greek (how well, I do not know). Anyway, it proves nothing. Regarding Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Jerome … nah. Like Ireneaus they prove nothing (even though Wayne Jackson did his utmost). So you have provided not a single piece of external evidence for a late date. 0/10.

Regarding your attempts to prove Internal Evidence. I am prepared to fail you with 0/10.

Sorry.

Ohio · 04-21-2014, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

NFNL: Thank you for the laborious quote by Wayne Jackson, which I am familiar with. Irenaeus usually crops up due to an obscure and ambiguous piece he wrote in Greek 100 years+ after the death of John. Then it survived in Latin and was eventually translated back into Greek (how well, I do not know). Anyway, it proves nothing. Regarding Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Jerome … nah. Like Ireneaus they prove nothing (even though Wayne Jackson did his utmost). So you have provided not a single piece of external evidence for a late date. 0/10.

Regarding your attempts to prove Internal Evidence. I am prepared to fail you with 0/10.

Sorry.

Likewise, brother Freidel, we can also fail you 0/10 with any attempts you make to prove your Preterist views, either internal or external.

Some internal negations to your views would be the verses I quoted before, i.e. Mark 13.26-27; Matt 24.27-30; and Luke 21.27.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 04-21-2014, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel;32326[B

] 0/10..... 0/10... [/b]
Sorry.

Really?

You know what really gives me a distaste for Preterism? Preterists.

It seems that every Preterist I've met (and I've met several) seems to take the stance that everyone who isn't a Preterist is an idiot who can't read Scripture. They get absolutely vociferous about it.

Sir, you asked for evidence. I gave you evidence. You asked for ONE piece of evidence, and I gave you several. You can choose to refute the evidence, but to say that there's no evidence with this "0/10" garbage is intellectually dishonest. You might not like it, but there is strong evidence for a 90-95 AD date of writing for the Book of Revelation; and if that's true and we are right, then it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Preterist interpretation is wrong. Preterism NEEDS an early date for the Book of Revelation. The burden of proof lies on you.

Seriously now, I've tried to understand Preterism. I know Preterists, and when I ask them questions to understand their viewpoint, I always get very cryptic answers. If you want to be understood, then please let me ask you to speak for your fellow Preterists and answer this question: IF the book of Revelation is historical (already fulfilled), then what does the future hold for humanity and for the earth? What is the promise and what is our hope? Please explain with Scripture.

Friedel · 04-21-2014, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Bro. Freidel I must agree with Ohio. His comments are just factual. The preterist viewpoint which you espouse is simply not defensible. Scofield incidentally did not do any of the prophetic footnotes in the Scofield Bible ...all were done by Arno Gaebelein and I personally find him to be one of the most sound prophetic teachers ever that always leads you to Christ in all his writings.

Terry: Let us stay with facts then. I have stated that I am not a preterist but I believe in fulfilled prophecy. You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible? May I take the liberty then to tell you that the defense of modern-day Israel is unBiblical and indefensible. It has no scriptural grounds.

As far as Arno Gaebelein goes: you are entitled to your opinion. However, I never mentioned Gaebelein but Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, after whom the Scofield Bible was named. He led a shameful life.

Friedel · 04-21-2014, 12:55 PM

I initially honestly tried to present a positive post and and it caused a stir. It never was my intention to cause a furor or to stir up controversy. I say that with all honesty.

It was not my intention to hurt the feelings of anyone although I spoke straightforwardly. I confess to a total absence of malice towards everyone.

I leave you now. I derive no pleasure from all this unpleasantness.

Delighting in the good, acceptable and perfect will of God.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 04-21-2014, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

question: IF the book of Revelation is historical (already fulfilled), then what does the future hold for humanity and for the earth? What is the promise and what is our hope? Please explain with Scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

I leave you now. I derive no pleasure from all this unpleasantness.

Typical Preterist!

Why do these people NEVER answer a straight forward question? How do they expect their views to be taken seriously?!

Link

Ohio · 04-21-2014, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible? May I take the liberty then to tell you that the defense of modern-day Israel is unBiblical and indefensible. It has no scriptural grounds.

And these are your parting words? After which you decide to graciously keep the peace and depart to the good and acceptable, perfect will of God?

As far as "defending" modern day Israel, God Himself seems to be doing quite well. Have you ever read of all the miraculous stories of His protective sovereignty over Israel since they became a nation?

Anyways, brother Freidel, you sure have some interesting ideas.

OBW · 04-21-2014, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible?

Interesting way to phrase your opinion so that it is presented as fact.

The truth of the Bible is always defensible. But as has already been pointed out to you, declaring something to be the truth of the Bible does not mean that it is. You have simply pulled the "my truth is from the Bible" card and said that your interpretation is correct and all others wrong without further discussion.

That is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple. It does not make your position wrong. But neither does it prove it. Your take on what it says is interpretation, at best. So you cannot simply claim that it is a settled fact from the Bible and dismiss everything that disagrees. You need to actually defend your position with something more than "I like my claims and dismiss anything that is said contrary to it."

And if you don't think that is exactly what you have done so far, then it is more than evident why you hold the view you are pushing. (And it has nothing to do with evidence.)

Elden1971 · 04-21-2014, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friedel

Terry: Let us stay with facts then. I have stated that I am not a preterist but I believe in fulfilled prophecy. You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible? May I take the liberty then to tell you that the defense of modern-day Israel is unBiblical and indefensible. It has no scriptural grounds.

As far as Arno Gaebelein goes: you are entitled to your opinion. However, I never mentioned Gaebelein but Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, after whom the Scofield Bible was named. He led a shameful life.

You apparently have read the slanderous works of the preterist poster child Joseph Canfield. You claim not to be a preterist, but you rely on preterist sources. You might want to do a little more research before making such accusations.

Elden1971 · 04-22-2014, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And these would be the erroneous teachings of Panton and Govett?

I am obviously having difficulty understanding your many generalizations.

Perhaps there are other readers like myself.

http://www.stempublishing.com/author...cts/prize.html

This is a clear refutation by Kelly on Govett's teaching.

aron · 04-22-2014, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

http://www.stempublishing.com/author...cts/prize.html

This is a clear refutation by Kelly on Govett's teaching.

Kelly:"The alternative again is not a punitive or purgatorial Hades for so many years, but "to be cast into everlasting fire." Scripture nowhere anticipates for believers such a lot as Mr. G. imagined. .... Those who will not are consigned to everlasting punishment, not to temporary suffering... it is either entering into the kingdom at whatever cost, or to be cast into hell-fire. There is no middle position between the kingdom and irretrievable ruin."

I don't see anywhere in the above a discussion of the type of the Exodus, so prominently and repeatedly displayed to the NT believers, in epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews, as cautionary examples.

So to Kelly et al, out of several hundred thousand who left Egypt, all but two (Joshua, Caleb) were types of 'nominal Christians' who were consigned to everlasting punishment and irretrievable ruin?

And for Moses to die, not on the shores of the Red Sea but on Pisgah overlooking the good land, is of no consequence, then? There is no difference between the shores of Egypt and the shores of the Jordan, right? A miss is as good as a mile, right? Eternal fire for Moses?

And if so, then how is Moses, one of those 'disapproved of and fallen in the wilderness', somehow rehabilitated and seen with Jesus and Elijah on the mountain in the gospels' transfiguration?

