Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Arguments/positions against Evangelical Universalism.

Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:17 pm

"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering it," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoria is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (Hebrews 10:29)." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online) ;)


Hebrews 12:5-8 proves without a doubt that, if God does not chastise me ( paideia and paideuo) then I am an impenitent unbeliever and a bastard and not a son.

Matthew 16:27
"27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

One would think that the combination of months of torment and death ( from fire, smoke, plagues, and brimstone) would bring men and women to their knees in repentance, but such is not the case. (Rev 16:7-9) (Rev 20:10-15) These judgments are not remedial but retributive.

Hell and the LOF do not improve, correct, change or regenerate anyone. They are not hospitals for the sick; they are prisons for the condemned!

I challenge anyone to show evidence in the NT of God using ( paideia and paideuo) "chastising" impenitent unbelievers for remedial purposes. :D
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Paidion » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:41 pm

Revival wrote:I challenge anyone to show evidence in the NT of God using ( paideia and paideuo) "chastising" impenitent unbelievers for remedial purposes.


Okay, I take up the challenge.

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.(I Tim 1:18-20 ESV)

The English "may learn" is in the active voice, but the Greek word is in the passive voice, which in its lexical form is none other than "παιδευω" (or "paideuo" as you write it). "that they may be chastised not to blaspheme". Rotherham's translation puts it this way, "that they may be taught by discipline not to be defaming. To be taught by discipline is to be chastised.

Now it's true that Hymenaeus and Alexander were once believers, but they made shipwreck of their faith! There were no longer believers. Until Paul handed them over to Satan for chastisement, they were doubtless impenitent as well. They were blaspheming!

Though unbelievers whom God sends to hell may be impenitent, they will become penitent after they are chastised, just as Paul expected Hymenaeus and Alexander to be after they received their chastisement from Satan.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:52 pm

Revival, The LOF is God's presence and there is NO getting away from it, ever. :D


You on the other hand almost seem to WANT the LOF to be ECT so that billions of people including yours and ours loved ones to permanently be away from God's presence to suffer immensely in torment for all eternity. You promote it so much and with such enthusiasm that i do often wonder about you. :?
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:59 pm

Could a person who is shipwrecked of their faith be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and not be lost? Absolutely!. ;) This verse no where indicates a loss of salvation. You are adding that to the text. Nice try though. :D

BTW, Hymaneous and Alexander are not impenitent unbelievers but repentant believers who are doctrinally shipwrecked but not yet lost. ;)
Last edited by Revival on Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:08 pm

Caroleem wrote:Revival, The LOF is God's presence and there is NO getting away from it, ever. :D


You on the other hand almost seem to WANT the LOF to be ECT so that billions of people including yours and ours loved ones to permanently be away from God's presence to suffer immensely in torment for all eternity. You promote it so much and with such enthusiasm that i do often wonder about you. :?


It doesn't matter what I want, Caroleem, it only matters what has been established in God's word. I don't want a single soul to go to Hell and eventually to the eternal LOF but that is not my call...all I can do is like Paul said in 1 Cor 9:22 "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby AllanS » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:06 am

Revival wrote:It doesn't matter what I want, it only matters what has been established in God's word.


Abraham argued with God. Jacob wrestled with God. Moses stood between God and Israel. Job furiously summoned God to court (and God came.) David's anger burned against God (and he was a man after God''s own heart.) The Samaritan woman argued with Jesus (and Jesus gave in.)

"What you want" matters. If you are prepared to let your God commit atrocities without raising a voice in protest, you will find yourself up to the neck in refining fire. The true God loathes flattery and cowardice. (He also has a very low view of people who hope to find eternal life by studying a book.) Good-hearted atheists who angrily reject all gods who act monstrously will be welcomed into Paradise by choirs of angels. (The last shall be first.)
Warning! Amateur at work. Usual disclaimers apply. Author accepts no responsibility for injuries sustained while reading this post.
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:03 am

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:18 am

AllanS wrote:
Revival wrote:It doesn't matter what I want, it only matters what has been established in God's word.


Abraham argued with God. Jacob wrestled with God. Moses stood between God and Israel. Job furiously summoned God to court (and God came.) David's anger burned against God (and he was a man after God''s own heart.) The Samaritan woman argued with Jesus (and Jesus gave in.)

"What you want" matters. If you are prepared to let your God commit atrocities without raising a voice in protest, you will find yourself up to the neck in refining fire. The true God loathes flattery and cowardice. (He also has a very low view of people who hope to find eternal life by studying a book.) Good-hearted atheists who angrily reject all gods who act monstrously will be welcomed into Paradise by choirs of angels. (The last shall be first.)


God still destroyed Sodom and Gormorah. Moses led Israel out of Egypt only to have Joshua and Caleb enter into the promise land. ( a type and shadow of salvation) My God is not committing atrocities otherwise He would not be God. His judgments are righteous and just whether you agree with them or not. Good-hearted atheists (if they die an atheist) will open their eyes and found out how wrong they were while being tormented not refined by the flames of Hell as the Richman.

Extrapolating beyond what Scripture clearly reveals and assuming something in a text by human reason and logic does not make it true, Allan. ;)

My prayers and preaching the gospel to the lost can and will make a difference to some but it doesn't violate their will. They have to make the choice in the end. Life or death. God says choose life!

PS I'm want to hear your biblical response to my OP not my response to Caroleem's accusations that lead to off topic rabbit trails. ;)
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby JeffA » Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:39 am

So how do you deal with the passage that says that S&G will be restored to their former state?
Yours in doubt

Jeff the Agnostic Universalist.
------------------------------------
"..words are the progeny of the soul." - Clement (Stromata)
User avatar
JeffA
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Brecon, UK

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:52 am

JeffA wrote:So how do you deal with the passage that says that S&G will be restored to their former state?


