Does the Hell/ECT Doctrine Hold Up to Scrutiny...?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Raggedyman

I am sorry CJ I strongly disagree Constantine read the bible and murdered probably hundreds of thousands Catholics did, murdered Protestants did and hundreds of thousands Christianity has a large death toll and the bible existed.

2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You say that your faith is in Christ and not the bible.
Then tell us ---
Eph_2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Are you strong enough that you can sort the truth or do you lean upon those that gave their testimony that we may be taught?

I thank Jesus for men such as Chester John who can stand tall as the ceder and humble as the willow. Thank you Chester for giving me more understanding.

I am sorry, racca seems redundant

So you say that CJ is a great man, great great man, should be listened to. so what of the bible then, it’s crap and only CJ should be listened to? , ignore the bible?

I don’t follow the nonsense, I don’t comprehend how CJ is saying the bible only and you are saying CJ and ignoring the bible.
That’s just dumb on so many levels
Come on seeds, God gifted you a brain, engage it

My faith is in Jesus being perfect and doing a perfect work
I believe the bible points to Jesus and is good for instruction, I have no faith in the bible
I believe in the Holy Spirit to strengthen and guide me and
I believe in the wise words of fellow believers, those I count as wise and intelligent with a good logical reason

Sorry Seede, after those comments (please feel free to elaborate) I find myself leaving you out of those I choose to listen to

Ragman, you obviously read into seeds post something he did not say. I teach, I preach, I point people to Jesus and to the truth of the word of God, but I also always qualify by points with the Bible.

No man, not you, not I, not Disraeli or any other should be given preference over the Pure words of God as found in the KJV. When we look to men over God's word like the followers of Calvin we wold lead people to hell at worse, to a weak and beggarly life if saved at best.

Well what a hypocrite, if the bible is perfect let the bible do the teaching, you are redundant as I understand
I have no interest in the KJV and listening to you harp on and on and on, makes me dislike the kjv even more


Before the kjv, there were many Christians living christian lives and your bible wasn’t even yet pulped. You are delusional to think christianity hinges on your perfect translation, if they all were binned and burned tomorrow I don’t think anyone would notice or care outside of a few dramatic fundamentalists

I am not a Calvinist but I believe that they have grace as well as some Catholics, not for me to judge, though...

As you said, Gods word tells me but it doesn’t have to be the kjv, ever, sorry, we disagree

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Raggedyman

Raggedyman, I don't think you understand how contradictory and hypocritical your posts are.

Seede clearly stated scripture to back up their point while also stating that he/she listens to "MEN such as Chester", just like you choose to listen to others as well, since you've already stated that you don't understand a large chunk of the Bible and don't put your faith in it. At least Seede is using both to back up their argument.

Actually Dee, I have a pretty good understanding of the bible, my issue is kjv only, my issue is claiming it’s perfect, my issue is I don’t need the bible to be perfect in every word to have my faith in Jesus.

Also know that a book written 7000 to 1800 years ago about another culture in a different religion, it is far more difficult to understand than just reading the kjv

Seede and CJ are saying the bible must be perfect, I don’t agree.
I am not denying the bible, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, I don’t deny those words, what I am denying the kjv is perfect.
Where does the bible say it’s perfect?

Now, nowhere in the bible does it state I should place my faith in the bible, in fact the bible states I should place my faith in Jesus

So, why are you suggesting I should place my faith in the bible, that’s peculiar?

I don’t think you have a clue what you are saying and thinking in context

a reply to: Raggedyman

No one has ever suggested that the Bible is anything more than what Jesus said it was and if we want to know what's going to be fulfilled, we have to make ourselves familiar with it. For all of the people who claim that anyone is putting more faith in the Bible than they are in Jesus, they're just making excuses for their own lack of understanding of what's been written. Your communication skills tell me that it's not just the Bible you have trouble reading. You get defensive and contradict yourself too much.

a reply to: Deetermined

Hi Deetermined, I was wondering what your perspective is on The Book Of Enoch?