Or is Moses somehow exempt of the cautionary pattern of those who fell in the wilderness? And if so, is God a respecter of persons after all?

It is a "clear refutation" by Kelly, yes, but not a very thorough one. I'm neither a 'millenialist' nor a 'purgatorialist', but rather say that here Kelly does a bad job. If you want to make a good case, you should address the other's point, not ignore it. Kelly seems to do the latter. Good for his fellow travellers, but it doesn't advance the discussion in any meaninful fashion. It simply makes his point to his own satisfaction.

Witness Lee made the same error. To think that the other party might even have some ground for their thinking, and to seek some balanced rapprochement with that, was never considered. Instead, the "other" in the discussion was maligned as "dark" and "twisted". That is no discussion at all; nobody learns anything.

bearbear · 04-22-2014, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Kelly:"The alternative again is not a punitive or purgatorial Hades for so many years, but "to be cast into everlasting fire." Scripture nowhere anticipates for believers such a lot as Mr. G. imagined. .... Those who will not are consigned to everlasting punishment, not to temporary suffering... it is either entering into the kingdom at whatever cost, or to be cast into hell-fire. There is no middle position between the kingdom and irretrievable ruin."

I don't see anywhere in the above a discussion of the type of the Exodus, so prominently and repeatedly displayed to the NT believers, in epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews, as cautionary examples.

So to Kelly et al, out of several hundred thousand who left Egypt, all but two (Joshua, Caleb) were types of 'nominal Christians' who were consigned to everlasting punishment and irretrievable ruin?

And for Moses to die, not on the shores of the Red Sea but on Pisgah overlooking the good land, is of no consequence, then? There is no difference between the shores of Egypt and the shores of the Jordan, right? A miss is as good as a mile, right? Eternal fire for Moses?

And if so, then how is Moses, one of those 'disapproved of and fallen in the wilderness', somehow rehabilitated and seen with Jesus and Elijah on the mountain in the gospels' transfiguration?

Or is Moses somehow exempt of the cautionary pattern of those who fell in the wilderness? And if so, is God a respecter of persons after all?

It is a "clear refutation" by Kelly, yes, but not a very thorough one. I'm neither a 'millenialist' nor a 'purgatorialist', but rather say that here Kelly does a bad job. If you want to make a good case, you should address the other's point, not ignore it. Kelly seems to do the latter. Good for his fellow travellers, but it doesn't advance the discussion in any meaninful fashion. It simply makes his point to his own satisfaction.

Witness Lee made the same error. To think that the other party might even have some ground for their thinking, and to seek some balanced rapprochement with that, was never considered. Instead, the "other" in the discussion was maligned as "dark" and "twisted". That is no discussion at all; nobody learns anything.

It's interesting that Jude 9 describes a dispute between Satan and Michael for the body of Moses. Perhaps Satan laid claim to Moses for his one sin at Meribah which he was punished severely for. But we know Moses made it to heaven because he appears before Jesus at the mount of transfiguration-- and for good reason because he humbly obeyed God in repentance for the rest of his life. Although Moses didn't enter it, unlike the other Israelites of the older generation, God did allow him to see the promised land. Peter talks about the righteous being scarcely saved perhaps for good reason. Pretty scary stuff if you ask me.

1 Peter 4:18
And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

aron · 04-22-2014, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

It's interesting that Jude 9 describes a dispute between Satan and Michael for the body of Moses.

And how about Jude 6: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

Perhaps these were "nominal" angels; not "real" and "genuine" angels?

How come they couldn't stay in their positions "in the Father's hand", per John 10:28,29? How could they abandon their proper dwelling?

Ohio · 04-22-2014, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

http://www.stempublishing.com/author...cts/prize.html

This is a clear refutation by Kelly on Govett's teaching.

Reading Wm. Kelly for the first time, he seems high on sarcasm and a little low on clarity. A clear refutation would take all of Govett's points and refute them according to the plain words of scripture.

Kelly's writing seems almost as abstruse as his mentor Darby, who cared more to impress the reader than to actually minister to him. Darby continually excused himself of this tendency by claiming that he "only thinks on paper." In this regard, both could have learned from Macintosh.

Kelly may be right, he is just not making a clear refutation.

aron · 04-23-2014, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

It's interesting that Jude 9 describes a dispute between Satan and Michael for the body of Moses.

Elden1971 quotes Kelly saying "There is no middle position between the kingdom and irretrievable ruin." So to Kelly there is apparently in the Exodus story no difference between dying in Egypt, and dying in the wilderness. It even says that God swore in His wrath, "They will never enter in!" (Heb 3:11)

Yet Moses seems to occupy some "middle position" here. He didn't enter in, but apparently was not destroyed forever.

God's throne is based on righteousness. If Moses makes it through the gates into the kingdom, without first crossing Jordan, then God has to allow everyone the possibility. The kingdom is watching God's judgment, which cannot arbitrarily allow one person a "middle position" and consign the rest to irretrievable ruin.

Ohio · 04-23-2014, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

God's throne is based on righteousness. If Moses makes it through the gates into the kingdom, without first crossing Jordan, then God has to allow everyone the possibility. The kingdom is watching God's judgment, which cannot arbitrarily allow one person a "middle position" and consign the rest to irretrievable ruin.

This gets to the heart of the matter -- is God's judgment fair?

Will He judge the faithful martyrs the same as the one who rejected salvation until his death bed?

And what will He do with those saved in childhood, yet went on to live the rest of their life as if they were never saved?

Protestants have reject the notion of a "purgatory" based on papal corruptions, but they can not deny the underlying scriptural basis for it.

Scripture is filled with descriptions of discipline and rewards for the Lord's servants. How can we look at each one of them and simplistically conclude, "good guys go to heaven, bad guys go to hell.

awareness · 04-23-2014, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can we look at each one of them and simplistically conclude, "good guys go to heaven, bad guys go to hell.

And what about the good guys that aren't saved and the bad ones that are?

Ohio · 04-23-2014, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And what about the good guys that aren't saved and the bad ones that are?

Every poster has his own definition of what is good or bad.

awareness · 04-23-2014, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every poster has his own definition of what is good or bad.

I'm just concerned. I'm one of the bad ones that are. Ask Untohim. He'll tell ya. Am I headed to purgatory?

aron · 04-23-2014, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm just concerned. I'm one of the bad ones that are. Ask Untohim. He'll tell ya. Am I headed to purgatory?

Ohio used a good word: "simplistic". In our efforts to understand, and predict, God's actions, we get simplistic. God is pure, we are not. Our efforts to understand and predict with any level of sophistication are probably vain. Likewise when we boil God's activities, in sum, into some formula which we can use to our advantage, is also probably vain.

God loved us so much that He sent His Son. He told Peter and James and John, "This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I delight. Hear Him."

Deciphering "the thousand years" is probably not as important. I admit that I think about it, among a lot of other stuff. I look at scriptures, and consider. I merely chimed into this thread to say that characterizations like Mr Kelly, of Mr Govett (whom I have not read), don't seem very satisfying at all.

That is all I was trying to say. Beyond that, I would merely distract the conversation even further. Peace.