What passage are you talking about, Jeff?
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:59 am

Ezekiel 16:53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them,
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby SLJ » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:11 am

Aaron,
Do you believe God doesn't love the impenitent?

Sonia
James 3:13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.

Eph 1:10 ...a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
SLJ
Administrator
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:52 pm
Location: Carson City, Nevada

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:16 am

Caroleem wrote:Ezekiel 16:53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them,


What does this verse have anything to do with my OP?
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:22 am

Revival wrote:
Caroleem wrote:Ezekiel 16:53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them,


What does this verse have anything to do with my OP?


I posted what you were asking Jeff about..

JeffA wrote:
So how do you deal with the passage that says that S&G will be restored to their former state?


You then asked...

What passage are you talking about, Jeff?


And i posted the verse in which i assumed Jeff was referring to, which was..

Ezekiel 16:53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them,


Hope that explains it for you.. 8-)
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:40 am

SLJ wrote:Aaron,
Do you believe God doesn't love the impenitent?

Sonia


Of course not, Sonia. God not loving the impenitent is not the issue. Only erroneous exegetical methodology birthed out of false premises rooted in human logic and subjects Scripture to these false premises so that it appears to yield what the false premises demand says "God loves the impenitent unbeliever so much that He chastises them for remedial purposes either in this life or the afterlife to bring them eventually to salvation." yet no where in God's word supports this and it contradicts other scriptures.
Last edited by Revival on Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:42 am

Revival wrote:"God loves the impenitent unbeliever so much that He chastises them for remedial purposes either in this life or the afterlife to bring them eventually to salvation." :roll:

This is very true except i wouldn't have posted the rolling eye smilie. ;)
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:47 am

Caroleem wrote:
Revival wrote:"God loves the impenitent unbeliever so much that He chastises them for remedial purposes either in this life or the afterlife to bring them eventually to salvation." :roll:

This is very true except i wouldn't have posted the rolling eye smilie. ;)


:?
Last edited by Revival on Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:48 am

Revival wrote: Only erroneous exegetical methodology birthed out of false premises rooted in human logic and subjects Scripture to these false premises so that it appears to yield what the false premises demand

I don't even have any idea what you're talking about there. :? I am going by what the word of God says, not any of that mumbo jumbo. We here at EU are going by God's word, not what you believe we are going by. ;)
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:51 am

Caroleem wrote:
Revival wrote: Only erroneous exegetical methodology birthed out of false premises rooted in human logic and subjects Scripture to these false premises so that it appears to yield what the false premises demand

I don't even have any idea what you're talking about there. :? I am going by what the word of God says, not any of that mumbo jumbo. We here at EU are going by God's word, not what you believe we are going by. ;)


Of course not, you just ignore the context of my post to Sonia( and my OP) like you do with scripture and you make comments. :roll:
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Lefein » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:01 am

What is your goal here Revival? Why are you, and why have you been in various reiterations, on this forum?
User avatar
Lefein
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:15 am

Revival wrote:
Of course not, you just ignore the context of my post ....... like you do with scripture and you make comments. :roll:

I could have sworn some of us have said that same thing about you. ;)
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby AllanS » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:46 pm

Revival wrote:God still destroyed Sodom and Gormorah. Moses led Israel out of Egypt only to have Joshua and Caleb enter into the promise land. ( a type and shadow of salvation)


THis is what I learn from those stories: Evil will be destroyed and the good will be saved. But this has little to do with the question at hand.

Righteous men argued with God. They would not tolerate injustice from his hand and were bold enough to say so. Moses didn't follow your line and and say, "God is righteous by definition. Therefore if he wants to kill all Israel, it must be right." Abraham didn't say, "God is immutable. Therefore, if he wants to destroy Sodom there's nothing I can (or should) do about it." Job didn't say, "God is inscrutable and can do no wrong. Therefore I must have sinned. I'll shut up and take it on the chin."

When was the last time you sat in the dust, speechless and horrified at the thought of a single soul suffering boundless torment? Have you no imagination? Do you suffer from some sort of psychopathy that renders you incapable of empathy? When did you last pray, "Far be it from the judge of all the earth to do wrong! Lord God, do not do this appalling thing! Rather, have mercy. Show the world your glory by saving even your enemies. Any tyrant can destroy, but only you can save."

My God is not committing atrocities otherwise He would not be God. His judgments are righteous and just whether you agree with them or not.


That's a useless argument because it can be used by anyone to justify anything. "Moloch is not committing atrocities otherwise He would not be God. His judgments are righteous and just whether you agree with them or not. Now obey his infallible word! Throw your baby into the sacred fire!"

Good-hearted atheists (if they die an atheist) will open their eyes and found out how wrong they were while being tormented not refined by the flames of Hell as the Rich man.


What a thrilling prospect, having your enemies tormented forever. That'll show 'em who's boss.

The rich man represents Israel and the poor man represents the Gentiles. That parable has nothing to do with punishment after death.

Extrapolating beyond what Scripture clearly reveals and assuming something in a text by human reason and logic does not make it true


Here are two things scripture clearly reveals: "God is love", and "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

How does a God who always perseveres, who keeps no record of wrong, who seeks the other, and who never fails... fit into your miserable conception of hell?

You speak of human logic. I think you extrapolate your own emotional reaction towards your enemies and project it onto God. You want to hurt those who hate you and construct a God who does the same.

Allan. ;)


Can you drop the emoticons please? I rarely like being winked at. It makes me feel I'm being patronized.

but it doesn't violate their will. They have to make the choice in the end.


God won't violate our precious wills, but he's quite prepared to drop us into everlasting fire. Would that violate our wills, I wonder?

