Comments for Hell Fact or Fable

Comment on THE DILEMMA by Steve

Steve — Sun, 13 May 2012 21:37:29 +0000

You started this essay by saying “Most Christian based denominations teach us that we all have a moral obligation to our Creator.” Sadly, orthodox Christianity does not seem to think the creator has an obligation to His creatures. In fact Calvinists think it is entirely acceptable for God to create people specifically for the purpose of torturing them forever–despite the fact that they would disapprove of any EARTHLY father who does less than the best for his child. I wanted to share a great quote I came across on this subject.

“We are told God is not the Father of all men; He is only their Creator! What a total misapprehension these words imply. What do we mean by paternity and the obligations it brings? The idea rests essentially on the communication of life to the child by the parent. Paternity is for us largely blind and instinctive; but creation is Love acting freely, divinely; knowing all the consequences, assuming all the responsibility involved in the very act of creating a reasonable immortal spirit. It seems, then, very strange to seek to escape the consequences of the lesser obligation, by admitting one still greater; to seek, in a word, to evade the results of a divine universal fatherhood, by pleading that God is only the Creator.”

Thanks. Peace.

Comment on A SURE FOUNDATION by Steve

Steve — Wed, 02 May 2012 20:48:29 +0000

Hi Gary. I believe the chapter on the address below clears up the whole original sin matter. Thanks. Peace.

http://gods-kingdom-ministries.org/books/creations/Chapter9.cfm

Comment on GEHENNA by Gary

Gary — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:20:20 +0000

You shouldn’t have any problem reconciling the verse in question when you truly understand what satan really is. Satan is not a literal being, but a metaphor for the carnal nature, the evil within man. Who do you think Jesus was referring to when He told Peter to get thee behind Me “satan” (Matt 16:23)?

Peace

Comment on GEHENNA by Steve

Steve — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:03:50 +0000

Hi Gary. I have a question. If the Lake of fire is meant to save man, but destroy Satan, then why does the parable of the sheep and goats say it was made for the devil and his angels? I realize it could be phrased either way–you could say it was made for man or for Satan, but wouldn’t it make more sense to say it was made for the one whose salvation is in view? Moreover, wasn’t man’s salvation in view BEFORE Satan’s destruction–not sequentially but in order of importance or priority? This really has me wondering. Thanks. Peace.

Comment on GEHENNA by Steve

Steve — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:20:12 +0000

I subscribe to the idea–which I’m sure you’re familiar with–that the people in the thousand year kingdom are the unsaved who are resurrected DURING the kingdom. Otherwise the saints are presiding over those who are already saved, which seems unlikely. It also means the gospel doesn’t go out to the whole world. Thanks. Peace.

Comment on GENESIS RELOADED by Gary

Gary — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:52:02 +0000

There is nothing in verse 5 in and of itself that would refute that interpretation. But we don’t build sound doctrine upon one verse, do we? The SUM of God’s word is truth (Psa 119:160).

2 Pet 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy [inspired writing or speaking] of the Scripture is of any private [Greek: 'its OWN'] interpretation.”

2 Cor 13:1 “In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established.”

Isa 28:10 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.”

http://hell-fact-or-fable.com/2010/04/twelve-god-given-truths-to-understand-his-word/

Comment on GEHENNA by Gary

Gary — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:33:14 +0000

Great question! We know that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom, yet the very thing God abhors, namely flesh, is going to be preserved for the elect’s sake. Can you think of any good reason why?

Matt 24:22 “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.”

When Christ returns to this earth with His resurrected saints the nations [G1484] will be judged and dealt with accordingly (see Matthew 25:31-46). But verse 34 seems to indicate that the (sheep) nations which are there ARE saved:

Matt 25:34 “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

Rev 22:14 “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

Perhaps the nations which are there are not so unholy after all. Perhaps this is why their flesh is preserved: so the elect upon their arrival can take pleasure in transforming it. This is the only logical conclusion I could come to. Can you think of anything?

Comment on GENESIS RELOADED by Steve

Steve — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:26:45 +0000

Hi, Gary. I think I misrepresented an interpretation I heard that makes sense of the strange sentence structure of Rev. 20:4-5. I indicated a spiritual resurrection was in view, which was wrong. Here’s the correct interpretation. Believers who die during the church age–represented by the 1000 years–go to heaven in their soul existance to live and reign with Christ a thousand years (the duration of the church age). “The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years are finished” refers to those who die in Christ after the church age. Under this pattern, the phrase “This is the first resurrection” is placed where it should be. I understand you oppose amillennialism–and perhaps the immortality of the soul–for many reasons, but is there any grounds for fault strictly in terms of these sentences? In other words, is there anything about the wording of verse 5 that argues against the offered interpretation of verse 4? Thanks. Peace.

Comment on GEHENNA by Steve

Steve — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:10:08 +0000

Hi, Gary. You stated that the New Jerusalem descends to rule DURING the millennial kingdom. Rev 21:27 says only those in the book of life may enter. But if the Jerusalem in view here is the millennial Jerusalem, then unholy people are already there. The nations that the Saints are ruling over are unholy–they are not saved. And they are not in the book of life. Can you clarify this for me? Thanks. Peace.

Comment on GEHENNA by Steve

Steve — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:36:59 +0000

I guess that would explain Jesus’s promise to his disciples that they would sit on thrones ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel and the imagery of Rev. 21:14. Thanks. Peace.