Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Belief was coequal with behavior in that era. There was never any separation . . . that is why the focus on belief in the writing . . . NOT because it was somehow important to God. It would never have dawned on them that there could ever be a difference between what you believed and how you acted. The only reason to behave a certain way was your beliefs. The only reason not to was your lack of belief. The cognitive sophistication that enables today's sincerely professing believer not to practice their beliefs is a relatively more modern evolution of humanity . . . and not a positive one.
Your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the role of belief at that time has misled you into error. It was not to please God's vanity or love for His Son . . . it was to alter human behavior toward "love of God and each other," period. God has NEVER needed anything from us. Everything is and always has been for our benefit. By focusing on your mistaken belief in the belief requirement and not the reason for the belief . . . you are missing the importance of repentance and following Christ's instructions to "love God and each other." That will not affect your salvation because we have nothing to do with that. But it will affect what you will reap in the next life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Thank you, my dear Jesus, you have sent a prophet!!! And a pretty decent religious historian as well!
Thank you, Warden . . . but your posts are equally driven by the Holy Spirit within. Christ abides with us and we can all speak the truth . . . IF we will allow the Comforter to guide us to what God has "written in our hearts."
Quote:
MysticPhD, while we may disagree over univeralistic salvation, I see the core of God's message in your heart, and call you brother (or sister?) with great humility. I am never looking for a twin with whom to fellowship, but a HEART that is indwelt with the Spirit of God speaks wonderfully to my soul. And though not a universalist, I am very much in tune with how someone who practices what God speaks to His people has attained a higher spiritual plane.
I am your brother in Christ, Warden . . . and pleased to be so.
Quote:
You have expressed the purpose and goal of the spirit, the limitations of scripture, the power of having the living God within your heart, and so much more succinctly than I am ever able to do.
God bless.
Your praise applies to your own efforts as well, Warden. Your posts are very edifying and sincere. We are all blessed by them.
You seem to be of great conviction on this matter. I am curious as to how you reconcile your position with some of the scripture I quoted earlier in this thread, particularly the one from James. I shall reiterate for your convenience (NASB, emphasis added):
Romans 2:5-7
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life
2 Corinthians 5:9-10
Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
James 2:18-20 (NASB):
But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
Belief was coequal with behavior in that era. There was never any separation . . . that is why the focus on belief in the writing . . . NOT because it was somehow important to God. It would never have dawned on them that there could ever be a difference between what you believed and how you acted. The only reason to behave a certain way was your beliefs. The only reason not to was your lack of belief. The cognitive sophistication that enables today's sincerely professing believer not to practice their beliefs is a relatively more modern evolution of humanity . . . and not a positive one.
Your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the role of belief at that time has misled you into error. It was not to please God's vanity or love for His Son . . . it was to alter human behavior toward "love of God and each other," period. God has NEVER needed anything from us. Everything is and always has been for our benefit. By focusing on your mistaken belief in the belief requirement and not the reason for the belief . . . you are missing the importance of repentance and following Christ's instructions to "love God and each other." That will not affect your salvation because we have nothing to do with that. But it will affect what you will reap in the next life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The error is yours.
Faith in the Messiah has always been the means of receiving the free gift of eternal life apart from any works on our part, and apart from our behavior.
God requires that man recognize that he cannot earn his salvation by his own efforts and must therefore depend on the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith in Christ Jesus and not by works or on any behavior patterns on our part.
Repentance with regard to eternal salvation is simply a change of mind concerning Jesus Christ. An unbeliever hears the gospel and is persuaded that Jesus is the Messiah with the result that he simply trusts in Christ. He has repented.
Nothing can be added to faith alone in Christ alone for eternal life.
Works and obedience are a part of the believers spiritual life but have nothing to do with receiving eternal life which is a free gift.
All men are not automatically saved as you believe. A positive volitional response to the gospel is required and is the way in which the offer of eternal life is accepted by man.
It is not an offer, Mike . . . it is a gift . . . so of course we do not need to earn the gift. That is the GOOD NEWS! But if we are not attuned to God's love as revealed by Jesus (however imperfectly) . . . we will not have the cover of His perfect grace for our imperfections. That means our unrepentant imperfections will have to be refined out as dross in the consuming fire of God's pure love after our death. Whatever we believe here in this life . . . the simple truth is that we can NOT avoid whatever consequences (not punishments) we invoke. We will all reap what we sow.