01-31-2014, 10:01 AM	#7
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Regarding 1 Cor 3:13-15, here is my take on it: http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...5-promise.html

01-31-2014, 12:05 PM	#14
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Hi OBW, Thanks for the thoughtful response. I respect that you take care in all your posts, I've been busier at work so I'm sorry if I haven't been as thorough in my scholarship and responses. I'm sorry for sounding dogmatic. Heck my views have been changing a lot as I get new revelation. I started out in free grace, moved into Arminianism then onto Calvinism, now I'm not sure where I am. We all see through a mirror dimly and won't have full knowledge of the truth until we become glorified. I hope you'll read my stuff as just one take on the scriptures, and I think it's fair to say my views are not that far out in the context of the Christian community, it reflects what many bible scholars believe from Arminian and Calvinist backgrounds. Often when conflicting views are stated, it helps to bring both views into sharper focus. I know I'm stepping on some toes here, but I think this is a valid discussion to have for both side's sakes. As I said earlier, I posted my thoughts on 1 Cor 3:13-15 on my blog. It's also discussion we had earlier on this forum that's been rehashed a couple times. The view I posted is similar to the explanations I've heard from Arminians and Calvinists. http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...5-promise.html Regarding not paying back the debt. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. Jesus said unless we forgive others the Father cannot forgive us. Without forgiveness there is no atonement. The price of our sin is something we are unable to pay that only Jesus could have paid. Many people have languished in debtor's prison simply because being in jail also means you can't pay the debt, it's basically a death sentence for those who have no means of paying! Psalms 49:8 says for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, There's no amount of silver or gold we can pay for our sin. It's only a price that God could pay with the death of his only begotten son. Psalm 49:7,15 No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them— But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead; he will surely take me to himself.

01-31-2014, 12:20 PM	#15
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? To show that I'm not too far off from the views of mainstream Christianity here's GotQuestions take on outer darkness which they believe to be "eternal darkness": http://www.gotquestions.org/outer-darkness.html Here's another one with much more thorough scholarship from bible.org. They contend that those who go to outer darkness are not saved and make a great effort to explain both sides. https://bible.org/article/%E2%80%9Co...suburb-or-hell

01-31-2014, 12:52 PM	#17
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? To me it's not an issue of losing salvation because someone who is truly born again and given a new heart and new spirit will come to forgive everyone who has offended them. Jesus was able to forgive his enemies, and because he's living in us, we're also able to by Christ who empowers us (Phil 4:13). He wouldn't have laid the burden on us if it were not possible. Taking things back to the passage. If it were possible to repay our debt while suffering in this prison, wouldn't that be adding works to salvation? All the other cross referenced verses on forgiveness seem to speak towards this possibility. God's forgiveness of us is clearly stated to be conditioned on our own willingness to forgive others elsewhere in scripture. Such a thing is possible after we become born again because Christ lives in us and we'll come to adopt his value system as we abide in him and his words. We'll come to treasure the unseen spiritual and heavenly riches that abide forever and not the things of the world that are passing away. Matthew 6:14-15 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Mark 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. Colossians 3:13 Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. If forgiveness was required for salvation, it'd seem like something that would be so important that Jesus would want us to pray for it daily. In fact Jesus does this in the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6. He also tells us to pray that we wouldn't yield to temptation but be delivered from the evil one. Perhaps because the consequences of being tempted and falling into unrepentant sin are very grave. But we have nothing to worry about if we abide in Christ and his words (John 15).

01-31-2014, 01:47 PM	#20
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? What is outer darkness? It's not the lake of fire. Fire makes lightness not darkness. Is it being tossed into outer space? Where it's cold not hot? I think all this is symbol-speak, in terms of images commonly understood back then. I don't think it should be taken literal. So much of it was common mythology tossed around long before and in common currency. Make of it as you wish. To each his, or her, own. But I'm not much on bogeyman Christianity. I grew up with fire and brimstone sermons, meant to scare people to Jesus, and everybody else. As a result, I'm numb to hell-fire preachin. Overloaded, actually. But I know people who awake with panic attacks from fear of damnation. Won't all these scary verses just exasperate those attacks ... not, perchance, bring needed salvation? Scaring people to Christianity in the end is counter-productive. And why scare believers? Some people love scary movies. So I guess some Christians like to be scared ... for those I present : "The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood." ~ Sinners in the hands of an angry God - Jonathan Edwards http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

01-31-2014, 09:07 AM	#1
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? My answer: http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...rnity-and.html Here's another (better) answer from: http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html Witness Lee's Purgatory What happens to these hypothetical non-overcoming believers? According to Witness Lee the following verses apply to them: Matt 8:12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Mt 22:13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Mt 24:51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Mt 25:30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Lu 13:28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Lee comments: "This is different than suffering the second death, which is to perish in the lake of fire for eternity. Although believers cannot be lost, they may suffer some dispensational punishment for their faults. This punishment will be worse than that received by those who broke the law of letters." In other words they will suffer a worse punishment than under the Law of Moses when people were stoned to death or burned alive. Matt 18:34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. A basic problem with the purgatory idea is that it contradicts the basic concept of the forgiveness of sins. I understand the distinction he tries to make between discipline and condemnation. But having been raised from the dead, there is no point to discipling these people. They have already been reckoned innocent by the blood of Christ, and although discipline would be helpful while they were in the flesh (as sin dwells in the flesh and they have to learn obedience), having been raised from the dead they are perfect. There's no point to discipling them. Does tormenting them make them any more perfect? Such torment would not be simply for discipline to help them learn, but as a penalty for sinning. Hasn't God saved us from such condemnation? Is this what Christ has earned for us - to be thrown into a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth? Is it by our good works that we escape from such a place of torment? Is this rather not the kind of judgment that unbelievers will experience: Matt 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Which Lee also agrees applies only to the unsaved. My interpretation of the difference between the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth? I think Lee is correct that the first refers to just during the Millenial reign and the second to the final judgment. But I think that both refer to the judgement of unbelievers or mere nominal Christians and unbelieving Jews. But consider the correlation between Matt 24:50,51 and Luke 12:46 "The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 24:50,51 "The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers." Luke 12:46 If you read the context of these parables you find that these are parallel passages. Luke is recording the same parable as Matthew. Therefore "a place with the hypocrites" in Matthew is the same as "a place with the unbelievers" in Luke. Lee says that it is the non-overcoming believers that the Matthew passage is referring to. But in reality these are merely unsaved nominal Christians, which is why they are hypocrites. They do not believe with saving faith. Lee denies the purgatory idea in its Catholic sense when he comments on 1Cor 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." Lee comments: "Through fire surely indicates punishment. However, this is altogether not the purgatory heretically taught by Catholicism in its superstitious twisting of this verse. Nevertheless, this word should be a solemn warning to us today concerning our Christian works." However, as I interpret this verse, it seems to me that it is not the man who is burned, but his works. God has to burn up our sins so as to forget our past sinful lives in accordance with His promise. What remains of our past are the times when we obeyed God. And for these we will be rewarded. Isa 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." But Lee seems to think that God will remember the sins of the believers and visits punishment upon us in the next life. This is contrary to the basic message of the gospel. Though he denies the Catholic purgatory idea, he may not realize that he may actually believe it. Or perhaps we can rename it the Protestant Purgatory. For he accepts the following verse as applying to non-overcoming saved Christians: Matt 18:34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. Notice it says "until he should pay back all he owed". Such a person is paying the penalty for his sins by being tortured. This is what many accuse Catholics of believing. The basic object of our faith is Christ's atoning work on the cross. Christ payed the penalty for our sins. In describing the benefits of righteousness by faith in Romans 4, Paul quotes David saying: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 10:15-18 Throughout the history of Protestant theology, the Purgatory idea had been rejected, being relegated as heretical Catholic theology. But Lee and Nee have now attempted to reintroduce this concept into the Evangelical community and have had success to some extent. However, they have failed to show the consistency between the gospel message of grace according to traditional evangelical thought and the purgatorial idea. The contradiction between the concept of Purgatory and Biblical theology was the reason it was rejected in the first place. The leaven of this doctrine must be removed if their gospel is to be considered Biblical from the standpoint of historic Protestant thought.

