Conference yukon::christian

  Hi,

    Well, I thought about it and I'd be willing to discuss this topic
    for the zillionth time!

    I have some thoughts that are relevent and important.

    One, I have come to a different idea pertaining what constitutes
    one's defense for the truth.  At one point, I felt it was the
    ability to explain virtually every text; both those that seem to
    support a certain position and those that, at least at a superficial
    glance, do not.

    However, it dawned on me that the above is a rather haughty barometer.
    "If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought
    to know."  The only way the above method would work is if the person
    knew the true and full meaning of every scripture!  My what a conceited
    perspective that is!  How can one come to Jesus as a little child with
    such a perspective!

    I have now come to believe that one's support of truth is more like a
    tapestry that is made up of 'pieces of the puzzle.'  The support is
    likened to the size of the tapestry and the weight of some of the pieces
    (for I believe some pieces may have more weight than others).  I believe 
    I have a fairly good sized tapestry.  That it contains a slew of pieces
    that fit to form a consistent picture of God and His plan of redemption.
    However, some pieces are not attached to my tapestry.

    Romans 9 is certainly not entirely attached.  I am not a believer in
    Calvinism because I see so many pieces (scriptures) that (to me) do
    not support it.  But, Romans 9 sure seems to!  I am not sure what the
    meaning of it is!  A text that I was totally confused about is the
    one that refers to being baptized for the dead (1 Corin 15:29).  For 
    perhaps eight years, I had no clue of its meaning.  Then a light flashed 
    and the meaning God gave me caused me to just exclaim, "AMEN!!"  (It is 
    so awesome when a light goes on!)  Likewise, I didn't know for years how
    God referred to the seventh day when He said of Israel, "They shall
    not enter My rest."  (Hebrews 4:4-5)  HOW in the world did that refer 
    to the 7th day?

    And there are others.  Surely, the proponents of unconditional immortality
    of man will have some pieces that yet do not fit my tapestry.  I believe
    I have some pieces that don't fit theirs!  The lack of ability to explain
    a few scriptures is not necessarily invalidation of one's position.  If
    it is, we can just give up in despair for no one has come to a fulness
    of the entirety of scripture.

    So...pertaining to Point 1, if anyone I am dialoguing with finds the
    idea (that I may not be able to adequately explain a few texts) to be
    unacceptable, just know that I find this to perhaps be indicative of 
    a fair degree of ignorance of the depth of God's word.  Surely, there 
    are pieces not yet joined to your tapestry!  After all, Daniel says 
    that knowledge shall increase in the last days and (as the water is the 
    word) an outpouring awaits.  There are, I believe, many surprises ahead 
    of us!

    Point Two.  Its not wrong for Christians to discuss points of disagree-
    ment.  But, please, let us do so with the same love that is Christ's
    love.  Let us be tender with each other.  Let us skip the sarcasm.  Let
    us not speculate things about one another's heart.

    Point Three.  I have observed what I have believed to be a characteristic
    of similar past discussions.  What I have observed is this...

    Those of the unconditional immortality belief would bring up a lot of
    texts.  I would bring up a few texts.  There would be far less response
    to the texts I would bring up.  I would respond far more to the verses
    brought to my attention.

    Do we believe the entire word of God is inspired?  I ask for a fair 
    exchange and in light of that, I offer a guideline.

    ONE TEXT ON EACH SIDE.  You share with me one text and give me time to
    respond.  I will share with you one text and await your response.  We
    cannot share any other texts until we have responded to the one given
    us.  The only exception to this I can see are if texts say essentially
    the same thing and thus the response to one would be considered a response
    to them all.

    Fair enough?  I will only respond to one text until the text I give is
    given a thorough response.  Is this fair of me?  If not, why not?

    Four.  I work A-Shift.  Sunday/Mon/Tues/every other Wed from 8 AM to
    8 PM.  I am busy.  I'd like this to be a drawn out (timewise) discussion.

    What do you say?  In my next reply, I'll volunteer a verse to respond to
    and after that, I'll give you a verse to respond to.

						In His Love,

						Tony

  Hi,

    Is it OK if the first text I respond to is Luke 23:39-43???

    Its popular.  Its a very often used scripture for supporting
    continued consciousness after death.  

    Is this one OK for you guys as a first scripture???

    Just let me know.  I am not meaning to avoid any and if I am
    not sure of the meaning, I will candidly acknowledge thus.

						Tony

    
    I recommend you start with one which is absolutely clear in its meaning
    rather than one which some purport not to be clear in its meaning.
    
    For example, the verse where Paul states that to be absent from the
    body is to be present with the Lord.  And its further development where
    Paul says that he is torn between continuing here in this body and being
    with the Lord, that is, physically dead to this world.
    
    jeff

    First of all, I don't believe it is possible to perform proper Biblical 
    exegesis when you submit to the authority of a church or denomination that 
    mandates the Bible's interpretation.  We discussed this in V7.  People 
    cannot effectively argue for any doctrine when they are relying on what 
    their church officials have told them what each passage means.

    Mike

    .5
    
    I can't agree with you more!

    Though we've had our differences in the past, I believe Tony is my
    brother in the Lord and is generally solid in his grasp of scripture.
    
    However, given proper Biblical exegesis, let's assume for a moment that 
    Tony was influenced to his position on soul sleep (again, just an 
    assumption - I'm sure he'll explain to us how he arrived at this
    position) by the founder of his church - the prophetess Ellen G. White. 
    We know that this is an SDA doctrine.  The Jehovah's Witnesses also have a 
    similar belief in soul sleep.

    In White's 1847 edition of "Early Writings", she had a vision which 
    she said was from God, where she went up to heaven and saw Abraham, Issac, 
    and Jacob there.  This contradicts the SDA stance on "soul sleep", where 
    the dead do not go to heaven and also 2 Corinthians 5, Philippians 1
    (as well as several scriptures already posted).  In later editions of 
    "Early Writings", these quotes were edited out to support the SDA stance 
    on soul sleep.

    Right away we see that, even if Tony believes he has reached his
    position on Biblical study, the main SDA influence was in error.
    (you decide to what degree - or maybe Tony can share with us how much) 
    It may be just a series of coincidences that Tony can clarify for us.  
    However, he cannot be both influenced by Ellen G. White and perform proper 
    Biblical exegesis on soul sleep.

    I'll reiterate...

    Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31), Christ
    promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and
    Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death
    (2 Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).

    The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth (Ecclesiastes 12:7,
    2 Corinthians 5:1,6-8).

    The resurrection is a returning of the soul back to its body (1 Kings
    17:17-24, Luke 7:11-17), and will happen when Christ returns
    (Luke 24:36-43, Philippians 3:20-21, I Corinthians 15:39-54).
        
    Soul sleep is not a Biblical doctrine (Luke 16).

      Hi,
    
        No, I didn't come to this doctrine via Ellen White.  I actually
        believed it the first time I was confronted with it, after
        I was converted.  Didn't really think of it before that as I
        was brought up Catholic.
    
        Regarding Ellen White...
    
        Visions are often metaphorical.  I have no problem with some-
        one perhaps seeing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in heaven in vision.
        These people stand for things.  They stand for more than just
        themselves as individuals.
    
        Likewise, John, in vision, saw a beast in heaven.
    
        Is there really a beast in heaven?
    
        By the way, I do not believe the brunt of truth will be exposed
        by exegetical studies.  I believe they will be exposed by here
        a little there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept
        studies.  Things like word studies.  Like say looking up every
        occurance of the word 'fire.'
    
        So, Mike, I disagree with a major tenet of yours (it seems).
        I believe God authored the Bible in such a way that exegetical
        studies will not expose the depths of truth in God's word.
    
        Anyway, which scripture do you want me to respond to???
                                