OTOH, could we not get too far off-topic?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Lazarus Short

I went to some effort to show you that I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and that I understand key words. All I get is "LOL" and admonishments. I won't play proof text ping pong with you.

If you understood key words, then you should have paid closer attention to some of the verses you posted that stated just the OPPOSITE of the picture you're trying to portray.

For example, in the parable of the wheat and tares, where does it say that the fire that burns them up "refines" them? It doesn't. They clearly show that some people won't be allowed into the "kingdom of God" and will be elsewhere and are the "children of the wicked one".

Matthew 13:36-43

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the RIGHTEOUS shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

One again, the Bible does not say that God/Jesus will refine "the children of the wicked one".

These verses show that there is a clear distinction between the children of God and the children of the wicked one.

As I mentioned from the book of Zechariah...

Zechariah 14:31

21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.

There are clearly PEOPLE who will be banished from the "house of the Lord" during the Millennial period and into the New Jerusalem.

You show me ONE verse where it says that all of the people who are thrown into the Lake of Fire for their unrighteousness will eventually be redeemed and allowed to enter into the House of the Lord or his kingdom.

There aren't.

Again, after a long reply from me, you still fail to understand that I understand.

In the case of the wheat and chaff and the wheat and tares, you assume the wheat are the righteous, and the chaff/tares are the unrighteous. I came to realize that the wheat and the chaff are parts of the SAME seed, only separated when threshed. The wheat/tare contrast is less marked, but you will find the key in First Corinthians 3, where works, NOT PERSONS are burned.

As for that one elusive verse, you are correct. God never said it outright in the Bible, but He did scatter some breadcrumbs, and my book, of which I have posted only one chapter here, picks up the breadcrumbs and assembles a non-Hell theology. It runs to over 240 pages. I can only guess that God did not want people to get the idea that they could do whatever, and still enter the Kingdom with no penalties. I do not teach such a thing.

a reply to: Deetermined

Fortunately Dee, not really concerned your opinion of me

In my opinion, you came into the discussion late, you seem lost, CJ and I have discussed this before

I believe the bible is a road map, imperfect in places, no matter the translation but; it is very good at its purpose, pointing individuals to Jesus
Unlike you, unlike CJ, I don’t need the bible to be perfect to accept Jesus as perfect

Unlike CJ I don’t rest my faith in Jesus on the bible being perfect

Interestingly one of the greatest and most respected New Testament theologians today, who has written hundreds of books and papers about the New Testament was a christian.
Was in past tense, he became an atheist, simply because he admitted to himself that the bible had many errors
Tell me Dee, if I proved the bible had errors, would you lose your faith?
Are you that shallow, I think CJ would lose his faith, see, some people need the bible to be perfect for Jesus to be perfect
I believe Jesus is perfect and everything else is flawed

a reply to: Raggedyman

You are once again mistaken I do not rest my faith on a perfect Bible. My faith is on the work of Christ on the cross as a sacrifice for my sin, paying the price of sin for me by dying on the cross and entering into hell which was my punishment. And rising from the dead the 3rd day to give me everlasting life by the grace of God not of works.

I believe my life of godliness is to be continued through faith as found in the Bible. I just believe God as he promised in Ps 12:6-7 preserved his words to this generation, as promised and it is found complete and whole in only one bible the KJV.

a reply to: Raggedyman

It is ok if you do not want the KJV, the only Bible with ALL the words of God in it. You will always be confused, unbelieving and worldly as a result.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Seede and CJ are saying the bible must be perfect, I don’t agree.

And that is your own personal understanding. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with your interpretations of the KJV bible. To be fair and honest let me ask you this question with no hatred on my part. I have read numerous posts on this forum that will pipe that very same tune as you pipe. I ask you to show me the greatest error of translation in the 1611 rendition of the KJV bible. Lets be fair and take one thing at a time and discuss this difference we seem to have.

In doing so I want you to remember that we have not one autograph of the entire NT and OT and therefore must keep this in the theological realm. Could you do this?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is ok if you do not want the KJV, the only Bible with ALL the words of God in it. You will always be confused, unbelieving and worldly as a result.

Thanks CJ, appreciate you think my faith rests in not being confused by the bible.
All though I have said time and time and time again my faith rests in Jesus, but hey, I am not a Christian to you, but a worldly, confused unbelieving heretic.
As I said, I hate the kjv because of people like you, a human parody
And that’s not fair because the kjv is a mild to fair interpretation of biblical Greek, average not deserving of hate.

And no, I would question your intelligence if you think mine faith in Christ is questionable based on what bible I ignore

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Raggedyman

Seede and CJ are saying the bible must be perfect, I don’t agree.

And that is your own personal understanding. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with your interpretations of the KJV bible. To be fair and honest let me ask you this question with no hatred on my part. I have read numerous posts on this forum that will pipe that very same tune as you pipe. I ask you to show me the greatest error of translation in the 1611 rendition of the KJV bible. Lets be fair and take one thing at a time and discuss this difference we seem to have.

In doing so I want you to remember that we have not one autograph of the entire NT and OT and therefore must keep this in the theological realm. Could you do this?

Comprehension skills are truly lacking as I assumed Seede
I don’t care what you think, get it?

Believe as you wish, I have no interest in petty arguments over your holier than thou bible, there are plenty of others and places you can find them.
Believe as you see fit, me I will as I see suitable.

Just to be clear, no bible has it right, not one, I can live comfortably and believe Jesus comfortably knowing that
I hope you can to

Bart Ehrman, lost his faith because he believed the bible should be 100% accurate and he found it wasn’t.
Greatest NT theologian today, left the faith, preaches atheism, all based on finding flaws in the bible.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is ok if you do not want the KJV, the only Bible with ALL the words of God in it. You will always be confused, unbelieving and worldly as a result.

Your KJV does not contain the Lost Chapters of Acts. So there.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

If there were lost chapters it would. But there are none. But if you think there are go for it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

the judgment I made is just made from past posts you have made.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Lazarus Short

If there were lost chapters it would. But there are none.

I happen to have a copy, but you judge from not knowing. Once again, your KJV is short of perfect.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

the judgment I made is just made from past posts you have made.

You judge me? Or just what I post? You know, in the end, our understanding rests on what books, Bible versions, scholars and preachers we trust and believe. I would be surprised if we had ANY in common.

In the soon-coming age to come, it will not be so. As the waters cover the sea and all that...

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Lazarus Short

If there were lost chapters it would. But there are none.

I happen to have a copy, but you judge from not knowing. Once again, your KJV is short of perfect.

I don’t know why but talking to kjv only supporters is like talking to Jehovah Witnesses, they just seem to have a deep conviction in someone else’s opinion beyond normal.

Someone else has made their mind up for them. The kjv becomes the same as JW,orgs NWT, is the best. Be like watching two cats at each other that argument

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Well CJ, again, I don’t rest my faith in you or your bible so, who cares what you think on this subject.
Thanks anyway

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Lazarus Short

If there were lost chapters it would. But there are none.

I happen to have a copy, but you judge from not knowing. Once again, your KJV is short of perfect.

I don’t know why but talking to kjv only supporters is like talking to Jehovah Witnesses, they just seem to have a deep conviction in someone else’s opinion beyond normal.

Someone else has made their mind up for them. The kjv becomes the same as JW,orgs NWT, is the best. Be like watching two cats at each other that argument

I have a high opinion of the Bible, but the KJV has its failings. Even so, I usually quote from it. Yet, I dug into the KJV to decide between hell, annihilation and universalism. By the time I finished, I was a confirmed universalist. YMMV. Good news! If you are not a universalist, you still get saved. It's a sort of fail-safe.