01-31-2014, 09:27 AM	#2
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Bible scholars seem to disagree if outer darkness is a region outside of the kingdom, or if it's another description of the lake of fire, or just the outer regions in the lake of fire or outside it. It's because there's only four references to it in the New Testament. Regarding this I'm not sure myself and perhaps others can chime in who have done more research in this area. However most scholars would contend that the judgment in outer darkness is for eternity. No where in scripture does it suggest that those cast into the outer darkness are offered another chance to enter into the kingdom of God. If this was so, Paul would have written "will not inherit the kingdom of God for 1000 years", however verses like Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-5, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 all state unequivocally that those who are mastered by the lusts of their flesh and thereby practice sin will "not inherit the kingdom of God" or "have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God". Ephesians 5:3-5 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Paul never hints at the kingdom of God being for a thousand years, rather scripture seems to indicate that it's for eternity. The millennial reign of Jesus describes only one stage in the Messiah's kingdom. After the millennium is over, the New Jerusalem comes down to earth and there will be a new heaven and new earth. God's reign will continue into eternity from here on out as Revelation 21 describes. Instead of limiting the term of God's kingdom to a thousand years, many places in scripture emphasize the kingdom of God being for eternity. 2 Peter 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Luke 1:32-33 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end. 2 Samuel 7:16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever. Jesus words in Matthew 7:21-23 to those who claim him as Lord communicate that he wants nothing to do with those who profess him as Lord with their mouth but not their heart or their actions thereby living in lawlessness. No where is there an indication that Jesus will accept them back after a thousand years, instead it seems like he wants them to leave his presence forever in disgust that they and others would think that he could be associated with their works. Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ In the few references to outer darkness in the gospels, it's usually described as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth": Luke 13:28 In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. If there were still hope of eternity with Jesus, then there would be at least some glory to look forward to. But one can probably infer that because there is no hope, all one can do is weep and gnash their teeth. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping...shing_of_teeth The phrase "(there shall be) weeping and gnashing of teeth" (in the original Greek ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων) appears seven times in the New Testament as a description of the torments of the damned in Hell. It is thought to derive from a logion in the hypothetical Q source, which yielded Matthew 8:12 and Luke 13:28. The other five occurrences are all within the context of parables and are widely held to be redactional additions by Matthew. In fact in Matthew 13:41–42, the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is used in the context of the "fiery furnace", presumably the lake of fire! Matthew 13 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Lending credence to the idea that outer darkness is synonymous with the lake of fire or part of it. It's a place that's dark because there is no light, yet it is burning. This is because God is light and his presence is not there. Without God there is no light and only darkness.

01-31-2014, 12:31 PM	#16
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? But you miss the question and instead go to other passages written concerning other things. The passage in front of us says that there is a debtor (who was a servant) that gets turned over to the torturers until all is paid. There is the clear reference up front to having been forgiven by the master before this happened. So we are not talking about pagans or outsiders. Also note that it does not say that the servant was put into a condition in which he could not pay, then required to pay anyway. He was only given to torturers until he paid. We can surmise what that could mean, but it is not certain. And it is also unclear how much of the story to take as instructive. But in any case, the set-up establishes someone who has been forgiven by the master. And there is a reference to his having a time or discipline until a debt is paid. As I mentioned before, scripture has generally not minced words about shortness or temporal-ness of punishment where it was perdition that was being discussed. Why now? To trick us into false hope? Are you therefore arguing an Arminian position that the forgiveness can be withdrawn ( and salvation can be lost)? You claim you are not. But your analysis of this parable, or decision to skip it, leaves your position on "weeping and gnashing of teeth" only meaning hell/perdition as sketchy, at best. Probably full of holes. And pointing to an Arminian understanding. Even if you don't see it as such. I have no problem with you holding to that general belief. But you need to at least acknowledge that there are things that do not seem to agree with it that you have not managed to explain adequately. And if that is the case, then you would not be so strong to come insisting on the correctness of your position. Mine is clearly not insisted on as correct because I am not sure what it is. I just am pretty sure that what you are pushing is not adequately supported by scripture, or at least not sufficiently so for me to simply take it and move on. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

01-31-2014, 02:46 PM	#25
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,797	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? We may want to keep in mind just who it was that the Lord Jesus was addressing. Was it just the Jews? Was it a mixed crowd? Should we take into account the norms and culture of the day? Is there any consensus of interpretation between a good number of well-known and trusted teachers and scholars? Ohio gives a plausible interpretation....and I believe this was more or less what Nee and Lee taught regarding this parable. (which doesn't make this interpretation right or wrong) One problem I do have with this particular twist on this one is that if the oil represents the Holy Spirit then the five foolish virgins cannot be believers because they do not have any oil to start with...they do not have the Holy Spirit to start with....doesn't sound like believers to me. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-31-2014, 02:47 PM	#26
ABrotherinFaith Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 100	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? OBW, Your posts #16 & #18 have really made me think. I've been thinking a lot about overcomers lately and how the LC has interpreted them...(has a lot to do with outer darkness and the thousand years) In post # 16 you mention the parable of the slave given over to the tortures until he pays back what he owes. Previously to this, wasn't he forgiven? Matt. 18:27 says, Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt. Isn't the final act, that of throwing him into prison and torturing him evidence that the forgiveness has been reversed? Also, how should we read/interpret the torture? And if torture can cause us to pay back something doesn't that come close to God forcing people to conform..in some way? What is it that we can pay back to God that in the end only torture could get out of us? I don't think I can lose my salvation once I've truly believed.

02-01-2014, 11:02 AM	#57
Truthfinder Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Let the Bible answer the Bible. Outer darkness is where all the sinners are who don't have access to the light, Jesus. THIS WORLD is where the outer darkness is. Not some place you go to after death. Weeping means pain and misery in this life. Gnashing of teeth means anger and frustration in this life. It's not exactly rocket science. Just let the Bible do the interpreting instead of speculating.

02-01-2014, 04:17 PM	#67
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. Children of God have no reason to fear God because they are born of him. Fear of God has to do with punishment. If there was possibility of punishment awaiting children of God at the end of our Christian race, then the Apostle John is lying in this verse by suggesting that we should not fear. Suffering in outer darkness for 1000 years as God's children just doesn't jive with God's character because it's sadistic. I know my God and it's not like him to do this to his children. Nor does millennial exclusion fit anywhere in the bible. Instead it seems like a dangerous doctrine which can be used to keep members of church in line under an abusive ministry or leader, while at the same time preventing people from pressing into repentance so their hearts can become the good earth and they can become born again. Jesus said wisdom is justified by her fruit, and from the looks of it, this doctrine has produced nothing but bad fruit. The lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. This includes children of the devil, which also includes men who claim to be Christians, but show that they are children of the devil by their actions (works of the flesh which include unrepentant unforgiveness, sexual immorality, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness). 1 John 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. Life is a gift and all of us have a chance to repent before the book of our life closes. There's no reason anyone of us has to go to outer darkness or hell for eternity. Hebrews 9:27 says judgment comes at the end of our Christian race. God is able to keep us from falling if we're willing to repent and in doing so, hold his hand and follow him. Psalm 37:23-24 The Lord directs the steps of the godly. He delights in every detail of their lives. Though they stumble, they will never fall, for the Lord holds them by the hand.