        Or should we just suspend this whole idea?  Was the suggestion
        of a way of doing this unacceptable?
    
    							Tony
    
        Do you want me to respond to being absent from the body to
        be with the Lord first?  Which one do you want?

|        Do you want me to respond to being absent from the body to
|        be with the Lord first?  Which one do you want?
    
    Sure Tony, this is fine with me.  However, I don't see how you can
    address this with precept upon precept rather than exegesis.  Afterall,
    you even said the entire Bible is context (and I agree).  Eventually,
    you'll have to address this verse, all related verses, and all those
    that apparently contradict your position.  This is exegesis.
    
    Mike

      OK Mike, thats fine with me.  By exegesis, I took it that you
      meant say a text of scripture rather than the entire Bible.
    
      Sort of like doing an exegetical study of Hebrews 12 and expecting
      all the truth laden in Hebrews 12 to come out because of that
      procedure.  I would disagree with this expectation and assert that
      other passages taken along side Hebrews 12 will enable truth to
      emerge and truth that never would have been seen with Heb 12 alone.
    
      By the way, you seem to write as though there is not a single
      text of scripture that 'seems' to not support your view.
    
      Hmmm.
    
      Finally, would you like me to give you a text of scripture and form
      a response to me?
    
    							Tony

|      By the way, you seem to write as though there is not a single
|      text of scripture that 'seems' to not support your view.
    
    Well I'll try to be open to what you have to say.
    
|      Finally, would you like me to give you a text of scripture and form
|      a response to me?
    
    Sure.  I'm sure Jeff, Wayne, and others would like equal time too.
    
    Mike

      Hmmm, well, last time I chatted with Wayne on this topic, he
      seemed to be coming to the truth!
    
      (That is, he seemed to be shifting from eternal conscious
      torment to anihilation.)
    
    						Tony

    Don't be too hasty in putting words in my mouth, my brother! :-)
    
    This topic isn't just about the final judgment, but rather what becomes
    of those who die.  I do not support the concept of soul sleep.
    
    In our chats, you said that "the idea of God 'opting for' eternal
    conscious torment for the lost is quite a colossal stain (we would
    place) upon His character."
    
    I said, "You assert death in terms of annihilation into nothingness. I
    assert death in terms of conscious separation from God, i.e., life and
    love no longer an option. Please note that I have come to appreciate
    that 'eternal conscious torment' need not be the final resolution of
    unrighteousness. I do still believe, though, that there is (at least)
    'finite conscious torment' (or punishment commensurate with the evil
    wrought in temporal experience) awaiting the lost. I 'see' two possible
    states of existence consistent with God's Love and Justice, one in
    which the saved eternally experience God's Love with no remembrance of
    sin, and another in which the lost always (for an undefined season)
    experience sin's effect while remembering their rejection of God's
    Love."
    
    I went on to say, "In the statement of my growing understanding I
    intended you to see that God need not 'opt for' ET. In fact, I'm
    becoming more comfortable with the notion that He likely won't. In any
    event, that which remains unresolved in my mind now will be (more than
    satisfactorily) resolved in His judgment. No doubt about it!"
    
    I also said, "What I'm struggling with is annihilation into
    nothingness, i.e., as if nothing had ever happened."  You asked, "If
    the lost were to suffer for a billion years and then cease to exist, on
    the basis that the time period of suffering be finite, would you
    consider their 'punishment' too small?"  I answered, "No, I wouldn't
    consider this too small."
    
    I agreed with you that the whole reason for the lost suffering probably
    is to reveal how bad sin is and how good love is to the redeemed.  I
    went on to say, "I believe part of the lost's suffering might be to
    finally 'see' God's love but with the sense that no choice remains,
    i.e., the lost understand the ramification of rejecting God's love in
    time and space."
    
    What I've come to accept is that God need not consign the lost to
    eternal conscious torment in order to reveal Love and Justice, or to
    otherwise vindicate Himself to any who behold Him.
    
    The sin of believers was put to death in Jesus on the cross.  He
    suffered and died in my place.  The suffering that Christ endured on
    behalf of us who believe is yet to be endured by those who will not
    believe.  The lost will not just be annihilated into nothingness.
    
    For present readers, I will restate my understanding that I shared with
    you:  "God does not 'need' to punish sinners because they sin. His
    holiness does demand that sin be destroyed, though. Christ bore our sin
    (with no sin of His own). Sin could not be destroyed in a sinner
    without the sinner also being destroyed. What remains for those who do
    not accept Christ's sacrifice on their behalf? They will be sinners
    when sin is destroyed; therefore, they will bear sin's fruit and be
    'punished' themselves."
    
    That said, I have come to appreciate that "Eternal conscious Torment"
    (ET) is NOT a necessary conclusion from Scripture.  However, Scripture
    is clear that sin incurs the wrath of God and that the lost will
    suffer.  God's judgment will be just, and His righteousness will be
    demonstrated to both the saved and the lost, the saved unto life and
    the lost unto death.  In terms of even the lost's suffering, I see that
    "for ever" as eternal God speaks into time and space can rightly be taken
    to mean sufficient versus never-ending.
    
    Now, on with the case.  There is much Scripture to be presented and
    discussed.  I applaud any who will take this opportunity to REALLY
    examine what God has revealed in His Word about life and death, rather
    than just accepting what others have said about what God says.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,                                             
    
        That sure was a thoughtful and intelligent reply!
    
        I'm sorry if I spoke incorrectly.
    
        You did bring up a good point which is that God does not
        desire the eternal existence of sin.  I agree.
    
        I might not be ready until Sunday...
    
        Work is absolutely relentless.
    
    							Take Care,
    
    							Tony

    Intelligent?  Perhaps not.
    
    Thoughtful?  I hope so.  My thinking process is limited, but I have put
    a lot of thought into this subject as a result of trying to dialog with
    your own studied position.
    
    I think you and I agree that God's Word will accomplish His purpose. 
    Exposing ourselves to His Word with an open heart is ultimately what we
    would want for others.
    
    God is God, and we His creature.
    
    /Wayne

    P.S.  To other readers:  Much of my note .13 comprised excerpts from
    personal out-of-conference conversation between Tony and me.  I shared
    some of our dialog in order to establish the context for Tony's note
    .12 and my reply.

    Suffice to say that my perspective has changed on God's final judgment of
    sinners whose sin has not been put to death by faith in Jesus Christ.
    But I want to be clear that only for the redeemed is there deliverance
    from sin!  I find no reason to believe in annihilation into nothingness
    as if sin had never happened, but I also do not believe that eternal life
    for the saved *requires* never-ending torment for the lost.

Hi All,

This really wasn't the first text I wanted to introduce, but the
one I wanted will be far more time consuming to develop.  The
following text has been used by proponents of 'no soul sleep' as
one showing that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now alive because
"God is the God of the living" and Jesus says this with respect
to these three patriarchs of old.


Matthew 22:23-33 
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no
resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: "Teacher,
Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother
shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25
"Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he
had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his
brother. 26 "Likewise the second also, and the third, even to
the seventh. 27 "Last of all the woman died also. 28 "Therefore,
in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For
they all had her." 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are
mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 "But
concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what
was spoken to you by God, saying, 32  'I am the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of
the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the multitudes heard
this, they were astonished at His teaching.


Now, the Saducees had a problem, didn't they?  They did not
believe in life after death.  The author (Matthew) and Jesus
Christ Himself voice their disagreement with the Saducees.  And
on what basis?  What do they offer as the SUPPORT for disagreement?

Do they say that God is the God of the living on the basis of
His creating some facet of man that is immortal?  Do they say
that God is the God of the living because He upholds some facet
of man so as to be alive between death and resurrection?

Is this what they say?  Is this their 'doctrine?'