It is not an offer, Mike . . . it is a gift . . . so of course we do not need to earn the gift. That is the GOOD NEWS! But if we are not attuned to God's love as revealed by Jesus (however imperfectly) . . . we will not have the cover of His perfect grace for our imperfections. That means our unrepentant imperfections will have to be refined out as dross in the consuming fire of God's pure love after our death. Whatever we believe here in this life . . . the simple truth is that we can NOT avoid whatever consequences (not punishments) we invoke. We will all reap what we sow.
You seem to be of great conviction on this matter. I am curious as to how you reconcile your position with some of the scripture I quoted earlier in this thread, particularly the one from James. I shall reiterate for your convenience (NASB, emphasis added):
Romans 2:5-7
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life
I've gone over Romans 2:6-7 in the past. It is hypothetical. Paul was not teaching the possibility of being able to earn your salvation. Paul's point was that NO man can perfectly persevere in doing good and cannot earn eternal life by his own righteousness. Paul stated in Romans 3:20 that no man will be justified by the works of the Law.
Romans 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
In the Book of Romans Paul was building his case that all the world is guilty in God's eyes and that no one is righteous in the sight of God (Romans chapter 3). He then proceeds to explain that man is only justified as a result of believing on Christ and therefore being credited with God's own perfect righteousness.
Quote:
2 Corinthians 5:9-10
Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
I have gone over this quite a few times on this forum.
Both 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 and 2 Corinthians 5:10 refer to the judgment seat of Christ at which all Church age believers will appear immediately following the rapture of the Church. The purpose is to evaluate the works of the believer and reward the believer for his works which are found to be 'gold, silver and precious stones (1 Cor. 3:12), and to burn up the works of the believer which are determined by Jesus to be 'wood, hay and straw (1 Cor. 3:15).
The believer will not be judged for sin because all sin was judged at the Cross. The believer's salvation is not at stake at the judgment seat of Christ, it is all about being evaluated for eternal rewards. Eternal life is a free gift, not a reward.
Quote:
James 2:18-20 (NASB):
But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
I look forward to hearing your take on these.
Thanks.
The comment about the demons also believing and shuddering was not made by James, but by his hypothetical opponent who James had introduced to provide an argument that someone might make with regard to what James was teaching.
Jesus did not come into the world to die for the fallen angels. Whatever means of salvation was offered to the angels was done before God created man.
As with above, it was not James who said show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. It was the hypothetical 'someone' which James introduced who would argue with James. James hypothetical 'someone' was arguing that if you could show your faith without works then he (the hypothetical someone) could show his faith by his works. In other words James imaginary opponent was saying that you can't show your faith without works, but neither can you show your faith by your works. The hypothetical oppontent of James was saying that works weren't important. He was wrong however because works are important. You just can't earn eternal life by your works.
What James was saying is that if a believer (who has eternal life and cannot lose it) remains a hearer of the word only, and not a doer of the word (James 1:25,) if he is not applying the teachings of the word of God to his life then he will have a non-productive spiritual life. This has nothing to do with the issue of eternal salvation. It is talking about the quality of the believer's spiritual life in time. The dead faith of which James spoke was not a false faith or a non-existent faith, it was simply a faith which was not being utilized to produce a spiritually productive life. A believer who remains a hearer of the word and not a doer of the word cannot be saved or delivered from a useless spiritual life. The word 'save' does not refer to eternal salvation but to the believer's spiritual life.
James' point is that a believer who has no spiritual production has no dynamics in his spiritual life as a believer. But again, James is not saying that a believer without works is not eternally saved.
It is not an offer, Mike . . . it is a gift . . . so of course we do not need to earn the gift. That is the GOOD NEWS! But if we are not attuned to God's love as revealed by Jesus (however imperfectly) . . . we will not have the cover of His perfect grace for our imperfections. That means our unrepentant imperfections will have to be refined out as dross in the consuming fire of God's pure love after our death. Whatever we believe here in this life . . . the simple truth is that we can NOT avoid whatever consequences (not punishments) we invoke. We will all reap what we sow.
Eternal life is a gift which is offered and which can be refused. Here is the offer and invitation expressed.
Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
In John 4:10 the Holy Spirit who brings salvation to those who believe on Christ is also offered.
Isaish 55:1 also speaks of eternal life in terms of an offer or an invitation.
"Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost.
And despite your objections, eternal punishment awaits those who die without ever having received Christ as Savior. Scripture is clear on this, but you will not believe it.
I check on the forums relatively little, however, I consistently notice the pattern of arguments in the forum are characterized by differing data sets and differing contexts among participants.
Proponents of historically incorrect Christian theories do not seem to be conscious deceivers but often are simply exposed historically incorrect differing data.
For example, a relatively modern theory has developed where Christians may be consciously and willingly and despicably evil; may disobey all of Gods commandments, yet still be rewarded with salvation by God. In this relatively modern theory, an unrepentant Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer may continue committed to their lifestyles of evil and still be rewarded with heaven in this concept through a generous interpretation of the theory that salvation is “free”. Such a theory falls within the pale of “Easy Believism” since the requirements of ultimate salvation are so easy.
Other forum Christians express disagreement and offer their own counter-points that God has always made moral requirements of mankind; they apply their own concept of "dead" versus "living" faith and the need for repentance in early and authentic Christian worldviews as well as other valid points in their response to this theory.
Both sides of the issue have their own sets of scriptures which they use as points of discussion and disagreement. However, the specific version of scriptures we each have may contribute to error as I will point out.
I have, as a historian, observed that the early Judeo-Christians did not describe nor adhere to this modern theory of “easy believism” nor does any consistent interpretation of or description of it exist in any of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature of which I am aware.
For example, the words describing salvation as a “free gift” in the King James version (and it's descendants) are not within any greek new testament manuscript (which are the most original major New Testaments). The words “free gift”, so often quoted by non-historians simply aren’t IN these earliest greek bibles. Yet, these worlds "free gift" are among the words often quoted in support of this theory of “easy believism”.
The recent discussion of the modern theory of “easy believism” has caused me to wonder why the creators of the 1611 King James added these erroneous words to it’s text.
For example, KJV Roman’s 5:15 gives the erroneous reading : “…But not as the offence, so also is the "free gift". “. Verse 16 repeats the erroneous translation : “…but the "free gift" is of many offences unto justification…” And, inexplicably, the error is repeated a third time in verse 18 : “…By the righteousness of one the "free gift" came upon all men…” The creators of this bible repeatedly, and erroneously render χαρισ-μα as “free gift” (χαρισ is grace).
Since no greek manuscripts have the words “free gift” in ANY version that we know of, I checked the earlier major English versions to see when this translational and doctrinal error occurred. None of the earlier significant English bibles made this error. Wycliffe’s Bible does’nt, neither do Gutenbergs bible, Tyndales bible, Coverdales bible, Rogers’ bible, the “Great Bible”, the Geneva Bible, Rheims-Douay, etc, NONE of the earlier English bibles include these errors of translation that first appear in the King James (among the major english group).
I think that the creators of the King James Bible created this erroneous translation in their bible to support their theology in the same way that Luther purposefully changed his bible to support his theology by adding “allien” (allein durch den Glauben) to Romans 3:28, or when Luther purposefully changed the 10 commandments in his bible in order to support his theology. (Fortunately, Luther did NOT add the words “free gift” to romans 5 in the bible he created.)
Once the creators of the King James Bible created these errors, I believe that the popularity and influence of the King James Bible contributed to the continuation of this error in several other bibles created by subsequent translators of similar theological slant. Fortunately, many modern translators (NIV, etc) have tried to correct these errors in the bibles they are creating.
However, in the same manner that translation errors in the King James bible affect other translators, I believe that we readers also, are ALL often affected by such simple translational and interpretational errors (consider the theological effects of the rendering of προωρισεν as “predestinate” – an entire theological theory sprang up and exists because of this simple twist of a word).
I also grew up in “easy believism” and spent a large portion of my life within the erroneous context of “free giftism” created by this simple translational error. Still, I was out of college before I learned of this specific translational error and how it had affected my own thought. I believe that individuals who read errors of translations are simply left to do the best they can with such texts and are not consciously trying to fool the rest of us despite the errors we all quote. In fact, all of us are affected by such errors of text and thought and logic, (myself included).