02-01-2014, 05:16 PM	#71
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? BB, I think that one problem that is going on in this discussion is the notion of how extreme one must be to believe and obey. I would not say that it is simple, like mental belief. But neither do I think that the kind of extreme that is getting implied here is what it means. I note that Jesus went throughout his ministry preaching righteousness and sending the people home to live right. Not to become one of the people who followed him everywhere he went. That is one of the millstone burdens of both the Pharisees of old and the "serious" Christians of this age. They think that life must be overanalyzed. That we must beat ourselves up for every mistake. That we must spend an hour in the word and prayer each morning. That we must never fail or fall. That we must be *burning* in the meetings. And go to more meetings than anyone else we know. Problem is that we all fall. And we do it at some level every day. While there is clearly a level of failure that will be recompensed on "the day" by something other than a crown with many stars in it. In the mean time, there really is not sufficient evidence of what that recompense is to insist on any particular understanding of it. And it is evident that we have multiple understandings about outer darkness. We can go on brow-beating each other with wet noodles and get nowhere because we simply do not know. The only thing we do know is to believe and obey. Take care of that and it will pan out in the end. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

02-02-2014, 05:41 AM	#74
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? While not directly on topic, I note that this topic is mostly about doctrines and opinions and what each version has to say about the souls of those who believe any particular way. In that context, I came across the following blog post from an unfamiliar writer that seemed to speak to the kind of "preaching" that is common in many groups, including the LRC, and is raising its head even among us at times in threads like this. Here is the post in full (with reference) and three or so of the comments it received following. I cannot point at anything or anyone particularly. Just note that it pricked my conscience and thought that it was worthy of passing on. - - - - An Untitled Rant (from the blog "Phoenix Preacher") http://michaelnewnham.com/?p=15996 This morning as I scrolled through my Facebook feed I was confronted with yet another old and dear friend who has pretty much left the faith once delivered to the saints. She’s gone not because of weighing all the eternal verities and reaching reasoned conclusions about spiritual matters . . . but because the church as she’s known and experienced it are too damn dangerous and deadly to her soul. We did not protect and defend her from the wolves among us . . . we defended the wolves and demeaned her. Now, a nicer wolf has taken her in. She has already been rejected by many former friends, some of whom have contacted me and asked me to call and correct her doctrine . . . as if her doctrine was broken before her heart and spirit were. That is the lie we tell about people we break and dispose of in the church . . . that they were simply apostates in waiting who are now simply showing their true colors. That lie enables us to keep believing that “sound doctrine” covers wicked character, that if your words are straight, your walk can be crooked. It screams the unspoken lie that Jesus died for proper pedagogy and not for people . . . and if people are wounded by the practitioners of proper pedagogy, it’s an acceptable sacrifice. It denies the reality of how badly we break the hearts spirits of people in favor of protecting power and position. My Facebook feed is littered with these living sacrifices to ecclesiastical authority and idolatry, some of whom have told me that they have been waiting for me to “unfriend” them for their “heresies”. I won’t do that because I don’t think Jesus has. I have been accused of not caring for their souls because of that. It’s not their souls I’m worried about . . . it’s the guys being fitted for a millstone. - - - - - Among the comments are the following: I can remember my Grandfather, from way back in the fifties saying, “The church has the only army who shoots their wounded”. I was just a kid then, and I had no idea what he meant. I do now. My spiritual health is not dependent on “Jesus alone”. He has delegated my care to my fellow church members, my pastor, my close friends . . . the fellowship of the saints. I need them and they need me . . . and whenever one of us suffers we all do. We shoot the wounded because they are much easier targets than the one who comes to cheat, steal, kill and destroy. And it makes us feel like we are doing something. Sad __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

02-02-2014, 06:41 AM	#76
ABrotherinFaith Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 100	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Good morning everyone. Last night I was reading through this thread again and felt the need to apologize to anyone (in particular to OHIO) I have offended. If an unbeliever or even a believer were to read some of the bickering on this thread I don't feel they would see the Lord. I did not reason the way He must have reasoned with those around him. Again, forgive me, please. Praise the Lord. Eph 4:32

02-02-2014, 11:06 AM	#80
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? When I first came to this forum I got pretty frustrated in that epic thread on repentance. That same night when I was reading bible with youth, we randomly chose to read 2 Timothy 2. As I read these words off the page, I felt God was speaking directly to me and convicting me of what I had done hours ago. The chances of us reading this passage were slim and I knew it was an act of God so I was driven to repent. I should do it again here if I have not come across as gentle to some. The verses below remind us not be quarrelsome but be kind to each other, lest we open up a way for Satan to stumble us. 2 Timothy 2 23 Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. 24 A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. 25 Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. 26 Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants.

02-02-2014, 08:33 PM	#82
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 637	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Hi Ohio, I think you're reading too much into those verses I posted and I'm sorry for it's negative connotations. I meant for each of us to read it from the first person and not as the recipient. I just wanted to emphasize we should be kind and gentle in our discussions. There's nothing wrong with digging into the word of God, but if we start having a negative attitude and start ripping into one another, that doesn't glorify God. And in saying this I'm also trying to remind myself to be gentle and kind and I'm sorry for crossing this line in this thread. Regarding the Law, I wouldn't mind you bringing up those verses in the other thread. It would help us to bring our own views into sharper focus.

03-24-2014, 06:04 PM	#83
Elden1971 Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Norman Oklaoma Posts: 122	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? THE WISE AND FOOLISH VIRGINS HAS it ever occurred to you that as we are waiting for the appearing of the Bridegroom, the ministry should be in keeping with preparation for the meeting? The preparation is to be ready for Him, to be in fact the bride. It is not merely that you are saved, or that you are useful, but that you are in heart prepared to meet the Bridegroom! Personal love alone keeps us in this expectancy; love not only for His service to us, but for His love; then we feel we Cannot be apart from Him. He draws our hearts to Himself by the way He assures us of His love for us, and that is by the way He seeks our perfection. No one can resist the love that desires to see “no spot in thee”. It is a wonderful thing to be in the sense of that before Him. What is the difference between the wise virgins and the foolish? Apparently they were all alike, they all had lamps, and when the cry came they all trimmed them; the wise took oil in their vessels, the foolish had lamps but no oil. It is remarkable that there should be a profession to go forth to meet the Bridegroom when there was no power of the Spirit of God to sustain them! How did this great lack occur? If they had believed in Christ risen they would have received the Holy Spirit; there cannot be any personal acquaintance with Christ without the Holy Spirit. “This spoke he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive”. We see by this parable that there may be a profession of going forth to meet Him by those who have no conscious link with Christ risen from the dead. Hence when the test came the lamps were going out. If we had a deeper sense of the absence of Christ here, we should rejoice more in the great truth that the other “Comforter” is come; the disciples in Acts had the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit! J B Stoney __________________ Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