I'm want to hear your biblical response to my OP


Some of the greatest Church fathers, godly men speaking Greek from birth, were outspoken universalists. That's all I need to know.
Warning! Amateur at work. Usual disclaimers apply. Author accepts no responsibility for injuries sustained while reading this post.
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:03 am

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:59 pm

No biblical response to my OP just off topic human reasoning, huh Allan? ;) No thanks.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:29 pm

Revival wrote:No biblical response to my OP just off topic human reasoning, huh Allan? ;) No thanks.

That's all you have to say about Allan's heartfelt and honest post? :?
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:31 pm

Caroleem wrote:
Revival wrote:No biblical response to my OP just off topic human reasoning, huh Allan? ;) No thanks.

That's all you have to say about Allan's heartfelt and honest post? :?


Heartfelt and honest opinions are not biblical truth. I want sound biblical refutations not off topic opinions, Caroleem. :o
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Sherman » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:51 pm

Unless I'm mistaken Revival, you were the one who in this thread first mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. Allen was simply responding to your comment.

Concerning the OP, frankly it doesn't surprise me that the specific words you chose are only used in regards to believers. Most, if not almost all, passages concerning judgment and the punishment of sin are addressed to believers. And judgment is almost always spoken of as being based on how one actually lives, not just what one professes to believe. Not only shall we all face judgment, but judgment even begins with the elect, those chosen by God to know Him in this life. And to whom much is given, much is required. So it doesn't surprise me or in any way seem contradictory to UR if as you say the words you selected are only used to warn of chastisement for the penitent and not the impenitent.

What I do find telling is that not once in scripture does God inspire any biblical author to specifically warn of Hell, using a word that specifically meant Hell in either Hebrew or Greek. People read Hell/ECT into many passages, but if Hell was truly a worry, then it seems that the Lord would have inspired at least one direct reference to it in scripture. People read Hell into the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone, but like any good painting, people read into such what they already believe, what is in their hearts. And though the Jews did not have a word that meant Hell, the Greeks certainly did - Tartarus. But not once does Jesus, Paul, Peter, or any of the authors of the NT warn of people being cast into Tartarus. It sure seems to me that Paul would have at least once warned of Tartarus/Hell specifically. In Greek mythology, Tartarus was the hellish realm in/underneath Hades. So IF Jesus, Paul, or the other writers of the NT believed in Hell, ECT then it's only reasonable that they would have at least warned of it once specifically, and not left it to be necessary for people to read it into what they wrote or said.
Sherman Nobles
author - "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, & Forgiveness"
http://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore ... 331481-8-7
User avatar
Sherman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1724
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:09 am
Location: White House, TN

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:03 pm

Sherman

"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent.

This totally refutes your theory of impenitent unbelievers receiving remedial punishment! Hebrews 12:5-8 refutes your theory as well. Also "Timoria" is used for the punishment for the sinner in Heb 10:29.

Your unbelief in the existence of Hell or the LOF doesn't make them any less true, Sherman. ;)
Last edited by Revival on Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby AllanS » Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:59 pm

AllanS wrote:Can you drop the emoticons please? I rarely like being winked at. It makes me feel I'm being patronized.


Revival wrote:No biblical response to my OP just off topic human reasoning, huh Allan? ;) No thanks.


From this I conclude one (or more) things. Either

1) You didn't bother to read my post

2) You are insensitive and discourteous

3) You are deliberately trying to make me angry.

Which is it?
Warning! Amateur at work. Usual disclaimers apply. Author accepts no responsibility for injuries sustained while reading this post.
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:03 am

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby AllanS » Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:38 pm

St Clement of Alexandria, a native Greek speaker, Head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria in 189AD. If anyone knew the nuances of certain Greek words in relation to Christian doctrine, it would be this man.

“For all things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe. But needful corrections, by the goodness of the great, overseeing judge, through the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those who have become more callous to repent.

So he saves all; but some he converts by penalties, others who follow him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of his honor, that every knee may be bent to him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10), that is angels, men, and souls who before his advent migrated from this mortal life.”

For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.

If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.”
Warning! Amateur at work. Usual disclaimers apply. Author accepts no responsibility for injuries sustained while reading this post.
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:03 am

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:52 pm

Allan wrote:For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.

If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.”


God does punish (timoria) the sinner in Heb 10:29. :o "It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering it," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoria is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question.

allan wrote:If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! Purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier.


What science fiction book did you get this from? because you won't find it in the word of God.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Lefein » Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:41 pm

"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering it," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoria is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (Hebrews 10:29)." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online) ;)


I believe this is a very strained reach around in the face of Kolasis' etymological core that makes itself plainly known, that of corrective nuances and remedial usage. As for the uses of paideia and paideuo, it is only valid if one assumes that only "Christians" are God's children, a position which is violent and strained, but is especially a position that is unworthy of the glorious God.

At any such rate, God's justice is not vindictive, and as many on this site have shown time and time again - there are vast multitudes of reasons to believe that any form of punishment inflicted on any individual will and always is for that individual's betterment.

Hebrews 12:5-8 proves without a doubt that, if God does not chastise me ( paideia and paideuo) then I am an impenitent unbeliever and a bastard and not a son.


I will be making another thread in answer to this passage, when I have time, and if I decide to do so.

Matthew 16:27
"27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."


Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
(Matthew 16:24-28 - KJV)

Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life on account of Me shall find it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will render to each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who will by no means taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
(Matthew 16:24-28 - EMTV)


Everyone will be rewarded according to their work. If we are not saved by our works, then it follows reasonably that the state of our salvation will not be determined by this judgement, rather it is the state of our rewards that will be determined.

This is likewise supported by yet another verse which deals with the same theme;

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:13-15 -KJV)


Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:13-15 -EMTV)


Everyone will be rewarded according to their work, everyone's work will be revealed for what it is, the Day of the Lord will declare it; revealed by fire, and the fire will test everyone's work of what sort it is. The works which are good shall remain and reward shall be received. The works which are not good shall be burned up and be lost and loss will be suffered; though the worker, everyone, will be saved - yet so as by fire.


