Jan's Question

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

[NOTE FROM THE LISTOWNER: I've already sent private email to Jan,
indicating the H-F list is for Oneness Pentecostals, and explaining
*THE* defining characteristic of us is our belief that the "Bible
standard of salvation" is repentance, water baptism in the name of
Jesus Christ, and receiving the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking
in other tongues.  I'm allowing this post he sent, and I will allow
him one rebuttal.  I did make clear to him that this list is not the
proper forum for discussion of his universalist soteriology.  I do
urge you to ignore his inflammatory digs about "nazis." -Richard]

--

Hi Murph,

> Jan, the gentiles in Thessolonikos who were told that message on 
> "eternal destruction" in the Apostles own words had nothign to do 
> with the Jews in Jerusalem who were crucified. You outright deny the 
> words in the books?

Where? I only find these words in 2Th 1:9, where Paul says that those 
who brought suffering to the Christians, would be punished. Who 
persecuted the Christians? At this stage it was the Jews. Just read 
Acts 17. It would not make sense for Paul to comfort the Thessalonicans 
if the persecution would be brought to an end some two thousand years 
later. It would only make sense if Paul promised that at the "parousia" 
this persecution would end, and this "parousia" was indeed imminent.

As for "eternal," we know that some who suffered "eternal" punishment, 
were nevertheless prophecied by Christ to receive resurrection (comp. 
Jude 7 with Mt 10:15). I leave this to you as an exercise :-)

> You sound like a scoffing Greek from the Areopagus who didn't "like" 
> the Gospel.

I like the "good news" of our Lord. The bad news of yours I'm not so 
fond of. :-)

> Since the JW's brainwash their sheep with all these lies about the 
> "anointed class" you have never been born from above and can't see 
> these things.

You are very wrong. If I was not, I would not have left the JWs and 
become a Christian. Insinuating that others hold different opinions 
because of "lack of spirit" is just the immature christian's ad 
hominem.

> Christianity is fellowship with God and his righteousness in the Holy
> Ghost, not creeds and liturgies. 

Well, *I* agree. I just didn't thought you did :-)

> No, Jan, that's not the idea at all. How's about, Jesus gave his life 
> a ransom for EVERY person who ever lived, but some people are so 
> whitewashed and self-righteous, that despite obvious sin they 
> continue to sin instead of obey the Gospel which can save them. (Acts 
> 2:38). Do you remember the parable of the sower?

All right. But trouble is that acceptance of Christ to a very small 
degree depends on your rightousness. It depends on where you are born. 
God must have a remarkable preference for Europeans and Americans, and 
not caring one whim about most Africans and Asians, which are the 
majority of the world's population.

Besides, self-rightousness may be evenly distributed among mankind, but 
if it isn't you are likely to find the greatest concentration among 
many christians who are able to recreate the example of the pharisees 
with remarkable accuracy. 

  "Truly I say you, they are making their hairs long and their shirts 
  white," our Lord would have said today.

The parable of the sower applies, like other eschatological parables, 
to the pre-parousia period from Christ to 70AD.

I have often called the JWs worse than nazis for proclaiming that 99.9% 
of all humans will be slaughtered by God (some JW books even go to much 
detail about how they will die). Compared to the "Armageddon" the JWs 
anticipate for all non-JWs the thing with Adolf and the gas chambers 
was a minor incident. Most people will see how abhorrent this view is. 
But if you say that God will not kill 99.9% but "only" 90%, 80%, 
perhaps only 50%, does that make you much better? We are talking about 
genocide.

> >You are making God very small if he's unable to save all men. And 
> >you are making hum cruel if you say he is unwilling to save all men.
>   
> "God commandeth men everywhere to repent: it is his will that none 
> hould perish, but that all should COME to repentance."

And? Do you mean that God is unable to have his WILL?

> People have to OBEY which means MAKE AN EFFORT Jan! 

"Effort" as in "salvation by WORKS"? Oh my...

>                                                     But the price of
> admission has been paid on the cross, it is up the the individual 
> heart to accept the call.

This is where you are wrong. God is the one who comes to save.

Let me repeat a key scripture:

  1Tim 4:10 "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our 
  hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially 
  of those who believe."

Please explain it. God is a saviour of all men. If God is your saviour, 
this is because you are saved. God is *not* saviour of you if he wants 
to save yet does not. He is *not* your saviour in that case, no matter 
how often you or other claim he is.

Note how Paul has two groups being saved by God:

1)   all men, 

     Pretty self-evident. All is all.

2)   especially of those who believe.

     This is the interesting part. The word "especially" means that 
     "those who believe" are not the only ones to be saved. The others
     will be saved, but through fire (Jews did believe in a
     purgatory, btw, the Catholics didn't take this out of thin air).
     Anyway, "those who believe" is a subset of "all men." So any
     interpretation that says that only the believers will be saved
     is a direct contradiction of the words of Paul.

> >Come'on, Murph. Try to *think*. If your interpretation was correct, 
> >that would mean that the day of the Lord *can never come*. Never.
> 
> No, because the New Testament, like the Torah, will not always be in
> effect.

It is self-evident that these expressions will not be relevant anymore 
when the Lord came (or comes, as you will say). You can't use this as 
an argument. Paul said *then* that the day had not come. You cannot 
apply that now as evidence that he did not come.

> It's not random. I honestly see this "end of the age" prophecies of 
> the general resurrection of the dead to be literal and precede the 
> resurrection of the living at the coming of Jesus from heaven where 
> he awaits to command to go forth subduing his enemies--like Hades and 
> Death.

Of course. Resurrection to where? Heaven, of course! Death *is* gone. 
Once you die, you are changed immediately and meet the Lord in the sky.

> Last time I was at the funeral parlor, the stiffs were still stiff.

Right. But the person wasn't inhabiting the stiffs, if Paul and Crist 
is right. 

> >You'll be waiting, and waiting, and waiting...
> 
> But the day will come. I am in heaven already which I am in God's 
> presence in the Spirit. I will be on earth when resurrected in the 
> regeneration of things in the flesh. Pollos said "we ARE seated in 
> heavenly places" with Christ, not we WILL be. that is the union of 
> the Spirit he spoke about!

So you are expecting to "Live forever in paradise on earth" as the JWs 
put it?

One of my first realizations was that the JWs were dead wrong here. The 
NT is definately proclaiming eternal life in heaven. Nowhere else.

> >When is it time to stop making christianity a mockery to all the 
> >world? Christ said he would come *soon*. When is "soon" over? 3000 
> >years? 4000 years?
> 
> Let them scoff and say, "where is the promise of his coming, for 
> since the fathers fell asleep all things are the same from the 
> beginning of creation."

You sidestep the point. God said he would come "SOON". Was he just 
playing games with Bible readers ("nyah nyah nyah; I forgot to tell 
that small print says 'soon' can mean thousands of years" NOT!) ? If a 
simple word like that can be interpreted to mean something completely 
opposite, can't then any expression in the Bible likewise be 
interpreted to mean anything, including the opposite? If we can't trust 
the simplest and most plain statements in the Bible, can't we just give 
up interpreting it? (At this point people usually reply with some 
reference to interpretation through holy spirit. Too bad different 
people all claiming to have spirit can hardly agree on anything.)

> >  1Thess 4:16,17 "And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we 
> >  who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them 
> >  in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always 
> >  be with the  Lord."
> >
> >So, I ask you: Were Paul's expectations fulfilled or were they not?
> 
> Not YET. Obviously. 

Then you have to show me where Paul and the other people he titled "we" 
are today. He said *they* (ie the "we" in the text above) would be 
*ALIVE* when Christ came. You can't get around the plain words. OR you 
will have to say that Paul was wrong, as many modern Bible-critics say.

This was not an unimportant point to Paul, because he said exactly the 
same thing to the Corintheans:

  1Co 15:51,52 "Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but 
  we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at 
  the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be 
  raised imperishable, and we shall be changed."

Again Paul says: "WE shall not all sleep". This was a "mystery", so 
Paul indirectly stated he had a direct revelation on this promise. 
Again, like in 1Thess, Paul distinguishes between those who are dead 
(or who "sleep") and "we", including many of his readers and himself. 
At least some of those receiving these letters should NOT die, but 
would be "changed" and would meat the resurrected dead ones in the 
skies, and would meet Christ. Paul had good reason to beleive this, 
because Christ himself had many, many times promised that he would come 
back while some of the disciples were still living.


Cheers,
- Jan
-- 
          http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html