The bottom line, historically, is that this modern theory of “easy believism – salvation without attempted obedience “ interpretation did not exist in early Judeo-Christian literature as any consistent theme and textually, seems to increase in strength within the period of the protestant reformation and in the Influential King James version. (if anyone knows of another ENGLISH version that made this error at an earlier time, please let me know as I am curious)
The period of reformation and it’s issues are not my period of historical interest, but I am guessing the theory of “free gift” and it’s association to the modern theory of “easy believism” sprang from the protestant reformation as a reaction and response to the Catholic system of penitence.
Clear
αξειφυω
Last edited by Clear lens; 02-02-2014 at 11:03 PM..
I check on the forums relatively little, however, I consistently notice the pattern of arguments in the forum are characterized by differing data sets and differing contexts among participants.
Proponents of historically incorrect Christian theories do not seem to be conscious deceivers but often are simply exposed historically incorrect differing data.
For example, a relatively modern theory has developed where Christians may be consciously and willingly and despicably evil; may disobey all of Gods commandments, yet still be rewarded with salvation by God. In this relatively modern theory, an unrepentant Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer may continue committed to their lifestyles of evil and still be rewarded with heaven in this concept through a generous interpretation of the theory that salvation is “free”. Such a theory falls within the pale of “Easy Believism” since the requirements of ultimate salvation are so easy.
Other forum Christians express disagreement and offer their own counter-points that God has always made moral requirements of mankind; they apply their own concept of "dead" versus "living" faith and the need for repentance in early and authentic Christian worldviews as well as other valid points in their response to this theory.
Both sides of the issue have their own sets of scriptures which they use as points of discussion and disagreement. However, the specific version of scriptures we each have may contribute to error as I will point out.
I have, as a historian, observed that the early Judeo-Christians did not describe nor adhere to this modern theory of “easy believism” nor does any consistent interpretation of or description of it exist in any of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature of which I am aware.
For example, the words describing salvation as a “free gift” in the King James version (and it's descendants) are not within any greek new testament manuscript (which are the most original major New Testaments). The words “free gift”, so often quoted by non-historians simply aren’t IN these earliest greek bibles. Yet, these worlds "free gift" are among the words often quoted in support of this theory of “easy believism”.
The recent discussion of the modern theory of “easy believism” has caused me to wonder why the creators of the 1611 King James added these erroneous words to it’s text.
For example, KJV Roman’s 5:15 gives the erroneous reading : “…But not as the offence, so also is the "free gift". “. Verse 16 repeats the erroneous translation : “…but the "free gift" is of many offences unto justification…” And, inexplicably, the error is repeated a third time in verse 18 : “…By the righteousness of one the "free gift" came upon all men…” The creators of this bible repeatedly, and erroneously render χαρισ-μα as “free gift” (χαρισ is grace).
Since no greek manuscripts have the words “free gift” in ANY version that we know of, I checked the earlier major English versions to see when this translational and doctrinal error occurred. None of the earlier significant English bibles made this error. Wycliffe’s Bible does’nt, neither do Gutenbergs bible, Tyndales bible, Coverdales bible, Rogers’ bible, the “Great Bible”, the Geneva Bible, Rheims-Douay, etc, NONE of the earlier English bibles include these errors of translation that first appear in the King James (among the major english group).
I think that the creators of the King James Bible created this erroneous translation in their bible to support their theology in the same way that Luther purposefully changed his bible to support his theology by adding “allien” (allein durch den Glauben) to Romans 3:28, or when Luther purposefully changed the 10 commandments in his bible in order to support his theology. (Fortunately, Luther did NOT add the words “free gift” to romans 5 in the bible he created.)
Once the creators of the King James Bible created these errors, I believe that the popularity and influence of the King James Bible contributed to the continuation of this error in several other bibles created by subsequent translators of similar theological slant. Fortunately, many modern translators (NIV, etc) have tried to correct these errors in the bibles they are creating.
However, in the same manner that translation errors in the King James bible affect other translators, I believe that we readers also, are ALL often affected by such simple translational and interpretational errors (consider the theological effects of the rendering of προωρισεν as “predestinate” – an entire theological theory sprang up and exists because of this simple twist of a word).