03-24-2014, 06:07 PM	#84
Elden1971 Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Norman Oklaoma Posts: 122	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? https://sites.google.com/a/berean-tr...me-12/contents __________________ Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

03-24-2014, 06:21 PM	#88
Elden1971 Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Norman Oklaoma Posts: 122	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Every one must admit that the assembly has failed as the candlestick; as the witness for Christ in the world, during His absence. True, all the light there is for God on the earth is found in the assembly, but where, in any part of it, can one find even accurate fragments of the truth, as it was at the beginning, except where our future state as the bride is before the soul, imparting its moral features and power? There is no clear knowledge of what becomes the assembly on earth, or at the present moment, but as it is prepared for what it shall be. The assembly at first was both the candlestick or lampstand and the bride; the one present, the other in prospect; and it is remarkable that as soon as the future was lost sight of by the servants in their hearts and practice, so did the assembly lose its proper energy and moral influence. We read (Matt. 25:1, 5), “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom ... While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.” A sleeping saint has neither the sense of life nor does he manifest the activity of life. When the assembly lost sight of the coming of the Lord, she lost the sense of internal power, and was no longer the expression of it to man. When the first love waned, when the saints were satisfied with the reception of grace, without the heart going out in the earnest desire to see the Lord, they were no longer the lampstand. Surely they had light still; there was no light elsewhere on earth, but they had forfeited the visible demonstration of the Holy Spirit, because they had failed in being in heart and practice the bride. If they were not active in heart to their absent Lord, they were not to be entrusted with the honour of the Lord on earth; nor would they be invested with His name and rights on the earth where He had been disallowed. While there was a true earnest purpose of heart in watching for His return, the assembly on earth was clothed with Christ’s power, as He said, “I am glorified in them”; but when she became supine, and indifferent to His coming, then there was a distinct withdrawal of visible favour; the office of candlestick or lampstand was no longer entrusted to her, and thus the church went on for centuries. At length, at midnight, there was a cry heard, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.” This cry reached with power the heart of every one with oil in his vessel — with life through the Holy Spirit. The affection was really there, but it was smothered and inoperative, because not called into occupation with the only object which could feed and enliven it, even Christ Himself. JBStoney __________________ Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

03-24-2014, 06:38 PM	#89
Elden1971 Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Norman Oklaoma Posts: 122	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? http://www.stempublishing.com/author...ABLES.html#a13 __________________ Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

03-26-2014, 07:51 AM	#98
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? @@@@@@@@@@

04-12-2014, 07:11 AM	#113
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Is two thousand years later "at hand." __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