No!

They say that God is the God of the living for one reason and
one reason alone.

THE RESURRECTION.

The reason that there are living, in any capacity of life (which
most fundamental capacity is intelligent consciousness), is
because God resurrects.  That is, God brings the dead to life. 
He causes life to come from that which is dead (very simple
concept).

Resurrection: The bringing of dead to life.  To raise that which
is dead to life.

But, God did say that He IS the God of the living, did He not?
And what is an inference of this?  The logic goes like this...

God IS the God of the living and He specifically refers to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.  As God speaks in the present tense and as He
refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it follows that they must be
alive in the present tense of when Jesus uttered these words.

Very simple rationale except there is a conflict here!  Jesus just
characterized the truth of life on the basis of resurrection and
the resurrection was yet future to His time on earth!

Ahhh, but the Bible reconciles this seeming tension!

Did not God also say to Abraham...

Genesis 17:4-5
"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be the
Father of many nations.     [future tense]
No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
for I have made you a father of many nations.   [past tense]

Romans 4:17-18
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") in the
presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead
and calls those things which do not exist as though they did.  [past tense]

who contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of
many nations, according to what was spoken, "So shall your descendants
be."  [future tense]

Characteristic of God:
God calls those things which do not exist as though they did.

And speaking of Isaac...

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith, Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had
received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called,"
accounting that God

[what?  that God made for a part of Isaac to live between death and 
resurrection?  Was this where Abe's faith laid hold of?  Where is the
basis for Abraham's hope for Isaac?  And what was Abe's urgent desire?
Was it that Isaac's 'spirit' be reunited with his body?  Was this really
Abe's concern?  No!  Abe's concern for Isaac was that Isaac have life!]

accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from 
which he also received him in a figurative sense.

One last thing before a summarization.  Why would God call something which
does not exist as though it did?  I believe it is because we can take Him
at His word!  He said it.  Its guaranteed!  ITS A DONE DEAL!!!

Thats why He can look at Abe as already alive.  It is such a sure thing
that He speaks of it thus.

To summarize:

1) Jesus says LIFE is by reason of His power to resurrect.  There is no
   other way for LIFE.  It is by the resurrection.

2) Proponents of any life at all outside of the resurrection have used 
   this text as support all the while being blind to its 100% reliance
   on the resurrection as reason for life after death.

3) Proponents of any life at all outside of the resurrection have cited
   the truth that God said, He IS the God of the living.  In doing so,
   they have left vacant OTHER scripture which so clearly states a
   characteristic of God, i.e. that He calls those things which do not
   exist as though they do.  That is, their 'tapestry' is extremely
   incomplete in this regard and (partially for that reason) an incomplete
   tapestry yields an erroneas belief system.

4) Abraham's hope for Isaac himself was not that God would keep the most
   fundamental part of who Isaac is alive (His person/his consciousness).
   Abe's hope for Isaac was faith in ONE THING.  God's power to resurrect
   him and the belief that God would.  Clearly Abe's overriding concern
   was not that Isaac might temporarily lack a physical body.  His concern
   was that Isaac might lack life in all its attributes - the most important
   being conscious existence.  His hope for Isaac rested in one thing.
   FAITH IN THE GOD WHO WOULD RESURRECT HIM.

Conclusion: There is no life after death.  None.  Until the resurrection.


						In Pursuit of Truth,

						Tony

  Hi,

    Man, its quiet in here!  Is this node unavailable to most places???

    I just want to add one thing here.  Some people have a strong distaste
    for even the notion that their 'departed' love ones are not in heaven,
    but rather are in the grave.  However, if you think it through, its
    not cause for sorrow.

    The dead know no passage of time.   Their next conscious moment, if
    saved, will be seeing the lovely face of Jesus Christ in the clouds
    as well as those of all loved ones.  Think on that.  One moment, they
    perish.  Time has stopped so far as they are concerned.  The next 
    moment, as in a moment, they are caught up in the clouds!  It is a
    happy thought!

    Indeed, for the redeemed dead, being in heaven before this time might
    be cause for some sorrow.  They would then see us in our comparative
    trials and tribulations.  Except for a select few (and now is not the
    time to discuss why, imo) such as Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, all are in
    the grave as is David.

    When thought through, this is not a sad thought rather its a happy one!
    Their next conscious moment will be awesomely joyful!!

							Tony

    Re: .19
    
    I was swamped this morning.  Thanks to good ole DECnet/OSI, I had 5
    clusters down at once with no backup assistance! {whew!}
    
Re: 53.16

|marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 "But
|concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what
|was spoken to you by God, saying, 32  'I am the God of Abraham,
|the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of
|the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the multitudes heard
|this, they were astonished at His teaching.
|
|They say that God is the God of the living for one reason and
|one reason alone.
|
|THE RESURRECTION.

Okay, I acknowledge that, but technically speaking 1 Corinthians 15 hasn't
occurred yet.  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob haven't resurrected.  Only Christ has.
Yet Jesus Christ still referred to the patriarchs as "LIVING."

Re: 53.17

|Characteristic of God:
|God calls those things which do not exist as though they did.

Okay I see you've addressed my statement above, but I don't believe you can
extrapolate the references to Abraham's lineage and apply it to the
resurrection.  You may have solved 1 point of contention, but you created more
with other passages of scripture (i.e., 2 Corinthians 5:5-10 to name one).  

Re: 53.18

|To summarize:

I think most of us would be much more comfortable if you can supply a text that
explicitly states that God considers believers living because of the future
resurrection, even though they are physically dead.

Jesus said to His disciples, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul
and body in hell." (Mt.10:28, KJV)

"Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they
can do. But I forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after He hath
killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him." (Lu.12:4&5,
KJV)

What is clear from these verses?

 1) Man has a body (material) and a soul (incorporeal).

 2) The body can be killed by either God or man, but only God can destroy both
    body and soul in hell.

The plain meaning of kill is to put to death or to put an end to.  The plain
meaning of destroy is to ruin or tear down competely.  Physical death is NOT
complete ruination.

The Apostle Paul prayed that our "whole spirit and soul and body be preserved
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1Th.5:23b, KJV)  This
verse has been used as a proof text for the tripartite nature of man.  However,
I stipulate that spirit and soul are indistinguishable by the senses, and for
sake of this argument concerning the state of the dead, this verse again clearly
shows man comprising both material and incorporeal.

Elsewhere the Apostle Paul was "always confident, knowing that, whilst we are
at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord...willing rather to be absent
from the body, and to be present with the Lord" (2Co.5:6-8, KJV), and said, "For
I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ;
which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for
you." (Ph.1:23&24, KJV)

Clearly the Apostle Paul is talking about himself as material (in the flesh),
and as immaterial who could depart (from the body) to be with Christ.  This
passage shows that Paul was in the flesh because others needed him here.
Otherwise, Paul would have been with the Lord.  Furthermore, Paul's being with
the Lord was surely conscious, though not subject to the physical senses ("For
we walk by faith, not by sight.") (2Co.5:7, KJV)

RE: .18 (Tony Barbieri)

| 1) Jesus says LIFE is by reason of His power to resurrect.  There is no
|    other way for LIFE.  It is by the resurrection.

** Jesus said, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth; even so
   the Son quickeneth whom He will...I am the resurrection, and the life: he
   that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever
   liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (Jn.5:21;
   11:25&26, KJV)

   Jesus said, "Verily, verily, he that heareth my word, and believeth on Him
   that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;
   but is passed from death unto life...the hour is coming, and now is, when
   the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall
   live. FOR AS THE FATHER HATH LIFE IN HIMSELF; SO HATH HE GIVEN TO THE SON
   TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF; And hath given Him authority to execute judgment
   also, because He is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is
   coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, And
   shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;
   and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (Jn.5:24-
   29, KJV)

   God said, "I AM THAT I AM." (Ex.3:14)  Life is His inherently to give.
   Jesus says, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending." (Re.1:8)
   Again Jesus says to us, "whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.
   Do you believe?"