I also grew up in “easy believism” and spent a large portion of my life within the erroneous context of “free giftism” created by this simple translational error. Still, I was out of college before I learned of this specific translational error and how it had affected my own thought. I believe that individuals who read errors of translations are simply left to do the best they can with such texts and are not consciously trying to fool the rest of us despite the errors we all quote. In fact, all of us are affected by such errors of text and thought and logic, (myself included).
The bottom line, historically, is that this modern theory of “easy believism – salvation without attempted obedience “ interpretation did not exist in early Judeo-Christian literature as any consistent theme and textually, seems to increase in strength within the period of the protestant reformation and in the Influential King James version. (if anyone knows of another ENGLISH version that made this error at an earlier time, please let me know as I am curious)
The period of reformation and it’s issues are not my period of historical interest, but I am guessing the theory of “free gift” and it’s association to the modern theory of “easy believism” sprang from the protestant reformation as a reaction and response to the Catholic system of penitence.
Clear
αξειφυω
Of course, I've been aware of translation errors--particularly in the KJV which not only is a poor translation into English, it used about the worst translation of the Septuagint as its basis. But the particular interesting facts you have revealed here, Clear, made me look at parallel translation errors which highlight how easy it is to develop unsound doctrine based on improper translations.
In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal's horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God's might and power, not shepherding. And the romantic Song of Solomon offers a surprisingly modern message.
But most people who read the Bible don't know these things, because extensive translation gaffs conceal the Bible's original meaning.
The tenth Commandment, commonly but wrongly translated as "thou shalt not covet," illustrates how internal structure or etymology can be misleading. Like the English "host" and "hostile" that share a root but don't mean the same thing, the words for "desirable" and "take" in Hebrew come from the same root.It's the second word, "take," that appears in the Ten Commandments. But translators, not recognizing that related words can mean different things in this way, misunderstood the Hebrew and wrongly translated the text as "thou shalt not covet" for what should have been "thou shalt not take."
In these and many other instances, improved translation techniques bring us closer to the original intent of the Bible. And like a newly restored work of art, the Bible's original beauty shines the brighter for it.
What's even more interesting about the translation issue is that, according to Bart Ehrman a Bible professor, but now an agnostic, is that even modern translators are literally afraid of correct translation because of the dogmas that have become a part of modernistic christianity. Most believe that a "correct" Bible translation would be rejected and simply would not sell in the marketplace that dominates America.
Thanks for pointing out the specifics of the "free" grace relationship to those translation problems. While it makes intellectual understanding of the mistake of those falling into such a trap more easily understood, such views still leave me astounded because those who have had something more than an intellectual acceptance of Christ (we call it "born-again") cannot fathom people who take obedience to God as an option to living the life of a disciple--I've interestingly discovered that no writer of the NT ever called himself a "christian" and indeed Jesus called His followers "disciples". We have "translated" it to mean just the original twelve, but Jesus wanted all His followers to be "disciples." I think that should be the proper term for those who believe in living for Jesus as well as believing in Jesus.
Quote:
The Greek word for disciple literally means student while the Greek word for apostle means a messenger or sent one. If you study bible, you would come to know that disciples were followers or students of Christ.Out of his scores of followers, Jesus chose twelve to travel and learn from him. Of course these 12 were also originally Disciples of Christ. These were the men who were later sent to far off lands to act as messengers, and these 12 men became first apostles.
Vine's New Testament Word Search defines the Greek word (mathetes) that is translated "disciples" as: "lit., 'a learner' … it denotes 'one who follows one's teaching'…. A 'disciple' was not only a pupil, but an adherent; hence they are spoken of as imitators of their teacher." So a disciple of Jesus Christ follows His example-- I Peter 2:21, 24
Quote:
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. ---- (24) He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness---
So I've now come to the conclusion that yes, there are "christians" who can believe anything they wish, but adherents to the religion OF Jesus, should be called disciples because we are to be imitators of our teacher--and disciples are what Jesus called out from among the people of His day. So if you are an "easy-believism" proponent, then you may very much be a christian, just not a disciple. The question then becomes, if Jesus called those who follow Him disciples, then apparently the salvation of Matt 25 is ONLY for disciples, not for those with the misnomer, christian, which has more or less become a social mark of respectability anyway, as in a thank you that states, "That's very christian of you."