As for salvation, if it should be brought up, in regards to the passage I have drawn up a translation of Matthew 16:24-28, "Lefein's" Version or "LV" if you will.

Matthew 16:24 Τότε ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.
Then Jesus said to the disciples, if anyone is willing to come after me, let him renounce himself and let him lift his cross and let him follow me.

Matthew 16:25 ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσει αὐτήν.
For who ever may be willing to save his soul, shall destroy [lose] it. Yet who ever should destroy [lose] his soul by reason of me shall find it.

Matthew 16:25 ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσει αὐτήν.
For what benefits a man [mankind] if ever he should gain the whole cosmos, yet damages his soul? What shall man [mankind] give as ransom [an equivalent] for his soul?

Matthew 16:27 μέλλει γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, καὶ τότε ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ.
For the Son of Man [expectantly intends] to come in the glory of his Father, with his Messengers, and then he shall give to each according to his practice.

Matthew 16:28 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰσί τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.
Amen I say to ye, there are some of the ones standing here who shall never taste death til they percieve the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.


Matthew 16:24-28 gives us the following themes;

If you wish to follow Christ, deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow. If you will to save your soul, you will lose it, or destroy it. If you lose your soul, or destroy it, by reason of (because of) Christ you shall find it.

It doesn't benefit a man, or mankind, to gain everything, even the whole cosmos, and yet harm his soul in the process. It doesn't benefit man, or mankind, to have everything and yet have a damaged soul. The man, even if he has everything, has nothing with which he can ransom his soul, and nothing that can take the place of his soul; nothing that is equivalent to it in value or genuine worth. Likewise, the man if he should damage his soul, he has nothing of equivalency to exchange as a ransom for it, or as payment for its healing. It is in this that I can see great revelation for God's mercy and grace, we earn nothing, but all is given freely.

Everyone will be rewarded according to their works; the works that are built on the foundation of Christ will secure reward, those built on the foundations apart from Christ and all he in fullness of Godhead express and represents, will cause suffering with its loss. But the man, everyone, will be saved though as by fire.

One would think that the combination of months of torment and death ( from fire, smoke, plagues, and brimstone) would bring men and women to their knees in repentance, but such is not the case. (Rev 16:7-9) (Rev 20:10-15) These judgments are not remedial but retributive.


Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess. Revelation 16:7-9 does not imply a permanent, ceaseless condition. Revelation 20:10-15 likewise does not, for reasons of which many can argue from many angles. Namely the angles dealing with the wrongful translation of "into the eons of the eons" into "for ever and ever", and the angles dealing with the specific nature of the Lake of Fire in which they are being tormented.

Hell and the LOF do not improve, correct, change or regenerate anyone. They are not hospitals for the sick; they are prisons for the condemned!


I am quite convinced you are incorrect. They are being tormented in the presence of The Lamb, who is Christ, by reason of whom those cast into it lose their soul, their life, for it is the Second Death. If they lose their soul, are destroyed, lose their life by reason of Christ - then they shall find their soul, their life, and shall find it in him. Christ who shall baptise, immerse, all in the Holy Spirit and in Fire, thus goes the prophecy as given by Saint John the Baptist.

There is Biblical reason to believe that the Lake of Fire describes the very presence of God.

I challenge anyone to show evidence in the NT of God using ( paideia and paideuo) "chastising" impenitent unbelievers for remedial purposes. :D


As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
(Revelation 3:19)
User avatar
Lefein
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby scottmuz » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:10 pm

William Barclay (who wrote his own translation of the New Testament and so a Greek language expert) make this statement abut kolasis:
<<
The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment
>>
(see more at http://tgulcm.tripod.com/cu/barclay1.html).

So it seems to me the Revival's original statements about kolasis are in dispute.
Last edited by scottmuz on Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
scottmuz
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:30 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby davidbo » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:10 pm

Revival wrote:
allan wrote:If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! Purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier.


What science fiction book did you get this from? because you won't find it in the word of God.


Revival wrote:God does punish (timoria) the sinner in Heb 10:29. :o "It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering it," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoria is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question.


Revival,

The above text you are quoting and relying on isn't in the *word of God* as you like to put it.

So, why are you citing it?

This is a double standard on your part.

Another of your commonly used tactics.
davidbo
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Paidion » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:30 pm

Revival wrote:My God is not committing atrocities otherwise He would not be God. His judgments are righteous and just whether you agree with them or not.


John Stuart Mill wrote: To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?"
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby AllanS » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:51 pm

Revival wrote:God does punish (timoria) the sinner in Heb 10:29.


Heb 10 wrote:If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


I will present two possible responses:

Answer 1:

The early church had to decide what to do with Christians who crumbled under persecution. When things cooled down, many apostates wanted to rejoin the church. Some argued that these people had blown their chances and should be rejected forever. Others argued that mercy should be extended to them. It's clear which side of the debate was taken by the writer of Hebrews, and he was wrong. Being led by the Holy Spirit, the church as a whole took the other side. The argument was preserved in Holy Writ so we could learn from his error.

But let's ignore this context, take this passage at face value and see where it leads.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning..." Have I deliberately sinned since becoming a Christian? Have you? (That's a tough one...) I need some wriggle room here. How deliberate does this sin have to be to get me into trouble: seriously deliberate, or sort of half-awake, accidentally deliberate? Perhaps I can get away with 5 out of 10 on the Deliberate Scale... (But isn't God's love patient and kind? Doesn't love always persevere? Apparently not. It seems the love Paul commends to us is deeper than the love of God himself.)