   If death is lack of consciousness, and Jesus said that those who live and
   believe in Him will never die, then when exactly does life, i.e., awareness
   of self in terms of existence and environment, cease for the believer?
   "Never die" seems to preclude any hiatus.

| 2) Proponents of any life at all outside of the resurrection have used 
|    this text as support all the while being blind to its 100% reliance
|    on the resurrection as reason for life after death.

** Was the Sadducees' problem that "they did not believe in life after death?"
   Not exactly.  They said there was no resurrection (Mt.22:23), neither angel
   nor spirit (Ac.23:8).  The Sadducees believed nothing outside physical
   perception or explanation.  They dismissed miracles as illusions, rather
   than see evidence of things unseen.  Thus, since God is a spirit, the
   Sadducees did not worship Him in truth (see Jn.4:24).

   I don't see the resurrection as "reason for life after death."  Rather,
   God's power and prerogative to give life is the basis for resurrection from
   the dead, and the time to hear His voice is now!

   The Apostle Paul said, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are
   of all men most miserable." (1Co.15:19, KJV)

| 3) Proponents of any life at all outside of the resurrection have cited
|    the truth that God said, He IS the God of the living.  In doing so,
|    they have left vacant OTHER scripture which so clearly states a
|    characteristic of God, i.e. that He calls those things which do not
|    exist as though they do.  That is, their 'tapestry' is extremely
|    incomplete in this regard and (partially for that reason) an incomplete
|    tapestry yields an erroneas belief system.

** God did not resurrect Adam from the dead.  Rather, He formed Adam from
   substance (dust of the ground) which He had called into existence from
   nothing, and then breathed life into him.

| 4) Abraham's hope for Isaac himself was not that God would keep the most
|    fundamental part of who Isaac is alive (His person/his consciousness).
|    Abe's hope for Isaac was faith in ONE THING.  God's power to resurrect
|    him and the belief that God would.  Clearly Abe's overriding concern
|    was not that Isaac might temporarily lack a physical body.  His concern
|    was that Isaac might lack life in all its attributes - the most important
|    being conscious existence.  His hope for Isaac rested in one thing.
|    FAITH IN THE GOD WHO WOULD RESURRECT HIM.

** Actually, Abraham accounted God able to raise up, even from the dead.  He
   was "fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to
   perform." (Ro.4:21)

   God had not promised to raise Isaac from the dead.  Rather He promised
   Abraham that "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Ge.21:12)

   Abraham was prepared to kill Isaac because he accounted God able to call
   into existence things that were not.

   Reality is what God sees, not what we see.  And God's Word reveals to us
   what He sees.

| Conclusion: There is no life after death.  None.  Until the resurrection.

** Again, if our life were only our own and there were no life beyond what we
   see, or "after death," if you will, then there would be no resurrection.

   There is resurrection because there is God who gives life.

/Wayne

    "For He shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him
    that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save
    the souls of the needy. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and
    violence: and precious shall their blood be in His sight."
    (Ps.72:12-14, KJV)
    
    "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints."
    (Ps.116:15, KJV)

Matthew 22:23-33 
    
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no
resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 

This is the key to understanding this whole passage correctly.
The topic is the resurrection and future state.  The Sadducees
were the smallest sect among the Jews.  Their name comes from
one Sadoc who was a student of a teacher who had lived about
250 years before Christ's birth.  The Sadducees only gave credence
to the Law of Moses as canon.  They were actually deists and
their beliefs were formed by Greek Epicurean philosophy.  They
believed that the body was annialated.  They believed only God
had a spirit.  They were heretics, hated by the Pharisees for
their denial of God's Word and especially the denial of the
    resurrection.

24 saying: "Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, 
his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25
"Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he
had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his
brother. 26 "Likewise the second also, and the third, even to
the seventh. 27 "Last of all the woman died also. 28 "Therefore,
in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For
they all had her." 

So here we have the Sadducees hoping to perplex Jesus with this
imaginary but possible situation.  They hoped to advance their
belief that there is no resurrection by demonstrating the utter
absurdity of deciding whose wife the woman would be in the resurrection. 

29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are
mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

Here Jesus tells them that they are ignorant of the Scriptures
(purposefully, of course) and therefore have erred in their 
understanding of the resurrection.  Also in their ignorance they
are mistaken in their assumptions about the power of God, which
is great.

31 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what
was spoken to you by God, saying, 32  'I am the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of
the dead, but of the living." 

Here Jesus straightens them out by pointing them to the Scriptures.
Beautifully he points them to the only Scriptures they supposedly accept, 
the Law of Moses, where admittedly God had not revealed a great deal about
the resurrection and future state.  And what did Jesus point them to?
He pointed them to God speaking to Moses at the burning bush, long after
the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  God said to Moses I *am* (not
I was or have been) the God of Abraham...God is God of the living and
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living at the time God spoke to Moses.

33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

And finally, the people listening were astonished because Jesus had so
completely shut the mouths of the Sadducees (vs. 34) with his proof that
there is a resurrection and future state.

The most that can be said about this passage in relation to the state of
the dead, is that they are alive to God and of course that there will be
a resurrection of the body and it will not be like our mortal bodies with
all of its attendant carnal appetites.  

Jesus's teaching here completely abolishes the idea of soul sleep rather than
supporting it.

jeff

I'm here, Tony.

But this is another topic that I just can't generate any personal interest
in.  On most topics, I ask the question of myself "Will my life and how I
live it change based on the answer to this question?"  And if not, then I've
got plenty of questions to deal with that WILL affect how I live, and I don't
have extra time and effort to spend on questions that WON'T affect me at all.

This one, as far as I can tell, falls resoundingly in the "No effect"
category, so I just can't get myself interested in even discussing it.

We die.  We see Jesus.  Whether there is some 'suspended animation' period
that we're not even aware of between the two - well, what difference does it
make?

Paul

    What I find most interesting in all this is Jesus Christ's use of the
    *LITERAL* Word of God in theological discussions.  A lesson for all of
    us to learn.

    re .23
    
    Thanks for putting that all together so clearly Jeff.
    
    
    Jill
    

    Hi Paul,
    
>But this is another topic that I just can't generate any personal interest
>in.  On most topics, I ask the question of myself "Will my life and how I
>live it change based on the answer to this question?"  And if not, then I've
>got plenty of questions to deal with that WILL affect how I live, and I don't
>have extra time and effort to spend on questions that WON'T affect me at all.
    
    Your attitude of measuring whether a topic generates any personal
    interest before your get involved is what most of us go through before 
    we join a discussion here, I think.
    
    I would suggest that the question "will my life and how I live it
    change based on the answer to this question?" is a good question.  I
    would furthermore suggest that any discussion of a Biblical question
    will change our lives, assuming the truth is uncovered, even if
    imperceptible at the moment of discussion.

>This one, as far as I can tell, falls resoundingly in the "No effect"
>category, so I just can't get myself interested in even discussing it.
>We die.  We see Jesus.  Whether there is some 'suspended animation' period
>that we're not even aware of between the two - well, what difference does it
>make?
    
    The issues around what happens to us in death are some of the most
    important of our lives since death is such a great sorrow and enemy. I
    wonder if, God forbid, you should lose a loved one to an untimely
    death, for example, if you would find this discussion a moot point.
    