04-13-2014, 12:30 AM	#126
InChristAlone Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 365	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Brother Awareness, UntoHim, Ohio and other brothers, unfortunately, I am not an expert. My knowledge is limited by my personal ignorance, my poor Orthodox Church background, and the links that I can find in the Internet. I’ll try to summarize them. I am sorry, if my summary will be a bit awkward and repetitive. The Holy Book of Revelation contains many mystical, symbolic, and allegorical expressions that cannot be interpreted literally but carry exalted and spiritual meanings often completely different from that readily apparent. The book of Revelation is a book of visions. However the early Church Fathers understood that those visions were not in chronological order. Fundamentalists take a literal read on the visions and thus they see a chronology, an opinion unknown to the early Fathers. The Orthodox Church does believe in the Millennium period but not the Pre or post-millennial Protestant fundamentalist or evangelical concepts. The Orthodox view is that the Millennium period is Amillennial, a position that states that the Millennium exists from His resurrection to the Second Coming. The early Fathers taught, and the Orthodox Church teaches today, that the Millennium period is here and now. Those who teach that Lord Jesus is coming to reign on earth for one thousand years and then will come again for judgment are in fact teaching that there are three comings for the Lord; the first in His Incarnation, the second for the earthly kingdom, and the third for Judgment – This is totally absurd. The Second and final Coming of Lord Jesus Christ will be for Judgment (Mt 24; 25; Jn 5:28,29). The Fathers taught that the Millennial period began with Christ's Resurrection because this signaled the defeat and binding up of Satan. This is also called the beginning of the Church age. Satan has been bound and he has been bound since our Lord's resurrection and that has been for more than 1900 years. Satan is in chains BUT, as other scripture indicate, he is able to roam (1 Peter 5.8). This shows the chains are figurative and that he is only restricted in his actions having been defeated by Christ. The 1,000-year reign is a symbolic and spiritual period that started from the day of Lord Jesus’ crucifixion and will continue until His Second Coming for judgment. Our Lord said, “NOW” Satan will be bound when He was talking about His crucifixion. Thus the thousand years reign of Lord Jesus Christ has started when, by His redemption of humanity through His blood. He bound and restrained the power of Satan over mankind. St. John states that those who enjoy the 1,000-year reign of Lord Jesus Christ have participated in the “first resurrection” (Rev 20:5) – as we have explained in Lecture I, the first resurrection is a spiritual one from the death of sin. Thus those who repent and believe are considered to have joined the spiritual reign of Lord Jesus Christ– “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall … reign with Him a thousand years.” (Rev 20:6) – Notice that this reign is not earthly for it extends beyond the life on earth, “I saw the souls [not bodies] of those who had been beheaded …they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4) At the end Of the Church age, Satan will be released, "for a little while", the Antichrist will come, the Tribulation will be upon us and the Second Coming of Christ will shorten the days. This Second Coming is the one spoken by Matthew at the end of his Gospel when the Angel said He (Christ) would return as he ascended. And these verses at the end of Matthew also are part of the objections to the rapture issue because the Angel did not say there would be multiple returns by Christ. The early Church Father's understood the Millennial Kingdom as now and to re-enforce that understanding, included "and His Kingdom will have no end" in the Apostolic Creed. And they also understood that when He came back, it would be as the great Judge, i.e., "and He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead", again included in the Apostolic Creed. Our Lord will return, but as He stated, only the Father knows the day and the hour of His return. Holy Scripture points in the direction of a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly one. Our Lord never spoke of an earthly kingdom for Himself. In fact, He spoke against such a kingdom, He said it clearly, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18:36) – also, “when Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed...” (Jn 15:6) – again, “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom 14:17) Moreover, our Lord said, “Indeed the Kingdom of God is within you.” (Lk 17:21) – this is a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly one for the Lord said afterwards, “The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.” (Lk 17:22) This clearly contradicts any notion of an earthly kingdom. So the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world (Jn. 18:36), it's spiritual and will reign over the internal world of man, while externally being revealed in the righteousness, peace and joy of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). His reign will not endure for a thousand years, but eternally (Lk. 1:33). Its inhabitants will include all faithful Christians from all the peoples of the world (Ps. 116:1-2), it will reign over all creation, and it will be a kingdom of righteousness (Dan. 7:13-14). It will be a kingdom made up of souls (Mt. 28:18) - souls that have already entered and lived within it in this present life. Holy Scripture speaks to us about the thousand-year reign in prophetic and symbolic terms. This spiritual kingdom does not have a time limit of 1,000 years or any number of years. The one thousand year reign referred to in the book of Revelation signifies an infinite number of years, i.e. a kingdom that shall have no end. Believers in the literal millennial reign speak of earthly rewards and earthly joy. However, Lord Jesus Christ said, “great is your reward in heaven.” (Mt 5:12) – St. John also said, “Do not love the world or the things in the world … the world is passing away, and the lust of it” (1 Jn 2:15-17) – It was written, “Here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.” (Heb 13:14) – Thus St. Paul said, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil 3:20) – “I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.” (Phil 1:23,24) If an earthly kingdom was to be expected St. Paul would have said, “I can’t wait until the Lord comes to reign over His people here on earth” but on the contrary we see him wanting to depart from this vain world. No one can enter into this reign of God except through baptism (Rom. 6:3), which is to say by being born again from above or being born of water and the spirit, according to the word of the Saviour: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). The adoption and entrance into this kingdom takes place only through the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5) or birth from above (Jn. 3:3). No one can enter into this reign of God except through baptism (Rom. 6:3), which is to say by being born again from above or being born of water and the spirit, according to the word of the Saviour: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). This heavenly birth by the power of the All-holy Spirit is a true resurrection from the dead (Col. 2:12-13), and hence the reason why Baptism is so often referred to as resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5). Thus, also, it is that the Orthodox Christian baptism is a renaissance of life and a resurrection from the dead. When the Apostle Paul writes awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light, (Eph. 5:14) he has in mind precisely this internal regeneration and resurrection through Christian Baptism, for no one can enter the Kingdom of Christ unless he has first been brought out from among the dead by Christian Baptism. “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” From this passage we can ascertain the following: 1 The thousand-year reign of Christ is a period in which Christ has bound the power of the Devil over men. Christ entered into His dominion and bound the Devil, that is, by the redemption of humanity by His Blood He bound and restrained his power over mankind. (This reign started from the Resurrection and goes on till nowadays). The 1000 years are figurative, not literal. It means a long time, not a definite period of time. Christians entered into this spiritual kingdom through baptism. This resurrection through baptism is the first, in comparison to the second, the general one, of the body, which is also called the last resurrection, as when Martha spoke to Christ concerning her brother: I know that he shall rise again at the resurrection on the Last Day. (Jn. 11:24) 2 At the end of this kingdom or reign, the Devil will again be let loose to deceive the people and with power and mania to assault and oppress holy Christians in the person of the antichrist, the beast or false prophet. The duration of this period will be brief and yet it will constitute one of the signs signalling the immediacy of the Second Coming of Christ. (Mat. 24:22; Rev. 13:5, 20:3) “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. ” 3 The members of this kingdom will be those alone who do not submit to the beast and accept his engraved seal, and who have a part in the first resurrection. 4. Those who were not worthy of this resurrection will be raised at the end of the thousand years, that is at the second resurrection, as this resurrection, relative to the first, is the second. 5. Death will have no power over the sharers in the thousand-year reign. “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” “And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 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 forever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Rev. 20:1-14)” 6. At the end of these thousand years and after a gruesomely violent persecution against the saints, the devil and his followers will be cast into the lake of fire - the second death. The first resurrection is the baptismal resurrection and the second resurrection is that which we await on the last day, the last resurrection. Furthermore, it should also be clear that the first death is the natural one or the separation of the soul from the body, while the second death is the eternal torment [of hell] (Mt. 18:8), so called due to its opposition to the blessed life of eternity (Jn. 5:24). It should also be clear that this second death has no power over those made worthy of the first resurrection. Likewise, from this it follows that the first death, from which not even the saints are delivered, is the natural or bodily death. Saint John the Evangelist renders precisely the words of the Saviour concerning the two resurrections: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (Jn. 5:24-25). As this passage concerns the resurrection of those who will hear the voice of the Son of God, i.e. that resurrection which now is, this cannot be interpreted as referring to the last resurrection, but only to the present resurrection of those who are raised from the death of sin to the life of Christ, to the new life of Christian faith entered, as the Apostle and Evangelist himself relates elsewhere, through Christian baptism (Jn. 5:24-25).This is the first resurrection referred to in the book of Revelation. Further on the Saviour speaks about another kind of resurrection, a resurrection which even now is and yet will, however, will happen at the end of the world, which is not of the soul but of the body, and specifically of the dead in the graves. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (Jn. 5:28-29). In other words, marvel not at the power of Christ to raise spiritually (i.e. in the first resurrection), for indeed He will raise all the dead from the graves as well. This passage excludes outright the possibility of their being a period of a thousand years between the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the sinful, for it shows clearly that the last or general resurrection is one and only and will happen to all. This is the second resurrection. As for the first, we saw that it is that resurrection which now is, the present resurrection, and not the general or last. Holy Scripture is explicit and categorical in many places concerning the Second Coming of Christ, namely, that it will be one single date for all, righteous and sinners alike, without there being a period of one thousand years between the resurrection and judgement of some and that of others. The Saviour said: For the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (Jn. 5:28-29). Although the duration of the reign of Christ is designated on the whole as a thousand years, we should understand this to signify an era immeasurable and undesignated. Therefore, its length is nothing else except the period between the first and second comings of the Lord, or more precisely, the period of the consolidation of the Kingdom of God until His Second Coming. The date of the Second Coming of Christ cannot be determined, as neither the angels nor even the Son of Man, as man, have been informed of it (Mat. 24:36-44), then surely neither can the date of the beginning of the millennium be determined. One cannot make human calculations and determinations for mysteries that are unknown to the angels, and even, in His humanity, to the Son of God Himself. The Orthodox Church understands the millennium of Holy Scripture mystically and symbolically to mean an indeterminate number of years. Time, for God, is not fixed or appointed, but, rather, one day before God is considered as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day or as a night watch (2 Pet. 3:8). It does not follow from this that figures from Holy Scripture represent a certain number of days, which we then reckon as years. In this way precisely would we then also be able to consider that which they represent as a thousand years. Conversely, we would also be able to say, with the same logic, that the thousand years of the millennium really means one day. And in this case, what would remain any longer of the calculations and analysis of the Millennialists? All their calculations are contradictory and refuted by the truth of things. The Reign of Jesus Christ, as man, and His Glory will never come to an end, but will endure eternally.Yet, this means the submission of the entire world before the Father and the cessation of His redemptive activity (1 Cor. 15:25-28), as it is His own work, which He assumed at His incarnation. http://www.orthodoxservices.org/Rapture.htm http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec...yearreign.aspx http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lec...chlecture3.pdf __________________ 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

04-13-2014, 06:36 AM	#129
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? ICA I think it's funny that the Eastern Orthodox didn't accept the book of Revelation in the canon until the 5 century, and now they have complete hermeneutics developed upon it. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

04-13-2014, 07:26 AM	#131
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,661	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Unfortunately, there are just too many issues and conflicts with the scriptures to accept the Orthodox teaching that we are now in the millennial kingdom. I'm surprised that Elden1971 has not come forward to declare, "Orthodox was wrong!" __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

04-13-2014, 07:29 AM	#132
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? The book of Revelation wasn't firmly canonized until the printing press in the mid 15th c. Before that it was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo. Eusebius (first church historian - at the council of Nicaea) called it spurious. Those that rejected it in early Christian days did so because they believed it would cause nothing but trouble. Irenaeus (early 2nd c. - connected to John the Apostle thru Polycarp) rejected it. To me this means the book of Revelation isn't something you want to base your convictions on ... not to mention it's wild imagery and mythological symbolism & content. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

04-13-2014, 09:12 AM	#138
Elden1971 Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Norman Oklaoma Posts: 122	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? https://archive.org/details/TheTheoc...mPetersVols1-3 For those of you who want an in depth study of the Kingdom this is a must read. __________________ Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

04-13-2014, 02:07 PM	#150
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? What is outer darkness anyway ... could it just be symbolism for being far from God? It's not just ordinary darkness ... but outer ... far from any light ... far from burning fire too. Not so hot, in other words. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

04-21-2014, 12:55 PM	#185
Friedel Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 96	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? I initially honestly tried to present a positive post and and it caused a stir. It never was my intention to cause a furor or to stir up controversy. I say that with all honesty. It was not my intention to hurt the feelings of anyone although I spoke straightforwardly. I confess to a total absence of malice towards everyone. I leave you now. I derive no pleasure from all this unpleasantness. Delighting in the good, acceptable and perfect will of God.