"keep on sinning..." Does that mean one single deliberate sin? Logically it must, but that sounds pretty tough. (And here was I, thinking love kept no record of wrong.) Perhaps it means one deliberate sin a month, and one half-deliberate sin twice a week. Or maybe it means I must sin less with every passing year, a bit like paying off a mortgage. If I reduce my sinning by 0.5% a week, will this be sufficient? That's a 1300% reduction in wickedness compounded over 10 years. Surely that's enough. How can I tell if I cross the line?

The author helpfully uses an illustration from the Law. I will too. Remember that wicked man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath? They took him out and stoned him to death for his crimes. "How much more severely" will God punish Christians who commit the equivalent sin.

Allowing that passage undiluted force, not one single solitary person will enter the Kingdom. Ordinary human weakness will slam the door in every face.

Answer 2:

There is a part in every Christian that continues to deliberately sin, that treads underfoot the blood of Christ. This is the old man, the body of death, the Adam in us, the enemy of God. This ugly old man is the object of God's wrath and retribution, and will be eternally destroyed. Just as Israel was purged of its sin in the wilderness, everyone will be purged of their sins in the fire of God. The sooner we join the battle to kill it, the better. Take up your cross and follow. If the sacrifice of Christ loses it's power to inspire us, the battle will be lost. Even so, if we are faithless, God is faithful. If we fail to kill the old man, God will succeed. It will be painful.
Warning! Amateur at work. Usual disclaimers apply. Author accepts no responsibility for injuries sustained while reading this post.
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:03 am

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:52 am

AllanS wrote:
Revival wrote:God does punish (timoria) the sinner in Heb 10:29.


Heb 10 wrote:If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


I will present two possible responses:

Answer 1:

The early church had to decide what to do with Christians who crumbled under persecution. When things cooled down, many apostates wanted to rejoin the church. Some argued that these people had blown their chances and should be rejected forever. Others argued that mercy should be extended to them. It's clear which side of the debate was taken by the writer of Hebrews, and he was wrong. Being led by the Holy Spirit, the church as a whole took the other side. The argument was preserved in Holy Writ so we could learn from his error.

But let's ignore this context, take this passage at face value and see where it leads.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning..." Have I deliberately sinned since becoming a Christian? Have you? (That's a tough one...) I need some wriggle room here. How deliberate does this sin have to be to get me into trouble: seriously deliberate, or sort of half-awake, accidentally deliberate? Perhaps I can get away with 5 out of 10 on the Deliberate Scale... (But isn't God's love patient and kind? Doesn't love always persevere? Apparently not. It seems the love Paul commends to us is deeper than the love of God himself.)

"keep on sinning..." Does that mean one single deliberate sin? Logically it must, but that sounds pretty tough. (And here was I, thinking love kept no record of wrong.) Perhaps it means one deliberate sin a month, and one half-deliberate sin twice a week. Or maybe it means I must sin less with every passing year, a bit like paying off a mortgage. If I reduce my sinning by 0.5% a week, will this be sufficient? That's a 1300% reduction in wickedness compounded over 10 years. Surely that's enough. How can I tell if I cross the line?

The author helpfully uses an illustration from the Law. I will too. Remember that wicked man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath? They took him out and stoned him to death for his crimes. "How much more severely" will God punish Christians who commit the equivalent sin.

Allowing that passage undiluted force, not one single solitary person will enter the Kingdom. Ordinary human weakness will slam the door in every face.

Answer 2:

There is a part in every Christian that continues to deliberately sin, that treads underfoot the blood of Christ. This is the old man, the body of death, the Adam in us, the enemy of God. This ugly old man is the object of God's wrath and retribution, and will be eternally destroyed. Just as Israel was purged of its sin in the wilderness, everyone will be purged of their sins in the fire of God. The sooner we join the battle to kill it, the better. Take up your cross and follow. If the sacrifice of Christ loses it's power to inspire us, the battle will be lost. Even so, if we are faithless, God is faithful. If we fail to kill the old man, God will succeed. It will be painful.



Answer 3:
Your answers come from yourself and not God.. the context of Hebrews 10:29 is talking about a Hebrew Christian renouncing Jesus as Messiah and going back under the Law for salvation. If anyone rejected the Law of Moses they died without mercy. How much more severely does a man deserves to be punished (TIMORIA) who has counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing?

Timoria punishment is the exact opposite of Kolasis punishment. Timoria in classical Greek means vindictiveness of the punishment satisfying the inflicters sense of outraged justice, as defending his own honor or that of a violated law. Its a punishment with finality.

God does punish the sinner via "timoria" punishment as you have repeatedly denied. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Allan your comments on this thread (and others) remind me of this scripture:
John 7:17
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

I discern Allan your doctrine doesn't come from God but you speak of yourself.
Last edited by Revival on Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:03 am

Lefein wrote:
"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering it," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoria is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (Hebrews 10:29)." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online) ;)


I believe this is a very strained reach around in the face of Kolasis' etymological core that makes itself plainly known, that of corrective nuances and remedial usage. As for the uses of paideia and paideuo, it is only valid if one assumes that only "Christians" are God's children, a position which is violent and strained, but is especially a position that is unworthy of the glorious God.

At any such rate, God's justice is not vindictive, and as many on this site have shown time and time again - there are vast multitudes of reasons to believe that any form of punishment inflicted on any individual will and always is for that individual's betterment.

Hebrews 12:5-8 proves without a doubt that, if God does not chastise me ( paideia and paideuo) then I am an impenitent unbeliever and a bastard and not a son.


I will be making another thread in answer to this passage, when I have time, and if I decide to do so.

Matthew 16:27
"27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."


Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
(Matthew 16:24-28 - KJV)

Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life on account of Me shall find it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will render to each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who will by no means taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
(Matthew 16:24-28 - EMTV)


Everyone will be rewarded according to their work. If we are not saved by our works, then it follows reasonably that the state of our salvation will not be determined by this judgement, rather it is the state of our rewards that will be determined.

