Will God Say "Just Kidding" about Eternity?

[Mary]

(06-22-2012 05:09 AM)Mary Wrote:  Hi Lois,

I really agree with what you are saying, but at the same time find I have to ask some of the questions I have been asking myself:

- have not many of us Christians been influenced for many years by the uninspired doctrines of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and Luther (etc)?
By asking this, I'm not suggesting UR is a correct doctrine. I say repeatedly we should always use the bible as our standard. But how many of us if we are even aware of these doctrines and how they influence our understanding and interpretation of the Word? I don't think there is anything wrong with taking someone's ideas and holding them up to the Word; after all, that is what we do with each other on this forum. So another question I ask myself is :

- do I have a preconceived idea of hell, or is my knowledge of hell based on what I have learned from the bible? So back I go to the bible to check.

-What does eternal mean, and is it the same as infinite?

- Does the Bible say God is eternal, and does it say God is infinite? Is eternal one word in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and is infinite a different word?

- if as a saved person, I am going to spend eternity/infinity with God, am I not in eternity/infinity now?

The meanings of infinite and eternal are the same except the etymology of 'eternal' includes 'of an age' and the etymology of infinite includes that it is the opposite of something that is finite -has an end. therefore, infinite means having no end (or beginning)

God is eternal - found in:
(Deuteronomy 33:27; Jeremiah 10:10; Psalm 90:2)

God is infinite. - found in:
(1 Kings 8:22-27; Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 102:25-27; Revelation 22:13)

What do I know of hell? (from memory and understanding without looking it up:
it is a place where unbelievers will go after death.
it has different names Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna in the bible. These names all indicate 'hell'.

It is a place of eternal fire and suffering. It is a lake of fire.
People there will thirst - from heat(?) - I think from longing for God. People in Hell will be separated from God but will be aware of heaven
(Abraham's bosom) and will be aware of their suffering (what EU calls eternal concious torment?).
David said that even if he goes down to Sheol, God will be with him.

the devil and his angels will be bound in chains for 1000 years, and then after judgement will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity.
Now I'll have to go and check that all biblically again.

[Mary]

Vic's post gives some of the bible verses on hell. Come reason ministries 8 - as part of a series discussing Rob Bell's book gives a detailed description of Hell that is interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAm0Q43u8Cc

[Vic]

(06-22-2012 05:51 AM)Solo Christo Wrote:  

Vic Wrote:Alex as much as I appreciate your need to use someone else's reasoning and writings to explain your beliefs, I would ask that you refrain from quoting from anyone else's books, websites, etc, and merely explain your beliefs about this. You should be able to explain your beliefs, not someone else's writings entirely from the Scriptures. I usually don't allow newbies to be posting from outside sources to start with.

I am sure since you are an advocate for EU, you should be able to discuss it here without anyone else's interpretations. If you believe in Christ alone and you say believe the Scriptures to be true, you should also believe and show the dependence on Him and His Word to prove all things. Thank you!

I agree we should try to depend on God & the Bible, and try to think & write our own thoughts, rather than simply repeat others. Looking back over my posts, I’d suggest 90% of what I’ve written is already doing that, however I’ll try to do so more.

Even though Talbott has 3 chapters on his website that do talk about Jesus, Lois seems convinced he doesn’t. I would show more examples where he does but I’m not allowed link to them or now even quote them :-| I feel slightly hard done by given Lois has used URLs & in your article you have quoted/referenced a newspaper, Strong’s, the dictionary, & other articles - in fact every time you quote the KJV you are in essence quoting the interpretation (albeit a reasonable one) of some uninspired translators (not that I think you shouldn’t quote, but I think it’s important to remember that we are always building on the work of others to some degree). I thought you were just trying to limit spammers not handicap brothers & sisters genuinely trying to have a discussion?

---

Lois if you keep posting things before I've had a chance to reply to your previous post, I won't be able to keep up :-(

Alex no need to feel hard done by. All newbies are in the same position. And I know you read the forum rules so you know that newbies are not to link and source quote outside sources, which is to prevent people joining merely to spam/copy/paste from their own writings or others they are advocating. And you have done that since your first post.

Newbies -- are not allowed to start threads! Or post Links
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=778

Come to discuss...
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=355

Normally those things are edited out in order to abide the forum rules, so you have actually had some leeway. The idea of this discussion forum is for people to be able to discuss their own beliefs with their own understandings. Many unfortunately are incredibly dependent on other's writings and have problems doing that.