    If this were a purely technical matter it would still be important. 
    But it is not.  Tony's (and others' unorthodox) beliefs do not originate
    with death, in this example, but from an unbiblical view of God, His
    character, the cross, our state, and so on.  One unbiblical view
    supports another and so on until you end up with a completely distorted
    understanding of God across the board.  When such views are publicly
    touted as truth then we have an obligation to defend the faith which
    has been entrusted to the saints - a biblical faith.
    
    I'm not attempting to get you involved in this discussion at all.  I'm
    just pointing out that this discussion perhaps is more important than
    people think and may lead to a greater comprehension of the truth than
    one might expect. 

    jeff

 If I understand this topic correctly, is Tony saying that the unsaved
 who die are not resurrected?  If that be the case, then why even be concerned
 with being saved?  You live, you die..that's it.  They'll never know
 the difference.  A life of rejecting Christ is of no consequence..

 Scary position, in my opinion.



 Jim

    Hi, JimBro.
    
    No, I don't believe Tony is saying that the lost who die will not be
    resurrected.  Rather, he's saying that all who die before the final
    resurrection are dead indeed, i.e., without awareness of existence and
    environment.
    
    I think Tony believes that both saved and lost will be resurrected to
    behold the unveiled glory of God, the saved unto eternal life and the
    lost unto death, i.e., annihilation and oblivion.  Having rejected the
    Lamb who was slain, the lost will be consumed by the unbearable pain of
    sin.
    
    /Wayne

 Guess I should pay closer attention.  As others have stated, I believe
 Scripture clearly states otherwise.



 Jim

	That was the impression I got from Tony in the hall yesterday.

    
    Jim,
    
    Either way, without a resurrection or with a resurrection, oblivion is
    the destiny of the unsaved according to Tony, though that's not the
    gist of this topic, which is what happens between death and
    resurrection.  
    
    Your question, "why be saved", is still completely relevant.
    
    jeff

    Paul and Jeff,

    I think Paul's question, "Will my life and how I live it change based 
    on the answer to this question?" is a good one to ask before engaging
    in debate on a particular issue. I'd like to suggest a couple of other
    questions to ask of oneself:

    1) Can I be absolutely sure of the answer, or is there room for the
       possibility of being wrong? How adamaent should I be that what
       I think is probably the truth is in fact, THE TRUTH, without 
       error?

    2) Will someone else's life change for better based on their under-
       standing of the answer to this question?

    3) Can I trust God enough to let a matter rest in His hands without having
       to know the answer for myself?

    4) Will anything change based on who "wins" the argument? Will I bring
       about good by participating?
                              --------------------------
    
>    The issues around what happens to us in death are some of the most
>    important of our lives since death is such a great sorrow and enemy. I
>    wonder if, God forbid, you should lose a loved one to an untimely
>    death, for example, if you would find this discussion a moot point.

     Indeed death is a great sorrow and enemy! But I do not need to know 
     exactly what happens at death in order to fight the despair death can
     impart. All I need to know is that because of God's great love, death 
     is not the end, there is a resurrection and reunion of body and spirit 
     for the righteous in Messiah. I also need to know that my life here on 
     earth has meaning and purpose. I get that by following the Word (being
     obedient to God, glorifying God in all things, and by the knowledge of 
     what Yeshua did for me.

     Jeff, you are right that we should defend the truth, but I think there 
     are times to advance, and times to exercise patience. I am not saying 
     this is necessarily one of those, but I can certainly understand Paul's 
     position on this topic.
    
     Leslie

    Someone once told me that they didn't care if there were life after
    death - it was all the same to them. But that was something I could
    never understand. To me, life is the greatest gift there is, and it
    is unbearable to think of its end, or the end of those whom I've known
    and loved. Complete death, to not exist, to have no continuation of
    being, erases any meaning to who I am now as well as to what I will be
    in the future. To cease in the future is to not matter now. To be erased,
    or to be blotted out is make my hopes and dreams utter futility. Does
    anyone else feel this way? 

    Leslie

    Hi, Leslie.
    
    Most certainly future annihilation would make present life vain and
    void.
    
    But eternal life, the "continuation of being," if you will, is what we
    believers have in store.  And much more than that, we are being made
    like Christ, whole, perfect, to no longer struggle with sin, to know as
    we are known, to enjoy our Father forevermore.
    
    Just wanted to make sure you clearly understood that Tony, too, sees
    believers being raised to eternal life, incorruptible and immortal. 
    I'm quite sure the final destiny of obedient believers is NOT the
    question Tony is posing here.
    
    /Wayne

	Yes!

    I think living for the Lord in this life makes life worth living
    regardless of what awaits us after death.  The fact that we know we'll
    be with Him in eternity is icing on the cake.
    
    Mike

Oh Wayne,

I have no doubt that we have a future after death, nor did I have any 
trouble understandingt that Tony's annilation was applied to those who
rejected God. I was just stating I don't understand how people can feel
blase about death - I'm not talking about specific people here in this
file. 

Leslie

For example, Mike's response - being with God in eternity is not "icing on
the cake" for me, it is ESSENTIAL.

Leslie

    Amen Leslie on being saved and with God.  
    
    The icing for me is any rewards that I may get as a result of getting 
    enough of self out of the way and being obediant and used for the Lord's 
    purposes.  Both here on earth and in heaven.
    
    1 Corinthians 3:14  If any man's work abide which he hath built
    		thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
    1 Corinthians 3:15  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer
    		loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
    
    
    					-JimGle-
    
    

    Hi, Leslie.
    
    Okay, I understand from whence you were coming now.
    
    And I wholeheartedly share your lack of understanding how people could
    feel blase about death.  I suppose fatalists or stoics might say "so
    what?", but though death might be rationalized or sensorily dismissed,
    dying cannot be ignored!
    
    Life begets life.  The value of life is in living.
    
    /Wayne

    Well, I can understand it. :-(  When your "life" on earth hasn't felt
    the love of God truly penetrate the depths of your very soul, your
    heart, your mind, death oftens seems better than life.
    
    

    I don't call that being blase about death, Nancy.
    
    The question then is why death seems better than life.

    To answer your question see .42 again. :-)

    Nope, you're not getting off that easy! :-)

    The question is what seems "better."  What about death is understood,
    assumed or sensed such that the relative value of "better" could be
    assigned?  How would one conclude death better than life, other than
    life is bad, so not life must be good?

    .45
    
    Because you don't have the light of Christ, you assume death is an
    "end".  Yes this is a false belief, but it is only false when light is
    shone on it.
    
    

    Might you say that death is regarded as an escape from the pain of
    living?

"For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confi-
dence steadfast to the end, while it is said: 'Today, if you will hear His
voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.'

"For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt,
led by Moses? Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who
sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they
would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?

"Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any
of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us
as well as them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being
mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that
rest, as He has said: 'So I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest,'
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has
spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the
seventh day from all His works'; and again in this place: 'They shall not enter
my rest.'

"Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was
first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a
certain day, saying in David, 'Today,' after such a long time, as it has been
said: 'Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.' For if
Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another
day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has
entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His."

Dead believers are entered into His rest.  They no longer struggle.  "Let us
(who are alive and remain) therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest any-
one fall according to the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is
living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the
division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His
sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give
account.

"Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not
have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknessess, but was in all
points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the
throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of
need." (He.3:14-4:16, NKJ)

What of dead unbelievers?  "For if we sin willfully after we have received the
knowledge of the truth (by the same gospel preached to the obedient), there no
longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judg-
ment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (He.10:26&27,
NKJ)

Summary:

 1) Life in the flesh is given, and the gospel is preached, to all men.

 2) For believers who hear and obey with faith in Jesus Christ there remains
    a rest.

 3) For unbelievers who willfully sin after hearing without faith there
    remains a fearful expectation of judgment.