This is likewise supported by yet another verse which deals with the same theme;

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:13-15 -KJV)


Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:13-15 -EMTV)


Everyone will be rewarded according to their work, everyone's work will be revealed for what it is, the Day of the Lord will declare it; revealed by fire, and the fire will test everyone's work of what sort it is. The works which are good shall remain and reward shall be received. The works which are not good shall be burned up and be lost and loss will be suffered; though the worker, everyone, will be saved - yet so as by fire.


As for salvation, if it should be brought up, in regards to the passage I have drawn up a translation of Matthew 16:24-28, "Lefein's" Version or "LV" if you will.

Matthew 16:24 Τότε ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.
Then Jesus said to the disciples, if anyone is willing to come after me, let him renounce himself and let him lift his cross and let him follow me.

Matthew 16:25 ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσει αὐτήν.
For who ever may be willing to save his soul, shall destroy [lose] it. Yet who ever should destroy [lose] his soul by reason of me shall find it.

Matthew 16:25 ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσει αὐτήν.
For what benefits a man [mankind] if ever he should gain the whole cosmos, yet damages his soul? What shall man [mankind] give as ransom [an equivalent] for his soul?

Matthew 16:27 μέλλει γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, καὶ τότε ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ.
For the Son of Man [expectantly intends] to come in the glory of his Father, with his Messengers, and then he shall give to each according to his practice.

Matthew 16:28 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰσί τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.
Amen I say to ye, there are some of the ones standing here who shall never taste death til they percieve the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.


Matthew 16:24-28 gives us the following themes;

If you wish to follow Christ, deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow. If you will to save your soul, you will lose it, or destroy it. If you lose your soul, or destroy it, by reason of (because of) Christ you shall find it.

It doesn't benefit a man, or mankind, to gain everything, even the whole cosmos, and yet harm his soul in the process. It doesn't benefit man, or mankind, to have everything and yet have a damaged soul. The man, even if he has everything, has nothing with which he can ransom his soul, and nothing that can take the place of his soul; nothing that is equivalent to it in value or genuine worth. Likewise, the man if he should damage his soul, he has nothing of equivalency to exchange as a ransom for it, or as payment for its healing. It is in this that I can see great revelation for God's mercy and grace, we earn nothing, but all is given freely.

Everyone will be rewarded according to their works; the works that are built on the foundation of Christ will secure reward, those built on the foundations apart from Christ and all he in fullness of Godhead express and represents, will cause suffering with its loss. But the man, everyone, will be saved though as by fire.

One would think that the combination of months of torment and death ( from fire, smoke, plagues, and brimstone) would bring men and women to their knees in repentance, but such is not the case. (Rev 16:7-9) (Rev 20:10-15) These judgments are not remedial but retributive.


Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess. Revelation 16:7-9 does not imply a permanent, ceaseless condition. Revelation 20:10-15 likewise does not, for reasons of which many can argue from many angles. Namely the angles dealing with the wrongful translation of "into the eons of the eons" into "for ever and ever", and the angles dealing with the specific nature of the Lake of Fire in which they are being tormented.

Hell and the LOF do not improve, correct, change or regenerate anyone. They are not hospitals for the sick; they are prisons for the condemned!


I am quite convinced you are incorrect. They are being tormented in the presence of The Lamb, who is Christ, by reason of whom those cast into it lose their soul, their life, for it is the Second Death. If they lose their soul, are destroyed, lose their life by reason of Christ - then they shall find their soul, their life, and shall find it in him. Christ who shall baptise, immerse, all in the Holy Spirit and in Fire, thus goes the prophecy as given by Saint John the Baptist.

There is Biblical reason to believe that the Lake of Fire describes the very presence of God.

I challenge anyone to show evidence in the NT of God using ( paideia and paideuo) "chastising" impenitent unbelievers for remedial purposes. :D


As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
(Revelation 3:19)


Lefein, the LOF in Rev 20:15 is an eternal separation from God and His presence and not the very presence of God. 2 Thess 1:8-9.

Rev 3:19 Jesus is talking to the church of Laodecia (who are believers). They are not impenitent unbelievers, Lefein. Nice try though. :?
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Sherman » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:57 am

Revival wrote:Sherman

"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent.

This totally refutes your theory of impenitent unbelievers receiving remedial punishment! Hebrews 12:5-8 refutes your theory as well. Also "Timoria" is used for the punishment for the sinner in Heb 10:29.

Your unbelief in the existence of Hell or the LOF doesn't make them any less true, Sherman. ;)


What's remarkable Revival is that you totally ignored my post and only restated your opening point, and then go on to quote Heb. 10.29 which is not speaking of the punishment of unbelievers, but of believers who continue in deliberate sin, and Heb. 12:5-8 which says that such punishment is from God and for the good of the one being punished. So if anything, your scriptural references only affirm UR and disprove your assertion, even equating in context the word timoria with remedial punishment.

Heb. 10: 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Heb. 12: 4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,
“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”
Sherman Nobles
author - "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, & Forgiveness"
http://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore ... 331481-8-7
User avatar
Sherman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1724
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:09 am
Location: White House, TN

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:10 am

Sherman wrote:
Revival wrote:Sherman

"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent.

This totally refutes your theory of impenitent unbelievers receiving remedial punishment! Hebrews 12:5-8 refutes your theory as well. Also "Timoria" is used for the punishment for the sinner in Heb 10:29.

Your unbelief in the existence of Hell or the LOF doesn't make them any less true, Sherman. ;)


What's remarkable Revival is that you totally ignored my post and only restated your opening point, and then go on to quote Heb. 10.29 which is not speaking of the punishment of unbelievers, but of believers who continue in deliberate sin, and Heb. 12:5-8 which says that such punishment is from God and for the good of the one being punished. So if anything, your scriptural references only affirm UR and disprove your assertion, even equating in context the word timoria with remedial punishment.