The issue of Bible versions and translations is found in articles on my website and on this forum. We only even respond to your statement because as has been shown by Lois, their is a huge difference in what is found in your sources.

My article was an indepth study when it was written, not part of a forum discussion. That's the difference, aside from the above. . Maybe if you limited the discussion about this article to here instead of on your forum, you would find it easier.

Let's close the thread to discussion about Talbott, etc. That's not what this thread is for. General discussion about EU or any U can be taken to the thread in the other section.

If we want to pursue analysis about Talbott or any others specifically, threads would need to be started for that purpose. I see no point to that for now, because that dilutes the discussion, although one could address the issue, I suppose, of whether a claim to be a philosopher makes one more wise or more enlightened etc and therefore one to be followed for understanding, versus all those who merely belong to Christ and are dependent on Him, and follow Him.

1Co 1:5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
1Co 1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
1Co 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Am tied up for the weekend but will be answering a lot more come Monday.

[Lois]

Hi Mary,

Quote:- have not many of us Christians been influenced for many years by the uninspired doctrines of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and Luther (etc)?
By asking this, I'm not suggesting UR is a correct doctrine. I say repeatedly we should always use the bible as our standard. But how many of us if we are even aware of these doctrines and how they influence our understanding and interpretation of the Word? I don't think there is anything wrong with taking someone's ideas and holding them up to the Word; after all, that is what we do with each other on this forum.

Yes I am sure that many people were/are influenced by Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and Luther.That is why we need to be careful what we sow.
We are to sow the word of God and not the words of man.

Mar4:14 The sower soweth the word.


We have to be diligent in guarding ourselves against influences that may lead us away from the truth.

I think people can grow impatient when waiting for understanding from God..instead of waiting to receive our knowledge and understanding from God we allow ourselves to be enticed by others that promise knowledge and understanding.
I believe that is why God warned us against heaping up teachers.It's a lust for knowledge and understanding that causes people to heap up teachers.
We should only seek for God to teach us.God will allow you to accept someone else as your teacher but you will have to suffer the consequences of that choice.


As an example,notice how people come to this forum and quote other men and their books.That is who they are allowing themselves to be taught by.They are who they get their understanding from.
They can't seem to stop from trying to entice people to come to those men and their teachings for understanding.Our understanding comes from God.

I pray for understanding every day,I don't think a person can ever have enough.It is up to God if I get it or not but it is not for me to try to find it elsewhere.I will wait for Him to supply it.


2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

---

Solo,

At Post: #16

Quote:So the thread doesn't get too confusing, if it's ok with everyone, I'll finish responding to Lois' previous post before attempting to respond to the latest two?

At Post: #20

Quote:Lois if you keep posting things before I've had a chance to reply to your previous post, I won't be able to keep up :-(

You had replied to me at post 16 and I replied back.I didn't know that you were not finished replying to me at post 16.You made no mention of it.
I think you were keeping up just fine..but okay I'll wait..just let me know when you are done. lol

[Solo Christo]

Vic Wrote:Let's close the thread to discussion about Talbott, etc. That's not what this thread is for. General discussion about EU or any U can be taken to the thread in the other section.

Sure, I didn't come hear to discuss Talbott or EU, I was just trying to respond to where people were taking the conversation. Anyway, I'll go back to the article & reply to the points about Heb 9:26-28, the Rich man & Lazarus, the role of philosophers, English translations, and Lois' other questions, if they come up in the article (or if not, in a separate thread if I pass the 50 post mark).

---

Vic Wrote:If an individual believes that all are to come to repentance then that same person renounces Scripture after Scripture—that is God’s Word—

It’s good that you’re testing things against Scripture, but it’s an assertion that all Universalists are simply renouncing Scripture.

Vic Wrote:and suggest that it is false when it states in such Scriptures as 1 Peter 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"

This passage appears to be saying it’s hard for the righteous to be saved & even harder for the sinner - I don’t deny either, it’s just that even really hard things are possible for God & we’re told His grace is greater than sin.

Vic Wrote:2 Peter 3:7 "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. "

I acknowledge there will be “fire” on Judgment Day, however I believe “fire” destroys so that God can restore (e.g. like Sodom).

Vic Wrote:1 John 2: 18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

Just because someone is anti-Christ, even when Judgment Day arrives, doesn’t mean they will always be anti-Christ.