04-23-2014, 05:17 PM	#208
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? I will throw something out that has been bothering me for some time on this issue of salvation. Since salvation is used in talking about much more than some simple thing that happens because a prayer was said, or a decision to believe was made, is it possible that the whole problem is in what is salvation? And what it takes to be saved. We like John 3:16 because it seems to make it all about belief. But is belief that simple? Is belief said and done? Or it is seen by acting as if you believe? Can you believe if you don't act like it? Can I believe now and be on track for "not perish, but have eternal life" and then at another time not believe, and since I am not at the point of experiencing eternal life, find myself without it because I do not believe? With so much put in about how we live, and how we progress in the faith, how much does "said and done" undermine the very requirement. Jesus said that teaching less than all the law was to find yourself at the bottom of the heap. So where does that put those who believe but do nothing about it? Doesn't this make the whole quest for sanctification pointless? I don't believe that an act of sin sends you spiraling toward Hell until you repent and return. But I'm not sure that the verse in Hebrews about there being no more sacrifice meant you couldn't need to return to faith. Isn't that verse talking about the animal sacrifices for sin? Of course they are no longer of any benefit since Christ provided the one sacrifice. But does that mean that an individual cannot find themselves to be no longer in a state of belief (actual and practical, not just mental) and have a need for renewal? That is not to re-sacrifice Christ, but to renew your participation. My concern is not really for my salvation. While I know that even if where my questions lead turns out to ultimately be true, I do not think that I have failed in belief that matters. But might it be a better position to accept that this is possibly true and live by it than hang on to the notion that "I said it, so I'm saved for eternity" and risk being wrong? This is arguably not a problem for assurance of salvation. If I am believing, then I am assured that I am saved. If I am not believing, then what right do I have to claim that I have assurance of something that I am not in agreement with? Have we turned assurance of salvation into the very "ticket to heaven that cannot be relinquished no matter how the $*&^#$ I live and how little, if any, I ever consider it again" that we so despise in easy believism? Should I have assurance in that case? If I am not believing? Even if I did believe, and actively so for some period of time? Have we taken it farther than Luther ever intended? The alternative is to insist on some kind of purgatory that ripens those who remained as mere buds on the vine. Don't just trot out the "no one can snatch them from my hand" line. Otherwise there is virtually no way to understand the parable of the soil. Understand that I am not trying to paint a bleak picture. I am trying to paint a picture in which the very thing that we consider important is actually important. If it takes nothing but a prayer to "get to heaven," then why all this fuss about how we live now? Even if the Bible commands it, the simplistic "saved by grace" easy believism diminishes the importance of those commands to the point that they almost have no teeth. And if we start to argue that it is not really so easy to be saved, then aren't we back-dooring the same arguments just phrased differently? Argue that you can't really tell if someone is saved until way later on, or at the end of their life. Isn't that just allowing for the "loss of salvation" without admitting they ever had it? Is there free will? Or is the most extreme Calvinist position true and it is all according to His election? (In which case there is no reason to worry about any of this because we don't have a say in the matter.) I believe that there truly is free will. And more consistent with the Arminians than the Calvinists, I believe that we must participate in our believing. Grace is required to make the gift of life available, but our will is required to reach out and take it. I do not think that "loss of salvation," even if possible, is simple. But I am having trouble with getting it and keeping no matter what. I have not yet seen the verse that clearly and expressly makes it permanently certain. And I think we are fools to continue on is if it is really that simple. I would love to discover that I am wrong. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-23-2014, 06:51 PM	#209
Elden1971 Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Norman Oklaoma Posts: 122	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? There are dozens of outstanding messages on Salvation that I have enjoyed here's one http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../GODSALVT.html __________________ Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

04-23-2014, 07:30 PM	#210
Elden1971 Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Norman Oklaoma Posts: 122	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Another message I have enjoyed is found at http://www.stempublishing.com/author...Salvation.html For any indepth study of many topics I use the search engine at www.stempublishing.com I must admit I was surprised by several of you who were not familiar with William Kelly. All of his works are available at the above site along with over 200 ebooks from numerous others. Unlike Nee and Lee who did not know Latin, Hebrew.or Greek....Kelly was a master of all and had a personal library of 15,000 volumes. He especially studied the church history of the first four centuries and was highly respected for textual criticism. He is just one of 50 brethren writers that made enormous contributions. I know of no contemporary authors that rise to the level of scholarship and the deep reverence for the word and intense love of God that these brothers demonstrate in hundreds of articles. One can see why Lee did not want us reading these brothers works as they challenge many of his and Nee's teaching. __________________ Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

04-24-2014, 08:20 AM	#217
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,797	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Like Mike said, maybe we don't know salvation as much as we think we do. We Americans are so used to a gospel that doesn't require much - "Let Jesus into your heart", "Let Jesus become your personal savior" and on and on it goes. The gospels are filled with examples of people who THOUGHT that they knew what salvation was....from a Jewish leader/teacher, Nicodemus, whom Jesus himself scolded for not understanding the most basic and fundamental elements of salvation (to be born again) to the immoral woman at the well who thought her salvation came from being a decedent of Jacob and from the mountain she worshiped on (and was ignoring the gift of salvation being offered right in front of her) to the rich young man who thought his salvation was secure in the keeping of the commandments (whom Jesus tested right then and there - "go and sell all you have and give to the poor" - and then he went away sorrowful) These were all different people with different notions of what salvation was. All were confident, despite any personal sins and failures they may have had, that they had received salvation. If we walked up to them before their encounter with Jesus Christ and asked them "are you saved?" they would have surely said "why, yes, yes I'm saved, why would you even ask such a thing!". And if it was you or me or anyone of us we would probably point out their sins and failures. But the Lord Jesus really didn't do this in a direct manner, for the end was not to expose their sins, failures, shortcomings and ignorance (he only exposed these as a means to an end)... the end was to be the salvation of their very souls. We don't know for sure if any of these three were truly saved. The bible gives us hints that Nicodemus may have become a follower (he participated in Jesus' burial), the woman at the well, after her encounter with Jesus, proclaimed to her village "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” The rich young man went away sorrowful and there is no account of him returning. Was salvation different for all three of these? It sure seems like it was. But this is not the concept of us modern Westerners - We have always been taught that salvation is this or that, this way or that way, this prayer or that prayer. Maybe let's all take a step back. Let's let the Word of God tell us what salvation truly is. Let's let the blood, sweat and tears of the many saints and martyrs throughout the ages tell us what salvation truly is. Let's let those whom the Lord has put over us and with us tell us what salvation truly is. Ok, sermon over, I'll put my soapbox away for now. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

04-24-2014, 12:11 PM	#219
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,797	Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity? Touche monsieur Harold! __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11