If you are a believer who understands that to love Jesus is to follow Jesus--you are a DISCIPLE of Jesus.
P.S. It's interesting to note that the KJV even mistranslates the word "church," which is more properly rendered "congregation," but became "church" because Anglican Archbishop Richard Bancroft, with the King's blessing, ordered the translators to "use The Old Ecclesiastical Words," to, of course, reinforce the authority of "the church!" And this is still another parallel point about mistranslation leading to misunderstanding of teaching and concepts.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 02-03-2014 at 12:22 AM..
James' point is that a believer who has no spiritual production has no dynamics in his spiritual life as a believer. But again, James is not saying that a believer without works is not eternally saved.
Hello again Mike555.
Thanks for the clarification on your viewpoint, although it remains one with which I cannot agree.
Indeed Paul states in Romans 3 that no one is justified by works of the Law (Romans 3:10), but I find significance in those three words...of the Law, by which Paul clearly means the Jewish Law. Indeed we all follow this (or at least a vast majority) because we do not follow the Jewish Law by which Paul tells us we cannot be justified. Nonetheless this discussion does not start until Romans 2:17, with the passage I quoted clearly referring back to the sinfulness that Paul was addressing in Romans 1. Therefore, I believe that Paul intended Romans 2:5-6 to refer to the believer in Christ and his actions.
As for James, I do not see the comment about demons belonging to his hypothetical opponent. Further, while your explanation works for the verses I quoted specifically, I think James' full work stands in opposition of your interpretation. What was James trying to tell the believer? I think he sums it up in James 2:24 (NASB)
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
As for Corinthians, I have never understood it in the way you present, but I'll do a little further investigation before commenting.
If a person wanting to know about salvation stumbled onto a shredded Bible and found only Matthew 25 to go by his instant reaction would be that Jesus says we are saved from eternal torment in hell by helping others and nothing else. Note that Jesus never once mentions to the sheep and goats that belief in Him is a prerequisite to the good works or that it is even necessary to enter the kingdom of God; it is based entirely on helping the least of Jesus' family (mankind) struggling just to keep food in their mouths and a warm blanket over their shoulders.
Clear as day.
Jesus spiritual ' brothers' of Matthew 25 v 40 are Not the sheep or the goats but the sheep and goats are judged on the basis of how they have treated Jesus' brothers ' who are on earth at this time frame.
Jesus spiritual ' brothers ' [ Mt 25 v 40 ] are Not mankind in general. They are the first fruits or are those called to heaven.
- 1st Cor. 15 vs 20,23, 50.
The humble living sheep can remain alive on Earth right into the start of Jesus' 1000-year kingdom reign over Earth.
No where does Jesus say the haughty go to hell. Rather they go away into everlasting punishment.
Please notice 2nd Thess. 1 v 9 equates everlasting punishment with destruction.
That is why 2nd Peter 3 v 9 mentions repent or perish [ perish meaning destroyed ]
The wicked are ' destroyed forever ' according to Psalm 92 v 7; Proverbs 2 vs 21,22
Why did Jesus go to hell ? [ Acts 2 vs 27,31 ] ________
Jesus did Not spend eternity in hell, did he ? ________
The Bible's hell is just mankind's temporary grave for the sleeping dead - John 11 vs 11-14; Ecc. 9 v 5; Psalms 115 v 17
Jesus has the keys to unlock hell - Rev. 1 v 18 - meaning during Jesus' millennium-long day of reigning over Earth Jesus will ' deliver up ' [ resurrect ] everyone in the Bible's hell, then emptied-out hell is cast vacant into a symbolic ' second death ' for hell according to Rev. 20 vs 13,14. Vacant hell ends up in ' second death' or destruction for hell or the grave.
We need to endure to the end according to Matthew 24 v 13. Endure to the end of one's life, or endure to the time of Rev. 7 v 14 before Jesus ushers in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill. Endure in doing good ' spiritual works ' such as endure in proclaiming the ' good news of God's kingdom' [ Daniel 2 v 44; Matt. 24 v 14; 28 vs 19,20; Acts 1 v 8 ] as the solution to mankind's problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . . but your posts are equally driven by the Holy Spirit within. Christ abides with us and we can all speak the truth . . . IF we will allow the Comforter to guide us to what God has "written in our hearts."