I submit that the Word of God reveals the state of the dead, and both saved and
lost are aware of existence and environment.  The love of God, His life, if you
will, has cast fear out of believers such that in death they rest from their
work (of faith) and labour (of love) with patience (of hope wrought by experi-
ence) to see Jesus' glory, the very image of God.

The lost in death, on the other hand, having rejected the love of God, are left
only with fear of expected judgment.

Again, in death the saved rest in sure expectation of being like Jesus when He
appears as He is, while the lost fear certain judgment.  That is the STATE of
the dead.  Now, where the dead exist awaiting glorification or damnation might
be less clear! :-)

I think Tony believes the dead, both saved and lost, are "in the grave" without
consciousness.  I believe the saved are where Jesus is, conscious in a place
He has prepared for us, and the lost are in the grave, conscious in a place of
outer darkness.

    re: .24
    
    Good point, Paul.
    
    I am not nearly as interested in the "in between time," i.e. the time
    between death and resurrection.  I am much more interested in the
    eternal sense, i.e. what happens to the lost?
    
    Anything that adds to comprehending God's love is beneficial.  God
    appeals to reason.  His word is rational.  There is added appeal 
    regarding the character of God when the truth of what befalls the
    lost is known.
    
    As for the in between time, well, its not so important to me either.
    I have heard the truth is a safeguard against spiritualism.  Who
    knows the things "Mother Mary" will be telling millions of folks?
    Who is she really????
    
    There is protection in the word that says, "The dead know not
    anything."
    
    						Tony

    Hi Jeff,
    
      Why did you completely sidestep my Romans 4 input?
    
    						Tony

      re: .28
    
      Hi Jim.
    
        No, you do not understand my position correctly.  I believe
        the brunt of what I have volunteered so far is that, after
        death, there is no life until the resurrection.
    
        I never once said that the lost ARE NOT resurrected.
    
    						Tony

      re: .29
    
      YEAH!  AMEN WAYNE!!!
    
    						Tony

    re: .32
    
    For me, the main point of this topic is not what happens between
    death and resurrection, but what happens to the lost after their
    resurrection.
    
    But, they are, I believe, inter-related for one's view of the state
    of the dead sometimes includes an idea that a part of man is immortal.
    Thus, there can be similarities (between the time between death and
    resurrection and the time following the punishment of the lost) imposed 
    by this belief.
    
    						Tony
    

      re: .37
    
      Mike, that was beautiful!!!  What a *wonderful* testimony that
      is!  That was heartwarming!
    
      Wayne, Leslie, appreciate your inputs.  Wayne, you appear to
      understand my view better than most (inclusinf perhaps myself???
      haha).
    
    						Thanks,
    
    						Tony

      I was all set to enter a response to "absent from the Lord" (which
      I wrote at home), but my disk is not being read by my PC.
    
      Hopefully tomorrow.
    
    						Tony

Hi Brothers and Sisters,

This is my offer of a correct interpretation of what
scripture means when it says "absent in the body" and "present
with the Lord."  I have always considered it to be one of, if
not the most difficult scriptures for one of my belief regarding
the state of the dead.  Does that mean I ought not have believed
what I believe?  No, for presently, there is a weight, via other
scriptures, that far exceeds the weight of this text.  I have to
go by the sum of scripture.  I could not have embraced this
text, as others do, for I would dismiss too many others.  I must
embrace the sum total of scripture.

But, thank God, this text is now a more compelling piece of the
tapestry that is my present understanding of spiritual things. 
Compelling because what has been considered a cornerstone text
for the other view is, in reality, no support for such a view.

By the way, the following I got from no other.  No SDA
literature.  No Ellen White.  It is the byproduct of personal
study, prayer, logos Bible software (!!), Strong's Exhaustive
Concordance,and yes, my own being (with its own ability to
reason and with its own varying bondage to preconceptions or
liberty thereof - which we, as error prone human beings, have
from one extent or another).

The following are all the NT texts I found to include the
English word "absent."  One OT text contained the word "absent"
but lent no help to this study that I could see (Genesis 31:39).

These texts contain one of two Greek words which are Strong's
Numbers 548 and 1553.  From Strong's...


548  - apeimi - to be away.  Be absent.

1553 - ekdemeo - to emigrate, i.e. (fig.) vacate or quit: - be
absent.

where the abreviation "fig.", according to Strong's stands for
figurative.

One other thing that is noteworthy.  I did a Strong's number
(Greek) search of these words.  They exist no where else in the
scriptures save perhaps in the LXX (which would be an
interesting study, but I am presently not up to it!)

The following are the texts with the specific Strong's word to
provide distinction from the other.


1 Corinthians 5:1-4 
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among
you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the
Gentiles -- that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are
puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done
this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as
absent [548] in body but present in spirit, have already judged
(as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered
together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus
Christ, 

 
2 Corinthians 5:1-21 
For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed,
we have a building from God, a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly
desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,
3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4
For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because
we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may
be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this
very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a
guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we
are at home in the body we are absent [1553] from the Lord. 7
For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes,
well pleased rather to be absent [1553] from the body and to be
present with the Lord. 
	9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent
[1553], to be well pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive
the things done in the body, according to what he has done,
whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the
Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also
trust are well known in your consciences. 
	12 For we do not commend ourselves again to you, but give you
opportunity to boast on our behalf, that you may have an answer
for those who boast in appearance and not in heart. 13 For if we
are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sound mind,
it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we
judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He
died for all, that those who live should live no longer for
themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. 16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh.
Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now
we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in
Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away;
behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of
God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and
has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing
their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of
reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as
though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's
behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin
to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God
in Him.

 
I enclosed all of 2 Corin 5 so as to provide context.  One thing
is noteworthy.  2 Corin 5, the text I am asked to explain, is
the only text that contains the Greek word ekdemeo [1553], the
Greek rendered as absent in the English.

2 Corinthians 10:1-2 
Now I, Paul, myself am pleading with you by the meekness and
gentleness of Christ -- who in presence am lowly among you, but
being absent [548] am bold toward you. 2 But I beg you that when
I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I
intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked
according to the flesh. 


2 Corinthians 10:11
Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by
letters when we are absent [548], such we will also be in deed
when we are present.

 
2 Corinthians 13:2,10
I have told you before, and foretell as if I were present the
second time, and now being absent [548] I write to those who
have sinned before, and to all the rest, that if I come again I
will not spare -- 
Therefore I write these things being absent [548], lest being
present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which
the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction.

 
Philippians 1:27 
Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that
whether I come and see you or am absent [548], I may hear of
your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind
striving together for the faith of the gospel,


Colossians 2:1-5 
For I want you to know what a great conflict I have for you and
those in Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in
the flesh, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit
together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full
assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of
God, both of the Father and of Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 Now this I say lest
anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. 5 For though I
am absent [548] in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit,
rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your
faith in Christ.

I want to tackle the [548] (apeimi) renderings first.  I
purposely added verses where I felt the context was necessary. 
The following is critical.

In every case where [548] is used, Paul is really and actually
absent from his hearers.  He is absent in a *NONFIGURATIVE* sense.

Couple this with two objective points.

1) Paul chose not to use [548] in 2 Corin 5. He used an entirely
different word [1553] (ekdemeo).

2) Ekdemeo is defined as inclusive of *FIGURATIVE* use.


With nothing else to go on, I am open to the possibility that
the use of "absent" [1553] in 2 Corin 5 (and, by implication,
the avoidance of [548]) could have the purpose of referring to a
*figurative* absence rather than a *nonfigurative* one.


Lets now look again at 2 Corin 5...

The context of 2 Corin 5 includes the burden of this tent, our
flesh.  This is part of the subject matter of Paul's.  2 Corin
5:4 does not refer to being unclothed, that is, no longer having
this tent, but rather further clothed.  This, then, would seem
not to point to a transition from body to no body, but rather
from body to better body.  This then aligns itself real well
with...


1 Corinthians 15:42-44
So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in
corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in
dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is
raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a
spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual body.

That is, the event referred to as the resurrection.

Paul speaks of being burdened with this earthly tent.  He then
goes on to say...


2 Corinthians 5:6-8
So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in
the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith,
not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be
absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Paul's confidence is to rather be "absent from the body and to
be present with the Lord."  He knows that while one is at home
in the body, one is absent from the Lord.  

Now this next part is critical and corraborates beautifully with
the context.  What does he next say?  "FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT
BY SIGHT."  In other words, to be "home in the body" is
equivalent to walking by sight.  To be present with the Lord is
to "walk by faith."  This is the figurative application.


"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen."  (Heb. 11:1).  Thus, the context is an
experience that remains inclusive of *the evidence of things not
seen*!!! The experience that falls within the context of being
"present with the Lord" is a figurative one for the Lord is not
seen with the physical eyes.  Thus, Paul's meaning of "with the
Lord" is not about physically being in heaven in His presence. 
It is about walking by faith as this is what Paul equates
walking by faith to.

This all dovetails with Romans chs. 7 and 8 where Paul discusses
the trials in the flesh, the exhortation to walk in the Spirit
and not according to the flesh, and the future hope of the
adoption of our bodies.  It also refers to being present with
the Lord in the sense that "Who shall separate us from the love
of God?," i.e. not an actual physical presence with the Lord,
but an abiding by faith presence.

The context of 2 Corin 5 continues in the vein not of having our
'spirit' be with the Lord, but rather of walking by faith rather
than by sight.  His commendation is to walk in the spirit, that
is, to have our hearts warmed by the revelation of the cross
"for the love of Christ constrains us."   This, instead of 
being at home in the body so that we "no longer live for
ourselves," but rather are present with the Lord, or to put
another way, we "live for He who died for us and rose again."

I also did a quick word study of the word "home" and found an
analogous situation to the use of "absent."

The word "home" in 2 Corin 5:6 is the only Greek rendering for
home in the entire NT.  It is from the following Greek word...


1736 - endemeo - from a comp. of 1722 and 1218; to be in one's
own country, i.e. home (fig.):- be at home (present).

Note the denotion of endemeo as figurative.

All of the occurances of endemeo in the NT are as follows...

2 Corinthians 5:6-9
So we are always confident, knowing that while we are [1736] at
home [1736] in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we
walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well
pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present
[1736] with the Lord. 

Therefore we make it our aim, whether present [1736] or absent,
to be well pleasing to Him.

One final thought.  How would we make it our aim to be well
pleasing to Him if we are absent should absent refer to walking
in the flesh?  I think Romans 7:15-25 provides the answer. 
There may be times a Christian gives in to the flesh, but hurts
over his failing and a part of him, regardless of His falling,
still desires to be well pleasing to Him, to walk in the Spirit.

To summarize, 

1) "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord" are
idioms.  They are expressions that refer to the contrasting
experiences of walking by sight (a fleshly/bodily experience)
and walking by faith (a "being with the Lord" experience).

2) This is supported by Paul's unanimous use of the Greek apeimi
[548] which always occurs when Paul speaks of being
nonfiguratively (or to put another way - physically) absent from
the place referred to.  It is used in every absent text save the
text in question.

3) This is further supported by Paul's use of ekdemeo [1553] in
the passage in question.  This Greek word is contrasted with
[548] by referring to a figurative being absent and a figurative
being present.  

4) This is further supported by Paul's use of "for we walk by
faith and not by sight" which is nested in the middle of this
text.  This text alludes to faith which is reliance on the
evidence of things not seen and thus contradicts an experience
where things are seen.  (Referring to if Paul was referring to
really and actually being in the presence of the Lord.)

5) This is further supported by Paul's unique use of endemeo
(1736) which can connotate a figurative presence or "home" with
someone instead of a nonfigurative one.  Paul uses other Greek
words for a nonfigurative connotation.

6) This is further supported by the overall context which is an
exhortation to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh as well
as the context of related texts (Romans 7,8).

7) This is further supported by Paul's future hope which is that
of being further clothed.  This is that ultimate hope of really
and actually being physically in the presence of the Lord which
is a time when he has an incorruptible body (which time occurs
at the resurrection).

8) Finally, it is further supported by the the tapestry which is
inclusive of hundreds of other texts which violate the idea of a
conscious life between death and resurrection.


I want to thank you all for asking of me to delve into this text
for this all "came to me" today and I have been thoroughly
blessed!!!

					In Pursuit of Truth,


					Tony

    Tony, I haven't read your latest entry yet, but will try to later
    today.
    
    I just wanted to add something interesting that I saw over the weekend. 
    It was a secular show on beyond and back experiences (i.e., technically
    dead, but revived).  I found it interesting on how several testimonies
    confirmed Biblical precedents for both heaven and hell.  Those that
    experienced hell, even briefly, were fortunate to get a second chance
    to correct their lives.
    
    Mike

    Hi, Tony.
    
    Thanks for the detailed word study, good as far as you went, though not
    complete.
    
    You left out an important consideration I presented in note .21, i.e.,
    that we comprise body (material) and soul (incorporeal).
    
    I submit that the use of APEIMI and EKDEMEO is NOT literal versus
    figurative, but rather differentiates seen (verifiable by physical
    senses) from unseen (not verifiable by physical senses).
    
    /Wayne
    
    P.S.  By the way, from whence came Moses and Elijah to be seen by
    Peter, James and John on the mount of transfiguration?  And how was
    Christ transfigured before their eyes?  Or do you think Peter, James
    and John were just dreaming?

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I didn't finish a reply to the replies that were made 
        last week, however one of my observations was (and is)
        that the guidelines I asked that we adhere to are not
        being adhered.
    
        You have provided me with several texts to respond to.
        I asked for a 1-1 ratio.
    
        Taken *by itself*, how is the interpretation I submitted
        necessarily not possible???
    
        I agree.  There are more texts to put before the table
        and *the sum total of all texts* is what points to the true
        interpretation of 2 Corin 5.
    
        This is where we are presently way out of balance.  Instead
        of giving me one text to respond to (and for which I spent
        hours), you bring up many.
    
        How many have I brought up???  I have many!
    
        Can we hold fairly close to the guidelines?
    
        Again, *taken by itself*, your interpretation is no better than
        mine and indeed seems less plausible as we see Paul desiring
        to be further clothed which is reference to the resurrection.
    
    						Tony

      One other quick thought.  Do we agree that 2 Corin 5, taken
      by itself (to the exclusion of all other scripture) is not
      forceful enough to necessitate consciousness after death?
    
    						Tony

      re: .63
    
      Hi Mike,
    
      "It is appointed for men to die once and after this the
      judgment."
    
      Then they never really died!
    
    						Tony

Hi, Tony.
    
|       Taken *by itself*, how is the interpretation I submitted
|       necessarily not possible???

** Did I say that your interpretation was "necessarily not possible?"  I just
   felt your word study was incomplete in terms of covering possible nuances.
   For instance, you did not address APEIMI refering to absence in or of the
   body, and EKDEMEO only refering to absence FROM the body.  To me this
   clearly shows that the word usages are something other than literal versus
   figurative.

|       This is where we are presently way out of balance.  Instead
|       of giving me one text to respond to (and for which I spent
|       hours), you bring up many.

** Many?  Let's see, I addressed:

    1) Your treatment of the Sadducees and the resurrection.  I introduced
       Jesus' words about Himself concerning resurrection and life, and what
       God said about Himself.  I also introduced Ac.23:8 to show that the
       Sadducees didn't believe in angels or spirits, either.