Heb. 10: 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Heb. 12: 4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,
“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”


:? you can try to spin it, Sherman, but the truth remains. Hebrews 10:29 is referring to a Hebrew Christian renouncing Jesus as Messiah and going back under the law for salvation. Hebrews 6:4-6 says it is impossible to renew these people again unto repentance.

Heb 12:5-8 is for the believers not unbelievers and especially those who renounce Jesus!
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:37 am

davidbo wrote:
Revival,

The above text you are quoting and relying on isn't in the *word of God* as you like to put it.

So, why are you citing it?

This is a double standard on your part.

Another of your commonly used tactics.

Agree.
And Aristotle is a "pagan" philosopher...so i don't know why he's even mentioned at all.


scottmuz wrote:William Barclay (who wrote his own translation of the New Testament as so a Greek language expert) make this statement abut kolasis:
<<
The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment
>>
(see more at http://tgulcm.tripod.com/cu/barclay1.html).

So it seems to me the Revival's original statements about kolasis are in dispute.

Good link. :)

Sherman wrote:
What's remarkable Revival is that you totally ignored my post

I know, he's notorious for doing it to us, yet he squawks and makes demands when he feels we've ignored his posts.
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby davidbo » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:26 am

Revival,

In order to maintain your positions you:

1) Use a double standard

2) Evade and ignore responses altogether

3) Employ fallacious arguments. Some of your favorites:

- False dilemma
- Non sequitur
- Begging the question / circular

Example:

X scripture must be understood from it's context
The context of X scripture is Y
Therefore X scripture proves Y

4) Repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over.

I don't know if you are aware that you do these things or not, although I find it hard to believe you don't but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

At any rate, these four tactics you use are pointing to a huge vacancy sign.
davidbo
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Lefein » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:26 am

Lefein, the LOF in Rev 20:15 is an eternal separation from God and His presence and not the very presence of God. 2 Thess 1:8-9.


viewtopic.php?f=50&t=229

Rev 3:19 Jesus is talking to the church of Laodecia (who are believers). They are not impenitent unbelievers, Lefein. Nice try though. :?


Jesus says; "all that I love" I chasten. He is not making any exceptions, he is not saying "all that I love in the church of Laodecia", and there is no mention in the context that says that the statement is directed exclusively at Laodecians.

It is more than a "nice try" Revival, it is an outright answer to your challenge and it is a thoroughly, perfectly valid one. All that Jesus loves, he rebukes and chastens.
User avatar
Lefein
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:35 am

Lefein wrote:
Lefein, the LOF in Rev 20:15 is an eternal separation from God and His presence and not the very presence of God. 2 Thess 1:8-9.


viewtopic.php?f=50&t=229

Rev 3:19 Jesus is talking to the church of Laodecia (who are believers). They are not impenitent unbelievers, Lefein. Nice try though. :?


Jesus says; "all that I love" I chasten. He is not making any exceptions, he is not saying "all that I love in the church of Laodecia", and there is no mention in the context that says that the statement is directed exclusively at Laodecians.

It is more than a "nice try" Revival, it is an outright answer to your challenge and it is a thoroughly, perfectly valid one. All that Jesus loves, he rebukes and chastens.


Seriously, Lefein, arguing for the sake of arguing and ignoring context is not a wise thing to do. ;)

Rev 2-3 Jesus addresses 7 churches. Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel (pastor) of the church of the Laodiceans write: In context Lefein this means Jesus is adressing believers who make up the church of Laodicea. Verse 19 He is telling the church of Laodicea and the other 6 churches that he rebukes and chastens all he loves and telling them to repent of their ways. Similiar to what Heb 12:5-8 says. ;)
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Lefein » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:46 am

Seriously, Lefein, arguing for the sake of arguing and ignoring context is not a wise thing to do. ;)


Well its a darn good thing I'm not merely arguing for the sake of arguing and its a darned good thing I'm not ignoring the context. Yet again you scream "out of context!" to continue bolstering a patchwork theology bent on ensuring the torture and damnation of the vast multitudes, except yourself.

Rev 2-3 Jesus addresses 7 churches. Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel (pastor) of the church of the Laodiceans write: In context Lefein this means Jesus is adressing believers who make up the church of Laodicea. Verse 19 He is telling the church of Laodicea and the other 6 churches that he rebukes and chastens all he loves and telling them to repent of their ways. Similiar to what Heb 12:5-8 says. ;)


Oh! So you're going to translate "angels" as pastors? I just thought I'd point out the irony there, of you telling us to appeal to this, and that, to ensure that our understanding is plain-text in this or that, and then you turn around and call the angels of the seven churches pastors. Don't tell us to stick to context, or stick to anything if you're going to turn around and play the game yourself. That is hypocrisy.

And secondly, Jesus said "all that I love" and that means "all that I love", there is no special appeal to context here that necessitates that Jesus is talking exclusively about or to the Laodecians. When he tells the Laodecians that he rebukes and chastens all that he loves, that is everyone, absolutely thoroughly everyone including the Laodecians.

Your challenge has been answered. And your only response is the scream, as per usual, "out of context!".

__ __ __

And also, as Allan has asked you, drop the emotes and winks. I have grown weary of them, and I have certainly grown weary of your vast multitudes of other condescending behaviours towards me and towards others on this site.
User avatar
Lefein
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:48 am

Revival wrote:the LOF in Rev 20:15 is an eternal separation from God and His presence and not the very presence of God. 2 Thess 1:8-9.

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb

Now you cant get any plainer and clearer then that.

