-Removed-You have told me and the forum that after "pouring your heart out to God" because you "didn't like" the teaching of eternal suffering,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote me where I told you that please.
I told you of the benefits of opening up completely to the Lord in this way about things which bother our peace.
Nor did I imply that such a pouring out on my part was concluded once for and not ongoing. So I consider your recollection skewed artificially towards debating points you wish to make.
Now I told you about pouring out our hearts to God not so that we could argue about it. I told you that you may be encouraged to do so.
that you accepted it as Gods perfect justice, albeit you have also said that you still don't like it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have skewed what I wrote you and distorted it somewhat. I don't appreciate that. Quote me if you think I am incorrect.
I'm interested to know what the revelation was that you had from God that catalysed this juxtaposition and why God has revealed it to you and not to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I told you was that for matters that are really a troubling to us or in which we have controversy with God it is good to go to God and pour out our hearts to Him about this.
I think my recollection is clear. I did not say "Go pour out your heart to God and come back and tell me how you now agree doctrinally with me."
You are skewing my fellowship with you into a caricature. You are saying I said:
1.) I am doctrinally right
2.) Go pour out your heart to God.
3.) Come back and doctrinally agree with me afterwards.
Furthermore, I told you that I could be mistaken about at least some aspect of this matter. Essentally, I don't believe annhilationism or universalism is tenable. But I leave some room for possibly misunderstanding something.
This is not the first time I have had a discussion with someone with serious objections to the teaching of eternal perdition. Do you know who Gary Ameralt is - aka "Tentamaker" ? Have you heard the name Laird Swanson ? These were two strong Universalists on the Interenet in years past. I do not know what either are doing now. Both of them I had discussion with and found them persuaded of and articulate in Universalism.
Gary Amirault had a tag over on CARM as "NO-HELLER".
At any rate, I think you misrepresented my recommendation to you about pouring out your heart to God instead of finding Christians to condemn with arguments because they don't agree with you.
The passage I recall recommending was that the peace of God which passes all understanding will keep your minds and your hearts in Christ Jesus - (Phil. 4:7) .
I do not know what word the Holy Spirit would give you.
But I recommend having a time with God (and not just one) like this.
You see on the surface, what it seems to me that you are saying is more or less: I don't like eternal suffering any more than you but God has told me it's OK. Can you see that that is how it appears?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think when we go and pour out our hearts to God in this way we should be willing to put everything on the altar so to speak.
I plan to go practice this way of being dispensed into by God until I see the Lord.
The Muslim terrorists in ISIS do exactly the same thing. They read a scripture in thier book depicting a terrible thing and then their God tells them it is OK.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the same amount of reasoning I could say:
"Well, the Moslem mercenaries in ISIS pray, so I should not pray."
"Well, the NAZIS sang, so I should not sing."
"Well, Spanish Conquistadors read Bible verses. So I should not read Bible verses."
You should not be afraid that if you God to God to pour out your cause of aggravations to Him that you will become like ISIS. This is just an excuse, sorry to say. ( You did use some word like aggravation or an equivalent when you described how you felt about Christians like myself. )
I can't recall precisely what the word was. Anyway, it indicated a serious lack of peace in your heart while talking to us who disagree with you on Rev. 14 or 20.
I asked if something awful could be communicated to us by God in symbolism.
The answer is yes.
To the objection that death in a fire is awful, of course it is.
Many things are awful.
The most awful thing which is exceeded by no other awful thing is that we be not reconciled to God forever. And that could be communicated to man in terms of symbolism which is nearly impossible to miss the point of its awfulness.
The problem is on the side of the one who doesn't believe there is God or who feels its no big deal to be forever without God.
Originally posted by sonshipFor instance, don't you think the prospect of permanent death is "awful" compared to "everlasting life"? Why isn't "fire" a symbol for destruction ~ that's what fire does - it utterly destroys things permanently. A human dies very rapidly in fire. Isn't that "something awful"?
I asked if something awful could be communicated to us by God in symbolism.
Originally posted by FMF
For instance, don't you think the prospect of permanent death is "awful" compared to "everlasting life"? Why isn't "fire" a symbol for destruction ~ that's what fire does - it utterly destroys things permanently. A human dies very rapidly in fire. Isn't that "something awful"?
To the objection that death in a fire is awful, of course it is.
Many things are awful.
The most awful thing which is exceeded by no other awful thing is that we be not reconciled to God forever. And that could be communicated to man in terms of symbolism which is nearly impossible to miss the point of its awfulness.
The problem is on the side of the one who doesn't believe there is God or who feels its no big deal to be forever without God.
The phrase unquenchable fire used by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:12) arguably suggests a fire that is not extinguished. What need is there for God to have a fire that is not extinguished after all there is turned to ashes.
The three Hebrew boys walked through a fire and were not turned to ashes. And the rich man was in a fire and at least could carry on a conversation with some clarity apart from total hysteria.
The evidence is that God can regulate then the effect of a fire -
No hurt at all.
Or just enough to make one be in torment.
It is not a problem to me therefore.
And if it IS symbolism only the message is communicated quite effecfively. We want our names written in the book of life.
Originally posted by sonshipSo you choose to subscribe to the most grotesque interpretation of each symbol you can think of, would that be fair to say? Earlier you said something about how Christians must take Jesus' word for it - or words to that effect - but here you are quoting John The Baptist - not Jesus - who said something that "arguably" might mean something that fits your "most grotesque interpretation". It's interesting.
The phrase [b]unquenchable fire used by John the Baptist in [b]Matthew 3:12) arguably suggests a fire that is not extinguished. What need is there for God to have a fire that is not extinguished after all there is turned to ashes.
The three Hebrew boys walked through a fire and were not turned to ashes. And the rich man was in a fire and at least c ...[text shortened]... y the message is communicated quite effecfively. We want our names written in the book of life.[/b]
Originally posted by sonship to divegeesterSo, what happens if divegeester goes ahead and does this ~ pours out his heart to God, like you did ~ to seek resolution to this doctrinal problem ~ and comes back having found that you are wrong about "eternal torture", and he is right?
I think you should really take your controversy directly to God and pour out your heart to God.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeGotcha?
Ancient fear tactics you say? Believe or burn?
Gotcha.
No, you don't "Gotcha" at all. What you gotcha is what you came to the discussion already prejudicing your mind. You came for confirmation of your bias.
The Gospel of Christ can come to a person's ears as a wonderful message. But if not, the same wonderful words will one day be words that will be his judgment.
So says the Son of God.
" He who rejects Me and does not receive My words has one who judges him; the word which I have spoken, that will judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)
Men love darkness and sin rather than the light of God. The Gospel comes as words of life, of light, of redemption. But men loved the darkness because their deeds are evil. They will not come to the light because they love their sinful ways.
Forgiveness is spurned. The very gospel they heard will be the condemning judge in the last day.
As for the Speaker, He said He came not to judge the world but to save it:
"I have come as a light into the world, that every one who believes into Me would not remain in darkness.
And if anyone hears My words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
He who rejects Me and does not receive My words has one who judges him; the word which I have spoken, that will judge him on the last day."
So we should humble ourselves and as God to give us a soft heart to hear and receive the words of salvation.
If not, forever the unbeliever will know exactly how God feels about the darkness and sin that he preferred and cherished rather than God.
And frankly, I think the lost will realize that they suffer is their just due. So believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
I know some of your atheists encourage each other. But I ask you if it is worth it?
Suppose one of your atheist friends who has spurred you on cheerleading your efforts to reject Christ's words, latter decided himself to believe and be saved.
You will have been his patsy in the eternal perdition. You may look around and see the buddy who urged you on in your unbelief himself got saved, while you are condemned for your unbelief.
Is it worth it ?
I don't think so.
Stop showing off. Get yourself saved under the blood of Christ.
-Removed-Sure. Don't you recall the prayer of the desperate man?
Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief.
Are you also going to defend the atheist for remaining in unbelief?
So you want to minimize the seriousness of being under the wrath of God on one hand. And on the other hand you seem to want to defend the unbeliever's resistance to not even talk to God perchance he may receive mercy to gain faith.
Moreover, how do they "get themselves saved"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart there is believing unto righteousnes, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation.
For the Scripture says, Everyone who believes on Him shall not be put to shame." (Romans 10:9-11)
This is a good prayer for the wavering atheist wanting to be saved -
"Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus. I now confess you with my mouth that You are Lord, my Lord. Lord Jesus help my unbelief. Cause me to know in my heart that God has raised You from the dead. Thankyou Lord Jesus."
This is a good prayer to receive the Lord. And such should be accompanied with thanksgiving. Thanksgiving waters faith. God never rejected praise of thanksgiving in the Bible as far as I can tell.
The battle to say Lord, Lord Jesus is partly because of the Devil furious war on the soul to keep the man in a lost state. To confess that Jesus is Lord gives the enemy of God and man a migraine headache.
So give the Devil a migraine headache and move out of his kingdom of darkness by confessing "Lord Jesus, O Lord Jesus. Thankyou Lord Jesus for your precious act of redemption. I receive you Lord Jesus."
One can get himself to be saved because God is faithful.