Destined for Heaven?

[Rathus]

Rathus, could you explain in your own words exactly what you believe the word "predestination" to mean. Does it cancel out our freedom to choose? Does it mean that no matter what certain people may believe or how they may live their lives, they will automatically be saved? Do you believe that the reverse is true -- that some are predestined for damnation? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. It's just that I don't personally believe in predestination (although I do believe in what I would call foreordination), so I'm just trying to get my head around the idea that God would have taken away certain people's freedom to choose for themselves, while allowing other people that right. Maybe I just don't understand the doctrine the way you do.

No problem Katzpur, I'd be happy to explain. First, I wanted to clarify that the word "predestined" is BIBLICAL because it is found within the Bible. I certainly hope we've established that fact and put that argument to rest. Next, I will say that predestination is not the same thing as foreordination or even foreknowledge.

God's foreknowledge is that God knows everything before it happens. He knows in advance what is going to happen to everyone, both good and evil, both Christian and non-Christian. The Bible talks about God's foreknowledge in many places (Ps. 139:1-6; Romans 8:29a). But God's foreknowledge and God's predestination are two different things.

Predestination was an act of God from eternity, before time began, by which God not only foreknew but actually chose some to be saved for all eternity (See Eph. 1:4-6). When God predestined us, He not only knew that we would be saved, He caused it to happen by His choice of us in Christ.

In the NT we learn that God chose us before we "chose" Him. Think of it this way, when does an infant "choose" his adoptive parents? Before or after the parent chooses the infant? I would apply this same logic to how God chose us. He chose us and adopted us before the foundation of the world was laid. That is predestination. Does this stop us from having our own free will? Not at all. Just because God chose to adopt us, does not stop us from making bad decisions. Think of the story of the prodigal son. The story is really about the Father who loved the son, in spite of the son's foolish choices.

I hope this post helps. In a way, Mormons are in a better position than most non-LDS Christians who don't believe in predestination. Why? Because Mormons already believe in a pre-mortal existence. Combine this belief with the belief in "free agency" and what do you have? What we have is a scenerio where we all made our "choices" in the pre-existence and we are living those "choices" today in mortality (whether we "know" it or not). Haven't you ever wondered why you are a "Mormon" and not a "Muslim" or a "Baptist"? Perhaps you are subconsciously making "choices" based on the choice you made in your premortal life. Who knows!

 

[Trimijopulos]

God's foreknowledge is that God knows everything before it happens. He knows in advance what is going to happen to everyone, both good and evil, both Christian and non-Christian. The Bible talks about God's foreknowledge in many places (Ps. 139:1-6; Romans 8:29a). But God's foreknowledge and God's predestination are two different things.

Dear friend, it is obvious that you’ve read the Bible more than I have but it sounds strange to me to use NT or the Psalms in order to ascertain the foreknowledge of the God.
I thought that to know God one had to read the Torah and according to Torah the God does not know what is going on at the present moment, how could he knew things in advance?

And the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. (Gen. 18:26)

If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

I will not do it for forty’s sake.

I will not do it if I find thirty there.

I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake.

I will not destroy it for ten’s sake!!

The Lord eventually destroyed the whole area without ever finding out how many righteous were in there because he never passed judgment.

What foreknowledge are you talking about?

 

[Rathus]

Dear friend, it is obvious that you’ve read the Bible more than I have but it sounds strange to me to use NT or the Psalms in order to ascertain the foreknowledge of the God.
I thought that to know God one had to read the Torah and according to Torah the God does not know what is going on at the present moment, how could he knew things in advance?

And the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. (Gen. 18:26)

If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

I will not do it for forty’s sake.

I will not do it if I find thirty there.

I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake.

I will not destroy it for ten’s sake!!

The Lord eventually destroyed the whole area without ever finding out how many righteous were in there because he never passed judgment.

What foreknowledge are you talking about?

I'm talking about God's Omniscience. You seem to be insinuating that God didn't know if there were any righteous people in Sodom. I refute that idea and say that God knew. But just because God knows something doesn't mean He can't ask us questions to help us come to a correct understanding. Sometimes, it's easier for us to accept an answer if we arrive at that answer in our own minds.

 

[Trimijopulos]

I'm talking about God's Omniscience. You seem to be insinuating that God didn't know if there were any righteous people in Sodom. I refute that idea and say that God knew. But just because God knows something doesn't mean He can't ask us questions to help us come to a correct understanding. Sometimes, it's easier for us to accept an answer if we arrive at that answer in our own minds.

I regret to have to inform you that according to Torah the God is not omniscient. In the passages I cited he is not asking questions. He admits that he does not know.
He killed people without knowing, and without caring to find out, whether they deserved to be punished or not.
What is described in these passages is cold-blood murder.

Better stick with the words of your Greek speaking God. OT and especially the Torah was not written to be used by Christians.

 

[Rathus]

I regret to have to inform you that according to Torah the God is not omniscient. In the passages I cited he is not asking questions. He admits that he does not know.
He killed people without knowing, and without caring to find out, whether they deserved to be punished or not.
What is described in these passages is cold-blood murder.

Better stick with the words of your Greek speaking God. OT and especially the Torah was not written to be used by Christians.

God "admits" no such thing. Apparently, you don't know what the word "if" means.

 

[javajo]

What we have is a scenerio where we all made our "choices" in the pre-existence and we are living those "choices" today in mortality (whether we "know" it or not). Haven't you ever wondered why you are a "Mormon" and not a "Muslim" or a "Baptist"? Perhaps you are subconsciously making "choices" based on the choice you made in your premortal life. Who knows!

From the little I've read of your posts you seem alright (I think), but this is psycho talk my brother! First, only Jesus has seen God, we were not 'spirits' and did not see God. Second, we were created and became living souls at conception because It does not say God formed Adam and a spirit descended into him, but rather God breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living soul. This same life is passed to us at conception. Third we did not make our decision for Christ, that is to trust Christ to have paid our sin-debt and given us his righteousness in some imaginary pre-existence, rather we chose to trust Christ in this life at some specific point in time and were freely and forever saved to the uttermost.

This is where predestination comes in. Yes, God foreknew who would trust Christ and those he foreknew, the Bible says he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. He also called, justified and glorified us. In other words, While God knows who will trust him, he does not want anyone to perish and does offer the free gift to "whosoever", "for God so loved the world". All who call on him he will save. Some choose to reject him and he knows who they are. Now, since he knew who would call on him, he predestined to become like Christ and also glorified, justified and called us. That just means that if one has trusted Christ, God, who did the saving, will do the keeping and has promised to do so in many passages including Romans 8 where this teaching is found.

That is why he goes on to ask who can condemn us in light of these things and because Christ died for us, paid the penalty of our sin, declared us justified and forgiven and gave us his righteousness and is forever making intercession for us. He also asks who or what can separate us from his love and says nothing in all the universe from Heaven to Hell and in between and if there is any other creature or thing or power or whatever, nothing can separate us from him, ever. That is why he said he is greater than all and nothing and no one can take us out of his hand, including ourselves.

So to be predestined is to be eternally secure from the moment you first believed. God did the saving and God did and does the keeping, to God be the glory!

 

[Katzpur]

From the little I've read of your posts you seem alright (I think), but this is psycho talk my brother!

Rathus was referring to Mormon doctrine here, javajo. I'm sure he thinks it's as much "psycho talk" as you do.

For right now (since, as I explained in another response to you on another thread, I am not up to writing anything very lengthy), I'd just like to ask you a question. Can you think of a single, solitary way in which it would be possible to "return" to someplace you'd never been before or to someone you'd never been with before?

I'm wondering if it would make any difference at all to how you viewed the idea of our living with God prior to coming to earth if you knew that this was, in fact, a commonly accepted belief among early Christians. I'm also wondering why you are so turned off by the idea that we once lived with God. To me, it's a beautiful idea, even if it's not spelled out in detail in the scriptures.

 

[javajo]

Rathus was referring to Mormon doctrine here, javajo. I'm sure he thinks it's as much "psycho talk" as you do.

The psycho talk I was referring to was not so much Mormon doctrine as that he suggested we made our decision to trust Christ and be saved at some time before our life on earth. I believe the Bible teaches people trust Christ on a certain day when they hear the Gospel and believe it. It nowhere suggests we trusted him before we were born. It actually says before we trusted him we were children of wrath, darkness and of the Devil and the wrath of God abideth upon us. We are only adopted, note adopted, into God's family when we trusted Christ, before that we were children of the Devil, not God. That's why its called adoption.

For right now (since, as I explained in another response to you on another thread, I am not up to writing anything very lengthy), I'd just like to ask you a question. Can you think of a single, solitary way in which it would be possible to "return" to someplace you'd never been before or to someone you'd never been with before?

If you are referring to Ecclesiastes 12:7, Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. I believe it refers to the death of everyone and the "spirit" is actually the life God breathed into Adam and was hence passed down to all of us and so that life or breath will return to God who gave it. You may imply it means that we return as in our spirits and so we once lived with God, but that is not correct. The God's Word translation says, and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it, which helps one understand it correctly. If you want to build a doctrine on such a verse, be my guest, but I believe it is an errant understanding of the actual meaning.

I'm wondering if it would make any difference at all to how you viewed the idea of our living with God prior to coming to earth if you knew that this was, in fact, a commonly accepted belief among early Christians.

That some early Christians believed this does not make it correct as some early Christians were wrong on many things.

I'm also wondering why you are so turned off by the idea that we once lived with God. To me, it's a beautiful idea, even if it's not spelled out in detail in the scriptures.

It may be a beautiful idea but it does not fit with the clear teaching of scripture that before we trusted Christ we were under God's wrath and were sinners who had inherited a sinful nature and who did indeed sin and were not in God's family but were children of Satan and were only adopted into God's family after we trusted Christ. This idea that we are God's spirit children or offspring does not fly in the face of the clear teaching of scripture that we were children of wrath and darkness and under condemnation until being adopted into his family when we first believed. But that's just my belief from my study of the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

So you dont take the writings of Solomon as legitimate then?

They are not out of harmony with the rest of the bible....Gods word hasnt changed. The only thing that has changed is the teachings of man. The hebrews did not believe in life after death....they believed in resurrection after death.

Of course Solomon's writing is legitimate. However it reflects the wisdom of the times and not God's point of view. There are other instances of this. The people wanted a king but God's point of view was that He was a sufficient king for them.

I prefer to believe what God says when the Hebrews have a different view.

 

[Muffled]

You can believe whatever you wish. As for me and my family, we'll choose to believe what the bible teaches.

That would require a conversion on your part. The truth is that you believe what you wish to believe and ignore the parts of the Bible that teach something different.

Actually I wish to believe what God says.

 

[Muffled]

1. It is irrelevant whether Stephen mentioned the word or not. God inspired Luke to include the word "sleep". Therefore it must be taken into account when performing exegesis.

2. What need is there for a resurrection if all the spirits of those Christians who's bodies are dead and buried are already conscious, alive and well in heaven? They have to give up their heavenly existence (some for thousands of years) to come back to earth and be joined with a "different" immortal body??? Completely illogical.

What does make sense to me is that our current physcial body and human spirit are interdependent. One cannot function without the other. Similar to how a dvd player cannot properly function without a dvd. At the resurrection, God will bring together the "unconscious human spirit" the apostle James alludes to in 2:26, along with the Holy Spirit, and reunite them with the Christian's new immortal body.

3. Then this means works without faith is NOT dead or acceptable to God??? In this passage, James uses a comparative analogy to describe the state of the body without the spirit as being dead, just as faith without works is also dead. The words in a comparative analogy can be transposed without changing the analogy's meaning. So the verse could theoretically read: 'As the spirit without the body is dead so works without faith is also dead'. Think about it. If the spirit were alive without the body, then works without faith is also "alive" or acceptable to God which we know it is not the case. Let the bible interpret itself. Don't let others deceive you into believing a false concept.

4. It's not speculation. It is truth based on the evidence presented throughout scripture. Humans do not possess an immortal soul. This false idea was dreamed up by Pagan philosophers and adopted by mainstream Christianity.

1. That is illogical. You can't reverse what Stephen said by referring to something that Luke said. The serpent said that God was a liar. Do we then interpret all of scripture on that basis? God forbid.

2. You have a problem with your premise. One is your concept of living. The Bible considers "living" to be that which occurs in a body with a spirit ie a living soul. Heaven and spiritual existence don't provide that. All life in Heaven is fantasy life. For a real life one must be in a body. One does not have to wait thousands of years to receive a new body. It is called re-incarnation and most people participate in that rather than go anywhere else.

This is not how it works with God. When He is out of the body of Jesus, He is quite conscious and functioning. Also Jesus alludes to this in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar where each person is conscious after death.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried.
23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

This is absolutley false. You cant change the text without changing the meaning.

4. There is no evidence to support your claim.

 

[james2ko]

1. That is illogical. You can't reverse what Stephen said by referring to something that Luke said. The serpent said that God was a liar. Do we then interpret all of scripture on that basis? God forbid.

1. It's probably illogical due to the simple fact that Luke didn't say anything at all. He merely authored the words Stephen uttered in Acts 7:29.

2. You have a problem with your premise. One is your concept of living. The Bible considers "living" to be that which occurs in a body with a spirit ie a living soul. Heaven and spiritual existence don't provide that. All life in Heaven is fantasy life. For a real life one must be in a body. One does not have to wait thousands of years to receive a new body. It is called re-incarnation and most people participate in that rather than go anywhere else.

2. What you are in essence saying is that every dead person has an immortal, eternal, conscious spirit living in heaven. Is that correct?

This is not how it works with God. When He is out of the body of Jesus, He is quite conscious and functioning.

3. That in no way proves the human spirit alone, without the body, has consciousness. Scripture indicates neither the spirit or body have consciousness at death. Notice:

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten." The indication is there is no consciousness from either our spirit or body after death. A "living" individual needs both a body and a human spirit to be considered a living entity. You agreed to this relationship yourself in reply two above. Therefore, by utilizing other scriptures, we can conclude a dead individual's body and spirit has the opposite effect--the spirit and body are dead entities without each other. If one had consciousness without the other, it would render this verse a contradiction!

Also Jesus alludes to this in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar where each person is conscious after death.
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried. 23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

4. Of course they were conscious. This parable illustrates the great chasm and distinction between the two resurrections. Both Lazarus and the rich man were resurrected 1,000 years apart, according to other scriptures. Lazarus and Abraham to eternal life (Rev 20:6) at the first resurrection, and who is going to help Christ round up believers at His return? You guessed it--the angels! (Mat 24:31; Luk 16:22)

The rich man will be resurrected to physical life 1,000 years later (Rev 20:5). Notice how the rich man was in "hades" (the grave) and lifted up his eyes (was resurrected) and felt the heat of the flames. A spirit would not be subject to the pain of heat but human flesh would. The indication is he was resurrected back to physical life to be cast into the lake of fire--the second death--to be erased from existence, as evidenced in Rev 20:12-15.

This is absolutley false. You cant change the text without changing the meaning.

5. It doesn't change the meaning one bit. It actually increases the understanding about the body-spirit relationship for those looking for truth. In James 2:14-22, James illustrates how works without faith is just as dead as faith without works, thus confirming the validity of his comparative analogy in James 2:26!--The human spirit without the body is just as dead as the body without the human spirit, as faith without works is just as dead as works without faith! It's right there in black and white.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

6. There's plenty of evidence for those who dare lift the veil of mainstream christianity's massive deception!

 

[Muffled]

1. It's probably illogical due to the simple fact that Luke didn't say anything at all. He merely authored the words Stephen uttered in Acts 7:29.

2. What you are in essence saying is that every dead person has an immortal, eternal, conscious spirit living in heaven. Is that correct?

3. That in no way proves the human spirit alone, without the body, has consciousness. Scripture indicates neither the spirit or body have consciousness at death. Notice:

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten." The indication is there is no consciousness from either our spirit or body after death. A "living" individual needs both a body and a human spirit to be considered a living entity. You agreed to this relationship yourself in reply two above. Therefore, by utilizing other scriptures, we can conclude a dead individual's body and spirit has the opposite effect--the spirit and body are dead entities without each other. If one had consciousness without the other, it would render this verse a contradiction!

4. Of course they were conscious. This parable illustrates the great chasm and distinction between the two resurrections. Both Lazarus and the rich man were resurrected 1,000 years apart, according to other scriptures. Lazarus and Abraham to eternal life (Rev 20:6) at the first resurrection, and who is going to help Christ round up believers at His return? You guessed it--the angels! (Mat 24:31; Luk 16:22)

The rich man will be resurrected to physical life 1,000 years later (Rev 20:5). Notice how the rich man was in "hades" (the grave) and lifted up his eyes (was resurrected) and felt the heat of the flames. A spirit would not be subject to the pain of heat but human flesh would. The indication is he was resurrected back to physical life to be cast into the lake of fire--the second death--to be erased from existence, as evidenced in Rev 20:12-15.

5. It doesn't change the meaning one bit. It actually increases the understanding about the body-spirit relationship for those looking for truth. In James 2:14-22, James illustrates how works without faith is just as dead as faith without works, thus confirming the validity of his comparative analogy in James 2:26!--The human spirit without the body is just as dead as the body without the human spirit, as faith without works is just as dead as works without faith! It's right there in black and white.

6. There's plenty of evidence for those who dare lift the veil of mainstream christianity's massive deception!

1. I couldn't find your Luke reference but it still would not be relevant because Stephen spoke the words in Acts 7:59. Proper exegesis doesn't mean that you can change words around to suit yourself simply by using another scripture to do it.

2. No. I am not saying that. I am saying that a spirit will go where it expects to go. Those in the OT who believed in sleep, slept in the grave. Those in the NT who believe in going to Heaven go to Heaven as long as God allows them. Those troubled spirits who believe in an after life but do not believe they can go to Heaven because of thier sin, stay as ghosts until such time that God allows them back into a body.

3. No. It doesn't prove it. It only intimates it by the fact that both the human spirit and the Spirit of God share characteristics.

There is no such reference. Ecclesiastes is referring to the observable dead body, ie it knows nothing. It is not referring to the spirit. It is not a contradiction because the verse says nothing about the spirit.

4. There is no direct mention of resurrection in this parable. That is speculation on your part. However since I believe people do not go into Hell until the end of the world, it would be resonable to think that Lazarus and Abraham were resurrected at that time. However the body of the rich man would have been consumed by the fire and all that is left in the fire is his spirit which is conscious.

There is no evidence that anyone escapes the fires of Hell. My belief is that the second resurrection is that of those who have come to belief during their lives in the millenium.

The fantasy of feeling heat can seem very real even though the physical reality is not present. There is no evidence in scripture of a phycical presence in Hell.
I have seen no Biblical evidence suggesting that people are resurrected to be thown into Hell.

5. However James does not make the sme allusion to the body/spirit relationship.

6. I am sorry to disillusion you but I do not follow teaching. I rely on the Holy Spirit to help me understand scripture. It is my experience that some sects do promote their own beliefs but I do not feel obliged to follow their errors. My experience is though, that many others do follow the teaching of their sect without ever questioning the validity of it.

 

[james2ko]

1. I couldn't find your Luke reference but it still would not be relevant because Stephen spoke the words in Acts 7:59. Proper exegesis doesn't mean that you can change words around to suit yourself simply by using another scripture to do it.

1. I simply quoted two verses that have relevance (Act 7:59-60) . If anyone is changing anything, it is you. You accused me of saying Luke spoke the words in Act 7:59-60 when He simply just authored them. How can we possibly take your exegesis serious, if you dont even know who authored the material you are discussing?

2. No. I am not saying that. I am saying that a spirit will go where it expects to go.

2. So then what are you saying? If the spirit has to make a decision of where its expecting to go, then it is engaged in conscious thought, right?

Those in the OT who believed in sleep, slept in the grave.

Ecc 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.
​

2a. Not so, my friend. Everyone's spirit, even those in the OT, goes to heaven. But there is no indication anywhere in scripture these human spirits are conscious.

Those in the NT who believe in going to Heaven go to Heaven as long as God allows them.

3. What happens to the Christians who do not believe in going to heaven but believe and worship God. Will God allow them in?

Those troubled spirits who believe in an after life but do not believe they can go to Heaven because of thier sin, stay as ghosts until such time that God allows them back into a body.

4. And your references for this bizarre belief?

3. No. It doesn't prove it. It only intimates it by the fact that both the human spirit and the Spirit of God share characteristics.

5. Spirit of God is no where mentioned in Ecc 9:5.

There is no such reference. Ecclesiastes is referring to the observable dead body, ie it knows nothing. It is not referring to the spirit. It is not a contradiction because the verse says nothing about the spirit.

6. If the body and spirit need each other to create a living soul, as you suggested earlier, then the spirit also knows nothing, right? It's like saying a dvd is functional (conscious) outside the dvd player. They are interdependent. The two combined create functionality. Separate them and all you have is a non functioning shell and recording, like James 2:26 suggests!

There is no direct mention of resurrection in this parable. That is speculation on your part.

7. You have to place line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little (Isa 28:10) to get an accurate interpretation. As the scriptures point out, at the first resurrection, the angels gather up the elect, which is precisely what the parable suggests happened to Lazarus. You call it speculation, I call it rightly dividing the word of God.

However since I believe people do not go into Hell until the end of the world, it would be resonable to think that Lazarus and Abraham were resurrected at that time.

8. Do you believe Lazarus' and Abraham's spirits are conscious in heaven and aware of what's going on down here on earth?

However the body of the rich man would have been consumed by the fire and all that is left in the fire is his spirit which is conscious.

9. Not so sure about that:

Mat_10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. ​

Based on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man and this passage, both body and spirit are destroyed together in the Lake of Fire.

My belief is that the second resurrection is that of those who have come to belief during their lives in the millenium.

10. But what about:

Rev 20:5-6 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
​

This has to refer to everyone who ever lived, between Adam and the first resurrection, who did not get a fair opportunity to know the only name under heaven by which they could be saved (Act 4:12).

There is no evidence that anyone escapes the fires of Hell.

11. I'm not implying He escaped. After His first death, He was raised up to physical life after "...the thousand years are finished..." (Rev 20:5) and cast into the lake of fire to experience the second death (Rev 20:13-15).

The fantasy of feeling heat can seem very real even though the physical reality is not present.

12. Any biblical evidence for this or is it more speculation?

There is no evidence in scripture of a phycical presence in Hell.

13. Really?

Mal 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch. Mal 4:3 You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this," Says the LORD of hosts.​

Perhaps you can explain how the wicked turned into ashes?

I have seen no Biblical evidence suggesting that people are resurrected to be thown into Hell.

Rev 20:13-15 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire. ​

14. The clear indication is that this is a resurrection

However James does not make the sme allusion to the body/spirit relationship.

15. He made it very apparent throughout the context of the chapter.

6. I am sorry to disillusion you but I do not follow teaching. I rely on the Holy Spirit to help me understand scripture. It is my experience that some sects do promote their own beliefs but I do not feel obliged to follow their errors. My experience is though, that many others do follow the teaching of their sect without ever questioning the validity of it.

16. The feeling is certainly mutual. Hey, there's one thing we can agree on

 

[Muffled]

1. I simply quoted two verses that have relevance (Act 7:59-60) . If anyone is changing anything, it is you. You accused me of saying Luke spoke the words in Act 7:59-60 when He simply just authored them. How can we possibly take your exegesis serious, if you dont even know who authored the material you are discussing?

2. So then what are you saying? If the spirit has to make a decision of where its expecting to go, then it is engaged in conscious thought, right?

Ecc 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.
​

2a. Not so, my friend. Everyone's spirit, even those in the OT, goes to heaven. But there is no indication anywhere in scripture these human spirits are conscious.

3. What happens to the Christians who do not believe in going to heaven but believe and worship God. Will God allow them in?

4. And your references for this bizarre belief?

5. Spirit of God is no where mentioned in Ecc 9:5.

6. If the body and spirit need each other to create a living soul, as you suggested earlier, then the spirit also knows nothing, right? It's like saying a dvd is functional (conscious) outside the dvd player. They are interdependent. The two combined create functionality. Separate them and all you have is a non functioning shell and recording, like James 2:26 suggests!

7. You have to place line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little (Isa 28:10) to get an accurate interpretation. As the scriptures point out, at the first resurrection, the angels gather up the elect, which is precisely what the parable suggests happened to Lazarus. You call it speculation, I call it rightly dividing the word of God.

8. Do you believe Lazarus' and Abraham's spirits are conscious in heaven and aware of what's going on down here on earth?

9. Not so sure about that:

Mat_10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
​

Based on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man and this passage, both body and spirit are destroyed together in the Lake of Fire.

10. But what about:

Rev 20:5-6 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
​

This has to refer to everyone who ever lived, between Adam and the first resurrection, who did not get a fair opportunity to know the only name under heaven by which they could be saved (Act 4:12).

11. I'm not implying He escaped. After His first death, He was raised up to physical life after "...the thousand years are finished..." (Rev 20:5) and cast into the lake of fire to experience the second death (Rev 20:13-15).

12. Any biblical evidence for this or is it more speculation?

13. Really?

Mal 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch. Mal 4:3 You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this," Says the LORD of hosts.
​

Perhaps you can explain how the wicked turned into ashes?

Rev 20:13-15 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.
​

14. The clear indication is that this is a resurrection

15. He made it very apparent throughout the context of the chapter.

16. The feeling is certainly mutual. Hey, there's one thing we can agree on

1. You have dodged the issue. It is not unreasonable to say that Luke says something that was actually spoken by someone else. I did not actually say that Luke spoke the words but in writing he is saying what Stephen spoke. So if you can misinterpret what I said so easily then how reliable is your exegesis?

2. No. I am saying that a person who believe before they die that he will sleep after death will indeed sleep bu a person who believes that he will be conscious after death will be conscious.

2. a. The text says that a spirit returns to God, not Heaven. Although God is most often thought of as bing in Heaven, the fact is that He is everywhere else as well and the scripture does not say where the spirit is going.

We have already seen that Jesus indicates consciusness in the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, so I don't see how you can make this statement.

3. God will always do what He thinks is best for a person. If He thinks it is necessary for a person to be in Heaven, He will have the person in Heaven.

4. A belief in ghosts is common not bizarre.

Lu 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.

5. No but you were not referring to Ecc but to Gen where the spirit is breathed into a body to make it a living soul. Where did the life come from? evidently the body did not have life. It makes sense then to believe that the spirit carried life with it with which it enlivened the body.

6. No, it is not like that. There is no evidence to support that concept. It is like wood that doesn't catch fire until a match ignites the wood.

7. I am all for rightly dividing the word of God. So now do that by showing where the parable suggests what you say it does.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried.
23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

It says they both died but that Lazarus was carried away by angels while the rich man went into the grave. There is no particular time setting but the reference to Hades as a place of flame only occurs in scripture at the end of the world when the earth (and its graves) is swallowed up in flame. However it is not showing Lazarus as having been already resurrected although that would be possible considering the time frame. However the fires of Hell would have consumed the body of the rich man only leaving a conscius spirit.

8. I think the ppoint is moot. I know that I was conscious in Heaven and my wife also who I met there.

9. The parable says that God is capable of doing that not that He actually does it.

10. You have a reference problem. "The rest of the dead" are not in the first resurrection. The reference is back to those in verse 4.

It is speculation on your part that those who predate Jesus did not get a chance to make Jesus their savior. I believe that re-incarnation gave them that opportunity.

11. THose who went into the grave were resurrected not those who were in Hell.

12. I don't know of any references except the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. This is my memory of my personal experience in Heaven. This is also partially based on what Jesus has revealed to me about Heaven that there is nothing material there.


13. Not all the wicked are swallowed into Hell. Some are cast into outer space some just have there bodies left on erath as ashes. Some survive the holocaust.

14. There is no indication. Point it out if you think you can. BTW a giving up is not a resurrection.

15. If you can't back up what you say don't waste your breath saying it.

16.However even though I don't hold to teaching, I also do not believe that there is a mainstream deception. No doubt there are commonly held errors but not because those biblical students know the truth and are trying to deceive others into buying a lie. They simply believe their false doctrine is true as I am sure that is the case with you also. I do not detect any deceptive practice in what you write.

 

[Super Universe]

Is anyone destined for Heaven?

Joh 3:13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.

Does this mean that no one has ever gone to Heaven or is Jesus talking about something else?

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.

Is this the reference that Jesus was making?

Acts 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Is this the ascension that Jesus was talking about?

John 3:13 What this means is this, before Jesus all souls went into a sort of sleep. None could enter heaven because the doorway was closed. Jesus had to fulfill His bestowal mission before He could assume His place over the universe. Jesus had to experience life as a human before He could judge who was going to be allowed through the doorway.

If you were God and allowed anything to happen in your universe you would want someone you really trusted minding the doorway to your abode before you unlocked it.

John 20:17 Jesus was just resurrected and formed a body from energy. He no longer had a three dimensional, material universe body.

Acts 1:9 Jesus ascended. I'm not sure what ascension you say Jesus was talking about.

There are two types of beings in the universe ascending and descending. Ascending beings are biological, they get a soul and life a life, moving upwards through the dimensions learning how God's universe really works. Descending beings are like Jesus, they come from heaven endowed with God given authority, abilities, and great responsibility.

 

[james2ko]

It is not unreasonable to say that Luke says something that was actually spoken by someone else.

1. No but then we enter the realm of speculation.

You have dodged the issue. I did not actually say that Luke spoke the words but in writing he is saying what Stephen spoke. So if you can misinterpret what I said so easily then how reliable is your exegesis?

2. Dodge what issue? I didn't realize there was an issue to dodge. This is precisely what you said:

"That is illogical. You can't reverse what Stephen said by referring to something that Luke said. The serpent said that God was a liar. Do we then interpret all of scripture on that basis? God forbid."http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2762669-post71.html​

So apparently you thought Luke said something which He didn't. As I stated in my follow up rebuttal, Luke didn't say anything but merely authored what Stephen said.

2. No. I am saying that a person who believe before they die that he will sleep after death will indeed sleep bu a person who believes that he will be conscious after death will be conscious.

3. Once again scripture refutes your conclusion:

Ecc 8:8 No one has power over the spirit to retain the spirit, And no one has power in the day of death. There is no release from that war, And wickedness will not deliver those who are given to it.​

No one has power over their own spirit much less decide its fate after death.

God will always do what He thinks is best for a person. If He thinks it is necessary for a person to be in Heaven, He will have the person in Heaven.

"....I am saying that a spirit will go where it expects to go..."

4. Based on these two statements, you've managed to dig yourself into a contradiction. Who decides a person's fate. God or the person? It can't be both.

We have already seen that Jesus indicates consciusness in the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, so I don't see how you can make this statement.

5. And we've already proven how this consciousness was "AFTER" the resurrection when the angels would gather up the elect, as indicated in the parable and not immediately after death. Furthermore, what is Abraham doing "awake"shouldn't he be asleep? Didn't you say: "Those in the OT who believed in sleep, slept in the grave. Those in the NT who believe in going to Heaven go to Heaven."

2. a. The text says that a spirit returns to God, not Heaven. Although God is most often thought of as bing in Heaven, the fact is that He is everywhere else as well and the scripture does not say where the spirit is going.

6. God is omnipresent but if scriptures readily defines His primary residence as heaven, then the only logical conclusion is the spirits return to Him where He dwells.

4. A belief in ghosts is common not bizarre. Lu 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.

Those troubled spirits who believe in an after life but do not believe they can go to Heaven because of thier sin, stay as ghosts until such time that God allows them back into a body.

7. Based on these statements and the accompanying passage, you're implying Christ was a troubled spirit whom God allowed back into a body! Do you see how your false premises clash?

No, it is not like that. There is no evidence to support that concept. It is like wood that doesn't catch fire until a match ignites the wood.

8. There absolutely is evidence you just choose to ignore the simple truth. James chapter 2 in particular verse 26 is the key.

I am all for rightly dividing the word of God. So now do that by showing where the parable suggests what you say it does.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried.
23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

9. When will the angels carry away the righteous? At the resurrection-- not immediately after death! (Mat 24:31; Mk 13:27).

It says they both died but that Lazarus was carried away by angels while the rich man went into the grave. There is no particular time setting but the reference to Hades as a place of flame only occurs in scripture at the end of the world when the earth (and its graves) is swallowed up in flame. However it is not showing Lazarus as having been already resurrected although that would be possible considering the time frame.However the fires of Hell would have consumed the body of the rich man only leaving a conscius spirit.

10. You have to look elsewhere in scripture for the answer(Isa 28:10,13) And it happens to be in the book many Christians ignore or do not fully understand--Revelation.

I think the point is moot. I know that I was conscious in Heaven and my wife also who I met there.

11. Please do not dodge the question. Are Abraham and Lazarus conscious in heaven and aware of the happenings here on earth?

The parable says that God is capable of doing that not that He actually does it.

12. It's illogical for God to mention something He has no intention of carrying out.

You have a reference problem. "The rest of the dead" are not in the first resurrection. The reference is back to those in verse 4.

13. The proper name for it is parenthetical statement and you're right the rest of the dead are not in the first resurrection and it does refer back to verse 4.

It is speculation on your part that those who predate Jesus did not get a chance to make Jesus their savior. I believe that re-incarnation gave them that opportunity.

14. The difference is my argument can be logically deduced from the scriptures your re-incarnation scenario cannot.

Those who went into the grave were resurrected not those who were in Hell.

15. Depends which Greek word for hell is used in the context. There are three- Hades=grave. Gehenna=lake of fire. Tartaroo-prison for evil spirits. The Greek word used for the place where the rich man opened his eyes was "hades"- the grave. Indicating a physical resurrection. The rich man is part of the "small and great" in Rev 20:12.

I don't know of any references except the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. This is my memory of my personal experience in Heaven. This is also partially based on what Jesus has revealed to me about Heaven that there is nothing material there.

16. As I stated earlier in the thread: Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want with this passage but to me it is crystal clear.

Not all the wicked are swallowed into Hell. Some are cast into outer space some just have there bodies left on erath as ashes. Some survive the holocaust.

17. That wasn't the premise of this aspect of the argument. You said: "There is no evidence in scripture of a phycical presence in Hell." When your statement was refuted with a passage and questioned how did the wicked turn into ashes, you backtracked with the statement above.

There is no indication. Point it out if you think you can. If you can't back up what you say don't waste your breath saying it.

18. What John saw in Rev 20:12 were physically resurrected humans, small and great, standing before the great white throne to be judged. It's no wonder he said: Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice Joh_5:28. Rev 20:11-15 describes this very period. Among the resurrected were the men of nineveh and of Jesus' generation (Mat 12:41), the queen of the south (Mat 12:42), the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mar 6:11), the men of tyre and sidon (luk 10:14). The indication is that people from different time periods ranging thousands of years will be resurrected together and there's no reason not to believe it will also be the rest of those who lived and died from Adam to Christ's return to be judged according to their works during the judgment period.

BTW a giving up is not a resurrection.

19. Is this a mental somersault?

However even though I don't hold to teaching, I also do not believe that there is a mainstream deception. No doubt there are commonly held errors but not because those biblical students know the truth and are trying to deceive others into buying a lie. They simply believe their false doctrine is true as I am sure that is the case with you also. I do not detect any deceptive practice in what you write.

20. That's because i'm telling the truth and it cannot be refuted. It can only be ignored and denied, which, unfortunately is what you are doing.

 

[Muffled]

John 3:13 What this means is this, before Jesus all souls went into a sort of sleep. None could enter heaven because the doorway was closed. Jesus had to fulfill His bestowal mission before He could assume His place over the universe. Jesus had to experience life as a human before He could judge who was going to be allowed through the doorway.

If you were God and allowed anything to happen in your universe you would want someone you really trusted minding the doorway to your abode before you unlocked it.

John 20:17 Jesus was just resurrected and formed a body from energy. He no longer had a three dimensional, material universe body.

Acts 1:9 Jesus ascended. I'm not sure what ascension you say Jesus was talking about.

There are two types of beings in the universe ascending and descending. Ascending beings are biological, they get a soul and life a life, moving upwards through the dimensions learning how God's universe really works. Descending beings are like Jesus, they come from heaven endowed with God given authority, abilities, and great responsibility.

There is no evidence to support this. Jews believed in sleep but Hindus did not.

Just because Jesus is a door does not imply that there is an actual physical door to Heaven. I didn't have to pass through Jesus body to get there. There are no doors in a physical sense. A spirit may go where it wishes unless God preempts it. The symbolism of the door simply means that Jesus can get you to Heaven.

Jesus as God has always been over the universe. The ascendancy of the name, Jesus comes with the desire by God to be our king.

Jesus never explicitly stated this. Obviously believing in Jesus as the door works much better than not believing.

This is conjecture and from scripture most likely untrue.

This is not the ascension that Jesus is talking about.

This is conjecture. No one is like Jesus because He is God in the flesh.

 

[Muffled]

1. No but then we enter the realm of speculation.

2. Dodge what issue? I didn't realize there was an issue to dodge. This is precisely what you said:

"That is illogical. You can't reverse what Stephen said by referring to something that Luke said. The serpent said that God was a liar. Do we then interpret all of scripture on that basis? God forbid."http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2762669-post71.html
​

So apparently you thought Luke said something which He didn't. As I stated in my follow up rebuttal, Luke didn't say anything but merely authored what Stephen said.
.

1. That is not speculation, it is how things are viewed.

2. No you had provide a separate scripture from Luke that was not a direct quote of Stephen as though it had some relevance to what Stephen said but it doesn't.

3. True it will be one or the other but both options are available. God will decide if He wants to intervene or not. If God tells me to do something, I have to do it because he is my Lord but if my time is available I can choose to do what I want.

I will try to get to the othe rpoints later.

 

[Muffled]

From the little I've read of your posts you seem alright (I think), but this is psycho talk my brother! First, only Jesus has seen God, we were not 'spirits' and did not see God. Second, we were created and became living souls at conception because It does not say God formed Adam and a spirit descended into him, but rather God breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living soul. This same life is passed to us at conception. Third we did not make our decision for Christ, that is to trust Christ to have paid our sin-debt and given us his righteousness in some imaginary pre-existence, rather we chose to trust Christ in this life at some specific point in time and were freely and forever saved to the uttermost.

This is where predestination comes in. Yes, God foreknew who would trust Christ and those he foreknew, the Bible says he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. He also called, justified and glorified us. In other words, While God knows who will trust him, he does not want anyone to perish and does offer the free gift to "whosoever", "for God so loved the world". All who call on him he will save. Some choose to reject him and he knows who they are. Now, since he knew who would call on him, he predestined to become like Christ and also glorified, justified and called us. That just means that if one has trusted Christ, God, who did the saving, will do the keeping and has promised to do so in many passages including Romans 8 where this teaching is found.

That is why he goes on to ask who can condemn us in light of these things and because Christ died for us, paid the penalty of our sin, declared us justified and forgiven and gave us his righteousness and is forever making intercession for us. He also asks who or what can separate us from his love and says nothing in all the universe from Heaven to Hell and in between and if there is any other creature or thing or power or whatever, nothing can separate us from him, ever. That is why he said he is greater than all and nothing and no one can take us out of his hand, including ourselves.

So to be predestined is to be eternally secure from the moment you first believed. God did the saving and God did and does the keeping, to God be the glory!

The only place that says a living soul is created is in Genesis referring to Adam.
Even there it does not say that the spirit is created only that it is breathed in.

Speak for yourself. I most certainly had a predisposition for God that my brothers lacked.