Vic Wrote:2 Thess 2: 9 "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. "

I find it a little odd that God deludes people into believing a lie, however, even if that is the case, as He is a loving Father, I assume He has good reasons for doing so & that it wouldn’t be the end of their story. I suspect “damned” is a translator adding their interpretation as many translations just translate krithōsin as “might be judged”.

Vic Wrote:Knowing about a generic God is not having Jesus Christ as Saviour. If one does not have Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord—they do not belong to Him and cannot know the Father.

Sure, although I think all things have always belonged to God in some sense.

Vic Wrote:John 14: 6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."

Amen.

Vic Wrote:John 5:12 "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

Yes, however just because someone doesn’t yet “have the Son”, doesn’t mean they will never “have the Son”.

Vic Wrote:The ecumenical movement sets aside these basic Biblical truths, allowing for all roads to lead to God. That is Biblically false.

That’s a fairly sweeping statement, however I agree that Pluralism is unbiblical, and therefore when the “ecumenical movement” promotes that, it’s not good.

[Lois]

Solo,Vic has been very busy with family lately so I thought I would go ahead and post.

Solo you are proving Vic's point,repeatedly.

You said,

Quote:It’s good that you’re testing things against Scripture, but it’s an assertion that all Universalists are simply renouncing Scripture.

Renouncing scripture is what you are doing in pretty much every post you make.


You make yourself the authority by which things are to be RE-translated from Scriptures that were already translated ,making a mockery of biblical authority and the authority of God with your uninspired pseudo translations.

Quote:This passage appears to be saying it’s hard for the righteous to be saved & even harder for the sinner

1 Peter 4:17 does not say, "& even harder for the sinner" as you say.That is renouncing what the scripture actually says and then adding to scripture what YOU want it to say.

Quote:I acknowledge there will be “fire” on Judgment Day, however I believe “fire” destroys so that God can restore (e.g. like Sodom).

Here you renounce what 2 Peter 3:7 says by attempting to add to it what YOU think it should say but it does NOT say.Where does it say,"“fire” destroys so that God can restore (e.g. like Sodom)."?

Quote:Just because someone is anti-Christ, even when Judgment Day arrives, doesn’t mean they will always be anti-Christ.

What will someone who is antichrist be after judgement day then?You imply that you know,which is laughable.

Quote:I find it a little odd that God deludes people into believing a lie, however, even if that is the case, as He is a loving Father, I assume He has good reasons for doing so & that it wouldn’t be the end of their story. I suspect “damned” is a translator adding their interpretation as many translations just translate krithōsin as “might be judged”.

2Thess 2:9 says,"God shall send them strong delusion" whether you think it's odd or not that's what it says He does.Then you go on to mock the authority of scripture and the authority of God.


God made the languages.He is fully capable of having His word translated exactly how He wanted it translated without your help.

Quote:Yes, however just because someone doesn’t yet “have the Son”, doesn’t mean they will never “have the Son”.

Guess what? You don't have a say in the matter..people have free choice and it is not up to you.Someone can choose to never have the Son if they want,NOT up to you.

Quote:That’s a fairly sweeping statement, however I agree that Pluralism is unbiblical, and therefore when the “ecumenical movement” promotes that, it’s not good.

This last statement of yours "when the “ecumenical movement" promotes that(Pluralism), it’s not good." your wording makes it sound as though you agree with the "ecumenical movement" except when it comes to pluralism.?

Do you consider yourself in support of the "ecumenical movement"?

[Mary]

Hi Lois,

Thank you for standing in for Vic. I'm trying to make sense of EU and I think that those of us participating in this discussion are Christians trying to learn from each other. It is a pity that the article SC is addressing was more directly aimed at the "ecumenical movement" than at EU, because it makes things either very dogmatic or alternatively fuzzy. I for example know that the "ecumenical movement" is considered the big bad wolf, and we are to be very wary of it; but I can't help agreeing with Jan Karon when she describes in her Mitford Series novels, the congregations of Episcopalians, Baptists and Methodists working together for a common purpose in the village as fellowshipping together in "true ecumenism."

That aside, can you explain 1 Peter 4:17 more clearly? Although SC may have oversimplified what it is saying, I don't think it amounts to renouncing scripture. the same applies to 2 Peter 3:7. There are many instances when fire is described as purifying. SC may be misapplying that knowledge from other parts of the bible here, but I don't think he is renouncing scripture.

[Mary]

When I started this thread I quoted from Jude, firstly because I wanted to set the tone for an edifying discussion, but also because I think it pertains to a discussion of EU, and particularly verses 22 and 23.

1 Peter 4 1-8 is a very interesting verse for many reasons that are pertinent to this discussion, so maybe we should examine the full context of 1 Peter 4:17

[Solo Christo]

Lois Wrote:Solo,Vic has been very busy with family lately so I thought I would go ahead and post.

I didn’t mind waiting as I had to do 17 hours overtime this week, so wouldn’t have had time to reply.

Lois Wrote:Renouncing scripture is what you are doing in pretty much every post you make.

Resorting to insults doesn’t really further discussion :(

Lois Wrote:You make yourself the authority by which things are to be RE-translated from Scriptures that were already translated ,making a mockery of biblical authority and the authority of God with your uninspired pseudo translations.

I’m not interested in mud fight, so unless you are going to be at least civil (although I think Christ actually calls us to be loving, particularly to brothers & sisters in Christ) I’m thinking it would be more edifying & God honouring for us to wait for Vic...

Lois Wrote:1 Peter 4:17 does not say, "& even harder for the sinner" as you say.That is renouncing what the scripture actually says and then adding to scripture what YOU want it to say.

I agree it doesn’t say that because I was referring to v18, which I also quoted.

For 1 Peter 4:18 the translators of the KJV Wrote:And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

I’m not exactly sure which bit of my statement you are disagreeing with, so I’ll try to spell it out. I think “the righteous scarcely be saved” implies it’s “hard”(non-trivial) for them to be saved. I assume Peter’s rhetorical question “where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” was inline with other Biblical statements, about how the fate of the “ungodly and the sinner” is going to be worse (“harder” - more intense, more painful, certainly not “easy”) than that of the righteous.

I Wrote:I acknowledge there will be “fire” on Judgment Day, however I believe “fire” destroys so that God can restore (e.g. like Sodom).

Lois Wrote:Here you renounce what 2 Peter 3:7 says by attempting to add to it what YOU think it should say but it does NOT say.Where does it say,"“fire” destroys so that God can restore (e.g. like Sodom)."?

There no need to yell at me with caps, italics or bold is preferable for highlighting. One of the common images associated with God in the Bible is fire. It’s common when an image is used, to refer to other places it’s used to help in interpreting a passage.

Zephaniah 3:8-9 is particularly interesting how it appears anger/jealousy/burning/fire/consuming results in restoration/calling-on-God/obedience.

Quote:Therefore, wait for Me — this is the Lord’s declaration— until the day I rise up for plunder. For My decision is to gather nations, to assemble kingdoms, in order to pour out My indignation on them, all My burning anger; for the whole earth will be consumed by the fire of My jealousy. For I will then restore pure speech to the peoples so that all of them may call on the name of Yahweh and serve Him with a single purpose.

Baptising people in Luke 3:16b & Matt 3:11b

Quote:He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Purifying everyone in Mark 9:49:

Quote:For everyone will be salted with fire.

Testing people in 1 Cor 3:13b:

Quote:fire will test what sort of work each one has done

Refining people in Mal 3:2-3:

Quote:But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD.

Purging people of sin in Isa 4:4:

Quote:when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning/purging.

In the burning bush, temple sacrificial system, etc. it’s also a symbol of purity.

Even when it is used in judgment/anger (e.g. Sodom) it isn’t incompatible with love (e.g. Sodom is destroyed but God promises to restore them in Eze 16:53 - although some translations are inconsistent in how they translate the phrase there, just compare Deut 30:3, Job 42:10, Ps 14:7, 53:6, 85:1, 126:4, Jer 29:14, 30:3,18, 31:23, 32:44, 33:7, 33:11, 33:26, 48:47, 49:6, 49:39, Lam 2:14, Eze 29:14, 39:25, Hosea 6:11, Joel 3:1, Amos 9:14, Zep 2:7, 3:20).

Even "God is a consuming fire, a jealous God" (Deut 4:24) isn't necessarily negative as the jealousy of God is part of His love. Btw I think the other 6 times "fire" appears in Deut 4 are all in non-negative senses...

I Wrote:Just because someone is anti-Christ, even when Judgment Day arrives, doesn’t mean they will always be anti-Christ.

Lois Wrote:What will someone who is antichrist be after judgement day then?You imply that you know,which is laughable.

I don’t believe God’s promises are “laughable”. In the Bible, we see Christ being the exemplar & guarantor of resurrection, repentance, restoration, reconciliation, & ultimately loving worship of the Father - praising Him as Creation was created to do, as He deserves. Whilst anyone remains “anti-Christ” God is still working, He is not “all in all”, “everything to everyone” in the fullest sense.

I Wrote:I find it a little odd that God deludes people into believing a lie, however, even if that is the case, as He is a loving Father, I assume He has good reasons for doing so & that it wouldn’t be the end of their story. I suspect “damned” is a translator adding their interpretation as many translations just translate krithōsin as “might be judged”.

Lois Wrote:2Thess 2:9 says,"God shall send them strong delusion" whether you think it's odd or not that's what it says He does. Then you go on to mock the authority of scripture and the authority of God.

Fair point regarding 2Thess 2:9 - although just because I find it odd, doesn’t mean I deny that it says God does it. Where did I “mock the authority of scripture and the authority of God.”???

Lois Wrote:God made the languages.He is fully capable of having His word translated exactly how He wanted it translated without your help.

Wow, sorry but it sounds like you are saying the men who translated the KJV were infallible & inerrant?? If that’s so, how come when Vic refers back to the original texts you don’t criticise her too? i.e. if you’re saying this particular English translation is perfect, why does anyone bother with the original texts?

I Wrote:Yes, however just because someone doesn’t yet “have the Son”, doesn’t mean they will never “have the Son”.

Lois Wrote:Guess what? You don't have a say in the matter..people have free choice and it is not up to you.Someone can choose to never have the Son if they want,NOT up to you.

I never said I had anything to do with it? I believe it’s solo Christo. Who are we to say God won’t draw them to Himself?

I Wrote:That’s a fairly sweeping statement, however I agree that Pluralism is unbiblical, and therefore when the “ecumenical movement” promotes that, it’s not good.

Lois Wrote:This last statement of yours "when the “ecumenical movement" promotes that(Pluralism), it’s not good." your wording makes it sound as though you agree with the "ecumenical movement" except when it comes to pluralism.? Do you consider yourself in support of the "ecumenical movement"?

As Vic said “There is to be unity in the Body of Christ”, so when the "ecumenical movement" promotes that, or other things that we are told God desires (such as humility, Christ-likeness, loving one another), I support it - but when it doesn’t, I don’t.

[Lois]

Mary,

I appreciate you attempting to set the tone for the discussion..but I am not sure how edifying a conversation can be when refuting false doctrine.Generally the person disseminating the false doctrine usually ends up not to be a happy camper when you disagree with their tactics.

You said,

Quote:I'm trying to make sense of EU and I think that those of us participating in this discussion are Christians trying to learn from each other.

I don't assume that everyone is "in" Christ simply because they lay claim to the term Christian.

You said,

Quote:It is a pity that the article SC is addressing was more directly aimed at the "ecumenical movement" than at EU,

I agree but Ecumenicalism and EU share a lot of the same traits.

I've never heard of Jan Karon..so I really can't comment on her without looking her up.


Mary why don't you ask God for clarity on 1 Peter 4:17?

Why does the Bible warn us so often about false teachers and about having sound doctrine?Sound doctrine is essential to our salvation and we must demand it and defend it at all costs.

When a person or group resorts to undermining the Scripture to attempt to make their doctrine work,what would you call that?

When a person or group has to add to scripture or take away from it for their doctrine to make sense.what would you call that?

If someone teaches that one might be saved in a different way than the Bible teaches,what would you call that?

We cannot support, uphold, condone, encourage, promote (by word of mouth or way of life) that which is false doctrine without becoming guilty ourselves.


1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.



The Bible also teaches that we are to try the spirits.How do you suppose we are to try the spirits?

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


I "try the spirits" by comparing what people claim with the known teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Bible.

John the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "a generation of Vipers" (snakes) (Matt. 3:7). Today, he would be accused of being unloving, unkind, and unchristian.

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them " (Eph. 5:11). Reprove means to censure, condemn, find fault, rebuke, and to refute.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

"Preach the word",what word? Any word that pops into our heads?

It doesn't say preach your own brand of philosophy.


It is right to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). It was once delivered and it has never been recalled for revision.