As for 2 Thess 1:8-9. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

This isn't saying that there is eternal separation from the Lord, its saying that they will be tormented from the presence of the Lord. Its like saying.. my eyes hurt from the presence of the bright summer sun. Does that mean i am away from the sun? No. It means i am in the presence of the summer sun that my eyes are hurting from. The sun is causing that hurt because i am in the presence of it. Not away from it. Therefore making Rev 14:10 correct. Otherwise they would contradict.
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:10 pm

Caroleem wrote:
Revival wrote:the LOF in Rev 20:15 is an eternal separation from God and His presence and not the very presence of God. 2 Thess 1:8-9.

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb

Now you cant get any plainer and clearer then that.

As for 2 Thess 1:8-9. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

This isn't saying that there is eternal separation from the Lord, its saying that they will be tormented from the presence of the Lord. Its like saying.. my eyes hurt from the presence of the bright summer sun. Does that mean i am away from the sun? No. It means i am in the presence of the summer sun that my eyes are hurting from. The sun is causing that hurt because i am in the presence of it. Not away from it. Therefore making Rev 14:10 correct. Otherwise they would contradict.


Rev 14:10 happens after the day of the Lord, Caroleem. In other words, after the tribulation, after the rapture and before the millennial reign. This is not the LOF nor is it hell. ;)
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:11 pm

Lefein wrote:
Seriously, Lefein, arguing for the sake of arguing and ignoring context is not a wise thing to do. ;)


Well its a darn good thing I'm not merely arguing for the sake of arguing and its a darned good thing I'm not ignoring the context. Yet again you scream "out of context!" to continue bolstering a patchwork theology bent on ensuring the torture and damnation of the vast multitudes, except yourself.

Rev 2-3 Jesus addresses 7 churches. Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel (pastor) of the church of the Laodiceans write: In context Lefein this means Jesus is adressing believers who make up the church of Laodicea. Verse 19 He is telling the church of Laodicea and the other 6 churches that he rebukes and chastens all he loves and telling them to repent of their ways. Similiar to what Heb 12:5-8 says. ;)


Oh! So you're going to translate "angels" as pastors? I just thought I'd point out the irony there, of you telling us to appeal to this, and that, to ensure that our understanding is plain-text in this or that, and then you turn around and call the angels of the seven churches pastors. Don't tell us to stick to context, or stick to anything if you're going to turn around and play the game yourself. That is hypocrisy.

And secondly, Jesus said "all that I love" and that means "all that I love", there is no special appeal to context here that necessitates that Jesus is talking exclusively about or to the Laodecians. When he tells the Laodecians that he rebukes and chastens all that he loves, that is everyone, absolutely thoroughly everyone including the Laodecians.

Your challenge has been answered. And your only response is the scream, as per usual, "out of context!".

__ __ __

And also, as Allan has asked you, drop the emotes and winks. I have grown weary of them, and I have certainly grown weary of your vast multitudes of other condescending behaviours towards me and towards others on this site.


I'm ending this convo, God bless. :D
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Lefein » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:17 pm

I'm ending this convo, God bless. :D


As needs must...

Rev 14:10 happens after the day of the Lord, Caroleem. In other words, after the tribulation, after the rapture and before the millennial reign. This is not the LOF nor is it hell. ;)


It seems to me, that with you, everything is "anything but" if it isn't doesn't imply the ceaseless, endless, increasingly God forsaken vindictively inflicted violence and torture of the vast multitudes.
User avatar
Lefein
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Caroleem » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:25 pm

Revival wrote:Rev 14:10 happens after the day of the Lord, Caroleem. In other words, after the tribulation, after the rapture and before the millennial reign. This is not the LOF nor is it hell. ;)

:shock: Of course its the LOF. All of the references of fire and brimstone in Rev is referring to the LOF which is the presence of God.

Revelation 19:20, "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Rev. 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Rev. 20:14-15, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Rev. 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Rev. 2:11, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."

Rev. 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Rev. 14:10, "...and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb."

All the LOF.

What do you suggest it is then? Its obviously the LOF.
Caroleem
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby Revival » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:38 pm

Caroleem,

Rev 14:10 is not the lake of fire. It is the wrath of God happening on earth during all the plagues, bowls, etc before the millennial reign.
User avatar
Revival
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Postby AllanS » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:59 pm

Revival wrote:Your answers come from yourself and not God.


Of course I'm speaking for myself. I have no special line to God. Do you? All I can do is try to discern his Spirit.

Hebrews 10:29 is talking about a Hebrew Christian renouncing Jesus as Messiah and going back under the Law for salvation.


The author tells his readers their sins are forgiven, they can have confidence, they have a faithful priest, they can draw near to God. He tells them to do good deeds and spur one another on, to meet regularly. In Paul's terminology, he exhorts them to crucify the old man and put on the new. But what of Christians who continue to sin deliberately? If those who disobeyed Moses were killed without mercy, how much more severely will Christians who desecrate the blood of Christ be punished. Punished without mercy.

I regret to say I continue to sin deliberately. Don't you? To pretend otherwise would be a (deliberate) lie. Yet there is also something in me that is deeply unhappy with this situation. "The good I want to do, I don't do...O wretched man that I am." Does that mean I have nothing to look forward to but God's wrath? Yes and no. The old man will be punished (timoria) without mercy and utterly destroyed. The new man will be saved and set free, as through the fire. "Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

God does punish the sinner via "timoria" punishment as you have repeatedly denied. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.


The sinner, that which is sinful in me, will be utterly destroyed. It will be painful. We are called to follow Christ, and he was nailed to a cross. It is truly a fearful thing to fall into God's hands, but where else would you want to be? His hands are there to catch you, to hold you, to scrub you clean, to heal you and to embrace you.
Warning! Amateur at work. Usual disclaimers apply. Author accepts no responsibility for injuries sustained while reading this post.
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:03 am

Next

Return to Discussion Negative

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest