ECT God does NOT grant eternal life

[jamie]

I'm referring to historical orthodoxy.

And what reason does historical orthodoxy give for claiming angels have hormones?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

And what reason does historical orthodoxy give for claiming angels have hormones?

God says, "hey, who'll go down and be a deceiving spirit?

Somebody raised their hand but not everyone, why not Jaimie?

 

[Cross Reference]

God says, "hey, who'll go down and be a deceiving spirit?

Somebody raised their hand but not everyone, why not Jaimie?

That is a bogus question. #1 decieving spirits were already here and happy to accomodate God.

 

[Clete]

I said nothing about being spiritually alive. I said if one is spiritually dead, they are unsaved aka still in sin. A spirit does not die. Do you see a difference?

I not only see the difference I have REPEATEDLY asked you why you insist one saying it that way when what you are actually saying is better communicated by simply changing one of the uses of the word "die" to "cease to exist".

Why do you insist on doing that?

The only thing you accomplish is the appearance of self-contradiction and confusion.

Why?

 

[Clete]

I was referring to eschatology, which I stated. You are adding more into it now. The discussion is about end times. Don't move the goal posts.

It wasn't the point to change the goal posts. The point is that eschatology is no more or less debated than is soteriology, Christology, hermeneutics or any other segment of Christian philosophy you care to name. People are stubborn and, as a general rule, intellectually inconsistent and biased. This holds true for every doctrine you can think of. You simply should not be willing to toss a whole segment of biblical teaching and important Christian philosophy into the "mystery" bin. You ought not be willing to toss any doctrine into the mystery bin without proper cause. And my point is that just because people debate it is not sufficient reason to relegate it to the theological equivalent of an "it can't be understood" trash heap!

You are off on another tangent.

You're the one that brought up Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, not me! I'm simply responding to your comment about how "unclear" it is. Well not only is it as clear and simple as can be but even if it weren't, your point would NOT be a valid one because some issues are quite complex and far reaching and take an additional amount of effort and intentional focus to see and to understand.

It's a mystery.

Some of it is, yes. Some of it is no longer a mystery because God wrote it in the bible.

We are told that Jesus will come on the clouds of glory, a shout, and trump. All eyes will see Him and every knee shall bow and worship Him as Lord of lords. He will come down to the Mt of Olives. Other than that, the rest is a mystery.

Shall I quote the dozens and dozens of other future events that are as clearly stated as the ones you've decided to cherry pick or shall I simply allow this statement of yours to be the concession of the point that it is? :think:

I think the former would be wasted on you, as I'm sure the later will be also.

It's human nature to wonder about it all of course, but the temptation is to dig around and see what else people can theorize about it and claim that they have the truth. Nothing new under the sun.

Developing a theory is not a "temptation" as if there is something immoral about theories and intellectually honest speculation. There are things in the bible that a less clear than others and so long as one does not get dogmatic about speculative things, there is a great deal of valuable things that can be gleaned from scripture.

There are all kinds of things one can speculate and theorize about based on what information we are given in scripture that can turn out to be extremely valuable. Just to give a single example, the bible seems to suggest that in the beginning there was one large continent on the Earth. You could not be dogmatic about that based solely on the biblical data but you certainly could have that as a theory. And if you happen to be a geologist who reads the bible, it might lead you down a path that enables you to find physical (i.e. extra-biblical) confirmation of that theory, which has been done. And while eschatological theories will have to wait for such confirmation (or rejection) that doesn't mean that it is somehow immoral to think the issues through and to form such theories. The key is simply to acknowledge them as theories and not dogma.

I do read it and no it's not complicated for me, but neither is it detailed out to the extreme that people keep forcing into the text. I like the mystery of it. I want to be surprised when He returns, not have egg on my face :stuck:. Jesus said to be ready, He did not say keep trying to figure it out. He said, NO MAN KNOWS.

You are adding to the text. Jesus did not say that no one knows anything about the end times. He said that no one knows the timing of it. Indeed, He indicated that there was at least enough information about the end times that is available to us that we are able to watch for it as we watch for the changing of the seasons. And no theory is going to land egg on your face so long as you remain intellectually honest concering its theoretical nature.

Paul was given the mystery of the Gospel which he spelled out quite clearly throughout his letters. It is not his fault that people refuse to accept it and go down the road of speculation twisting and turning the text as they go.

You're defeating your own argument here! The gospel could not be more clearly communicated than it is and yet, as you say, people twist and turn the text all over the place.

Why are you so willing to accept the clear teachings of scripture concerning soteriology in spite of the ubiquitous debate concerning its details but are unwilling to do the same concerning eschatology?

The gospel is not a mystery to me. I am sorry though, if it is for you. :idunno:

So because soteriology isn't a mystery to you but eschatology is, therefore eschatology must be relegated to the "mystery" bin for everyone?

Is your understanding the gold standard of Christian philosophy?

"What's clear to TweetyBird is the truth and what isn't clear to TweetyBird is cloaked in mystery and cannot be understood so stop trying!"​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[TweetyBird]

I not only see the difference I have REPEATEDLY asked you why you insist one saying it that way when what you are actually saying is better communicated by simply changing one of the uses of the word "die" to "cease to exist".

Why do you insist on doing that?

The only thing you accomplish is the appearance of self-contradiction and confusion.

Why?

I like the word "die". If you don't understand what it means, get a dictionary. There is zero contradiction to what I posted. If you cannot understand the difference between being spiritually dead and one's spirit, which does not go dead, then there is not much else I can say.

 

[Clete]

I like the word "die". If you don't understand what it means, get a dictionary. There is zero contradiction to what I posted. If you cannot understand the difference between being spiritually dead and one's spirit, which does not go dead, then there is not much else I can say.

So you admit that it is merely a personal preference that you are stubbornly sticking with in spite of its confusing nature. This makes you a fool.

It isn't me that's confused. I'm the one who deciphered your meaning and translated it into terms that everyone reading it would understand without the need to go fetch a TweetBird lexicon of the English language.

Further, it is not your audience's responsibility to understand you. If you are conveying a message, of any sort, it is your responsibility to communicate that message to your audience in a manner which they will understand. If your audience is stubborn and doesn't want to understand then that's on them but if you're the one being stubborn then your audience's misunderstanding is your fault, not theirs.

Don't ever get married without having learned this. If you do, you'll learn it the hard way or end up divorced.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[TweetyBird]

It wasn't the point to change the goal posts. The point is that eschatology is no more or less debated than is soteriology, Christology, hermeneutics or any other segment of Christian philosophy you care to name. People are stubborn and, as a general rule, intellectually inconsistent and biased. This holds true for every doctrine you can think of. You simply should not be willing to toss a whole segment of biblical teaching and important Christian philosophy into the "mystery" bin. You ought not be willing to toss any doctrine into the mystery bin without proper cause. And my point is that just because people debate it is not sufficient reason to relegate it to the theological equivalent of an "it can't be understood" trash heap!

We were discussing eschatology aka end times, etc. Not all of the theologies/doctrines being discussed in Christianity. You seem to be reading a whole lot into my posts that is not there.

You're the one that brought up Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, not me! I'm simply responding to your comment about how "unclear" it is. Well not only is it as clear and simple as can be but even if it weren't, your point would NOT be a valid one because some issues are quite complex and far reaching and take an additional amount of effort and intentional focus to see and to understand.

I was, once again, referring to dispy eschatological claims. I don't really care about the rest of it.

Shall I quote the dozens and dozens of other future events that are as clearly stated as the ones you've decided to cherry pick or shall I simply allow this statement of yours to be the concession of the point that it is?

I am only concerned about the return of Jesus, however God chooses to bring that about, It's a mystery as to what and how He is going to bring it to pass. I am quite satisfied with that.

Developing a theory is not a "temptation" as if there is something immoral about theories and intellectually honest speculation. There are things in the bible that a less clear than others and so long as one does not get dogmatic about speculative things, there is a great deal of valuable things that can be gleaned from scripture.

There are all kinds of things one can speculate and theorize about based on what information we are given in scripture that can turn out to be extremely valuable. Just to give a single example, the bible seems to suggest that in the beginning there was one large continent on the Earth. You could not be dogmatic about that based solely on the biblical data but you certainly could have that as a theory. And if you happen to be a geologist who reads the bible, it might lead you down a path that enables you to find physical (i.e. extra-biblical) confirmation of that theory, which has been done. And while eschatological theories will have to wait for such confirmation (or rejection) that doesn't mean that it is somehow immoral to think the issues through and to form such theories. The key is simply to acknowledge them as theories and not dogma.

I simply do not care about your theories and speculations. I have already wasted enough time on theories and speculations tripping and stumbling through two false religious movements. I just read Scripture to see Jesus, how prophecy was fulfilled through and by Him, and trust God to manage my life for the praise of His glory. I cannot wait to see Him when all the speculation, theories, opinion and conjecture will be forgotten.

You are adding to the text. Jesus did not say that no one knows anything about the end times. He said that no one knows the timing of it. Indeed, He indicated that there was at least enough information about the end times that is available to us that we are able to watch for it as we watch for the changing of the seasons. And no theory is going to land egg on your face so long as you remain intellectually honest concering its theoretical nature.

Apparently, that has not worked out so well, because every generation, including the first century apostles and beyond, has believed all that was coming to pass during their lifetime. NONE of the speculations, revelations, theories, prophesying [post Bible],and date setting has come to pass. NO ONE'S theories have amounted to a hill of beans.

You're defeating your own argument here! The gospel could not be more clearly communicated than it is and yet, as you say, people twist and turn the text all over the place.

The Bible remains the truth, whatever man chooses to manipulate into theories and speculations will come to an end. All that remains is Jesus Christ crucified, risen, and coming again.

Why are you so willing to accept the clear teachings of scripture concerning soteriology in spite of the ubiquitous debate concerning its details but are unwilling to do the same concerning eschatology?

So because soteriology isn't a mystery to you but eschatology is, therefore eschatology must be relegated to the "mystery" bin for everyone?

Eschatology is in the "mystery bin" because there is not one person who has ever lived who can accurately read God's mind on the matter or figure out the details of His plan in the age to come.

Is your understanding the gold standard of Christian philosophy?

More labels? Just give me Jesus. Good song, by the way. It's my "statement of faith".

 

[TweetyBird]

So you admit that it is merely a personal preference that you are stubbornly sticking with in spite of its confusing nature. This makes you a fool.

It's not confusing at all. It's Biblical. One who is spiritually dead is dead in the their sins. Or do you not understand what it means to be born again and born of the Spirit?

Further, it is not your audience's responsibility to understand you. If you are conveying a message, of any sort, it is your responsibility to communicate that message to your audience in a manner which they will understand. If your audience is stubborn and doesn't want to understand then that's on them but if you're the one being stubborn then your audience's misunderstanding is your fault, not theirs.

No one but you has complained.

Don't ever get married without having learned this. If you do, you'll learn it the hard way or end up divorced.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Why would you say such a random thing as that to someone? :shocked::kook:

 

[Clete]

TweetyBird,

You are I are mostly in agreement, you just want to be stubborn.

So be stubborn! It's no skin off my nose.

I do want to correct something I said, however.
Calling you a fool was a clear overstatement. Your stubbornness is foolish but just calling you a straight up fool simply because you want to stubbornly remain less clear than you're capable of being on this issue goes too far.

I find it rather peculiar that a person who insists on keeping things so simple in one aspect of their doctrine would also insist on speaking in terms that are prone to confusing people on other aspects of their doctrine. But then again, the vast majority of people are inconsistent in this way. I'm just not used to finding people who do it intentionally. I really, truly don't get it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[TweetyBird]

TweetyBird,

You are I are mostly in agreement, you just want to be stubborn.

So be stubborn! It's no skin off my nose.

I do want to correct something I said, however.
Calling you a fool was a clear overstatement. Your stubbornness is foolish but just calling you a straight up fool simply because you want to stubbornly remain less clear than you're capable of being on this issue goes too far.

I find it rather peculiar that a person who insists on keeping things so simple in one aspect of their doctrine would also insist on speaking in terms that are prone to confusing people on other aspects of their doctrine. But then again, the vast majority of people are inconsistent in this way. I'm just not used to finding people who do it intentionally. I really, truly don't get it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Spiritual death is a common term used in Christianity. One's spirit does not die because one is spiritually dead. The spirit of a man is eternal - either to eternal life or to the 2nd death - which is eternal torment. I really don't get why you don't get it.

Romans 8:13
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Romans 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

[Danoh]

Spiritually dead, and yet...spiritually alive...

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Theh true...night ahf theh leeving ded...

Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Thessalonians 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

Theh chill-drren ahf theh light...een theh night...

Ah new...creature feature...

Whoops - wrong month :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Spiritual death is a common term used in Christianity.

Yes, the term refers to a condition in which one is spiritually separated from God.

One's spirit does not die because one is spiritually dead.

Well, yes actually it does. That which is dead is dead. To say otherwise is to contradict yourself or to be intentionally confusing to people. What one's spirit does not do is cease to exist.

The spirit of a man is eternal - either to eternal life or to the 2nd death - which is eternal torment. I really don't get why you don't get it.

I completely get it. You are being stubborn! That's it and that's all. You do not disagree with me, you simply insist on saying that dead spirits aren't dead when what you mean is that dead spirits don't cease to exist.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes, the term refers to a condition in which one is spiritually separated from God.


Well, yes actually it does. That which is dead is dead. To say otherwise is to contradict yourself or to be intentionally confusing to people. What one's spirit does not do is cease to exist.


I completely get it. You are being stubborn! That's it and that's all. You do not disagree with me, you simply insist on saying that dead spirits aren't dead when what you mean is that dead spirits don't cease to exist.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Both of you are wrong. . . . If one's spirit belongs to God, Who gave it, and returns to Him upon physical death, then it is never dead nor does it ever cease to exist.

So the body is in the grave, the spirit "returns to God Who gave it", where does that leave the soul?

<back to ignore mode>

 

[Clete]

Both of you are wrong. . . . If one's spirit belongs to God, Who gave it, and returns to Him upon physical death, then it is never dead nor does it ever cease to exist.

So the body is in the grave, the spirit "returns to God Who gave it", where does that leave the soul?

<back to ignore mode>

So, let me see...

CR claims that spiritual death doesn't ever happen.

Paul, the APOSTLE, claims otherwise. (See Romans 7 in particular.)

Shall I believe CR or Paul? :think:

Yep! I'm going with Paul.

 

[Rosenritter]

Interestlingly enough, the same pattern; same issue of dealing with allegiance was with Jesus but on a much grander scale of adverse consequences had He failed. Who could have reversed His making a wrong choice when in His hour of temptation in the wilderness?

Or God could destroy them forever at a later date. Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14, Revelation 20.

 

[Rosenritter]

Angels are by gender males, but they have no 'sex'. They aren't human either- all descriptions of angels are actually nothing like the Hellenized images of them, which is traditionally a man in a robe, unsurprisingly Greek looking with a harp.

:chuckle:

Angels are described as being anything from a chimera to wheels with a hundred eyes. They cannot birth children or impregnate a human.

You forgot all the times that the Bible describes angels in human forms.

 

[Rosenritter]

Angels have no sex organs. That should satisfy the issue whatever they are.

Cross Reference should know because she has witnessed each and every physical manifestation of angels and gave a physical examination ....

Yeah it is. Why do you think Micheal, Gabriel, and Raphael are male names? It's always been historically known that angels are male by gender. Jesus is a male, the prophets are male, the apostles are male, Adam came first, etc. etc.

God does not deal in femininity. Even He is referred to as 'He'.

The historical churches from Greece to Rome will tell you the same exact thing.
Sorry :wave:

 

[Rosenritter]

Death is not dying - brilliant!

Why be so stubborn? You making that same point. Spiritual death is separation from God, not the cessation of existence.


No! You are already spiritually dead once you've sinned.

Paul states this explicitly...

Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.​

Up until your spirit leaves your physical body (i.e. physical death) that condition can be remedied by accepting Christ as your savior at which point you are no longer spiritually dead but rather are spiritually alive in Christ.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,​

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sounds like a metaphor. A manmade metaphor, seeing as the Bible never says "spiritually dead."

 

[Rosenritter]

Both of you are wrong. . . . If one's spirit belongs to God, Who gave it, and returns to Him upon physical death, then it is never dead nor does it ever cease to exist.

So the body is in the grave, the spirit "returns to God Who gave it", where does that leave the soul?

<back to ignore mode>

Leaves the soul dead. Just like a computer dies when you cut the power. The electricity isn't alive on its own and neither is the spirit that returns to the one that gave it..

Yes, the term refers to a condition in which one is spiritually separated from God.


Well, yes actually it does. That which is dead is dead. To say otherwise is to contradict yourself or to be intentionally confusing to people. What one's spirit does not do is cease to exist.


I completely get it. You are being stubborn! That's it and that's all. You do not disagree with me, you simply insist on saying that dead spirits aren't dead when what you mean is that dead spirits don't cease to exist.

Resting in Him,
Clete