    2) The fact that Adam's life was not the result of resurrection.

    3) Your treatment of Abraham and Isaac.  I showed that Abraham's faith was
       not that God WOULD resurrect Isaac, rather that God COULD resurrect
       Isaac.  Abraham believed God was able to keep His promise, but He
       nowhere promised to raise Isaac from the dead.

   The three instances above were within the context of what you brought up.

    4) Life comprising more than the corporeal.  I introduced Jesus' own
       words to show that we have body (material) and soul (incorporeal),
       and that death in the flesh was not death of the soul.  I introduced
       Paul's understanding of man's material and incorporeal nature.

       In this context I discussed 2Co.5 and Ph.1:23&24 (depart to be with
       Christ versus abide in the flesh to be with men).

    5) Two passages from the Psalms which begged the question of how taking
       the life of dead saints could be precious.

    6) What "remains" (after life in the flesh) for those who hear the gospel
       and obey (rest), and for those who hear the gospel and disobey (fear).
       I did not introduce Hebrews 3 and 4 to refute you, per se, rather to
       present another basis for my understanding.

|       How many have I brought up???  I have many!

** My intent is not to just argue against your claims with which I disagree in
   an effort the change your mind--you've obviously studied these things a
   great deal.  Rather, I thought there would be benefit for other readers who
   perhaps still need to think through or study these things to see basis for
   understanding different than yours.

   If you really want this to be a point-counterpoint discussion, then I'll
   likely limit my future contribution because I'm not impelled to argue.
    
|       Can we hold fairly close to the guidelines?

** Sure.  I'll just back off and wait for you to introduce scripture and your
   interpretation thereof.
    
|       Again, *taken by itself*, your interpretation is no better than
|       mine and indeed seems less plausible as we see Paul desiring
|       to be further clothed which is reference to the resurrection.

** Fine.  If you really need to see my interpretation as "less plausible" than
   yours, then so be it.  As you know, I favor interpretation based first on
   careful examination of "dictionary" word meanings.

In Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life (which is our light),

/Wayne

    Well, actually I think 2Co.5 is rather forceful concerning the
    believer's life in Christ.  We are either at home in the body or
    present with the Lord.  I take that to mean our life will not be
    interrupted, rather we are housed in earth or in heaven.  Paul presents
    only two states, i.e., home in body and absent from Lord, and absent
    from body and present with Lord.  I see no accommodation for oblivion.
    
    Our confidence in (heavenly) life after (earthly) death derives from
    "the earnest of the Spirit." (v.5)

    Our life after death is not seen (verified by physical senses), but is
    rather revealed by the Word and sealed by the Spirit.  Existence is NOT
    an intellectual exercise.
    
    /Wayne

    Hi, Tony.
    
    My P.S. in note .64 was out of line based on your note .19 in which you
    stated that now is not the time to discuss "a select few," including
    Enoch, Elijah and Moses.
    
    So, I do not expect your response to my P.S.
    
    Sorry.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,                                     
    
        Well, it seemed a lot of scripture!  (I truly feel a little
        overloaded right now.)  I'd like to also repeat that my
        earnestness is almost entirely what ultimately befalls the
        lost.  So, I'll offer a text that mainly directs that.
    
        A nit.  Adam wasn't dead.  
    
        Your last reply I think is off the mark (in terms of analysis).
        It is ironclad that the word usage is figurative and figurative,
        in and of itself (imo) is open to a wide range of possibilities.
    
        I don't want to argue Wayne.  I just don't want to get deluged.
    
    						Take Care,
    
    						Tony
    
        

      Oh man, Wayne, thats alright!  By the way, is it not 'interesting'
      that Enoch and Elijah were translated???  I happen to believe
      Michael is God and He resurrected Moses (and so Moses bodily in
      heaven too).  Michael contested over the body of Moses, did He
      not?  I'll bet Moses heard the voice of the archangel!  (The voice
      of Jesus Christ.)
    
      And I know that is a great can of worms, BUT, there is a verse in
      Genesis that clearly tells us the angel of the Lord is God Himself.
      Thus God, in its most generic sense, is an angel.  John the Baptist
      is also an angel (identified if a word search of the Greek for angel
      is done).  
    
      An angel, in its most generic sense, is a MESSENGER.  God, being
      God and being a messenger ("In the beginning was the Word), is the
      "chief-messenger" or "arche [chief] - angel [messenger]."
    
      Anyway, there you have it.  I know of four specific 'persons' (if
      I include the God-man Jesus Christ) actually in heaven.  All seem
      to me to be in heaven with bodies intact.
    
      And thus, a view which seemed to support life outside of a body,
      seems to support only life wherein body is still intact.
    
      And I know I didn't fully respond to your corporeal/incorpeal
      inputs.
    			
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony
                    

    The OT Angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Messiah (Jesus Christ)
    not some other angel.

|548  - apeimi - to be away.  Be absent.
|
|1553 - ekdemeo - to emigrate, i.e. (fig.) vacate or quit: - be
|absent.

Comment: removed introductory replies except for the above definitions.

See also "Vine's Expository Dictionary" if it is available in Logos.  It pretty
much agrees with Strong's (and is keyed to Strong's), but adds some interesting
insight to ekdemeo (p. 5 of NT words):

"lit., 'to be away from people' (ek, 'from,' or 'out of,' demos, 'people'), came
to mean either (a) 'to go abroad, depart'; the apostle Paul uses it to speak of
departing from the body as the earthly abode of the spirit, 2 Cor. 5:8; or (b)
'to be away'; in the same passage, of being here in the body and absent from the
Lord (v. 6), or being absent from the body and present with the Lord (v. 8).
Its other occurrence is in v. 9."

RE: .59

|With nothing else to go on, I am open to the possibility that
|the use of "absent" [1553] in 2 Corin 5 (and, by implication,
|the avoidance of [548]) could have the purpose of referring to a
|*figurative* absence rather than a *nonfigurative* one.

Tony (or anyone else), do you have an example of being figuratively absent?
Sounds to me like it is like being pregnant: either you are or you aren't.

RE: .60

|Now this next part is critical and corraborates beautifully with
|the context.  What does he next say?  "FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT
|BY SIGHT."  In other words, to be "home in the body" is
|equivalent to walking by sight.  To be present with the Lord is
|to "walk by faith."  This is the figurative application.

The "Treasury of Scripture Knowledge" has interesting references for this
passage to Revelation 6:9-11, Hebrews 12:23, and James 2:26.  All of these
passages do not agree with your application of 2 Corinthians 5:8.  However, the
traditional view upheld by Wayne, Jeff, and myself, dovetails nicely with all of
them as well as Romans 6-8.  

Maybe it is time for you to post a passage for us to respond to that supports
your position and contains an apparent contradiction to our view.

RE .61

|1736 - endemeo - from a comp. of 1722 and 1218; to be in one's
|own country, i.e. home (fig.):- be at home (present).

More from "Vine's..." on the verb endemeo (p. 309):

"lit., 'to be among one's people' (en, 'in,' demos, 'people'; endemos, 'one who
is in his own place or land'), is used metaphorically of the life on earth of
believers, 2 Cor. 5:6, 'at home (in the body)'; in v. 8 of the life in Heaven of
the spirits of belivers after their decease, 'at home (with the Lord),' RV (KJV,
'present); in v. 9, 'at home' (KJV, 'present') refers again to the life on
earth.  In each verse the verb is contrasted with ekdemeo, 'to be away from
home, to be absent'; in v. 6, 'we are absent,' i.e., away from 'home' (from the
Lord); in v. 8, 'to be absent' (i.e., away from the 'home' of the body); so in
v. 9, 'absent.'  The implication in being 'at home with the Lord' after death is
a testimony against the doctrine of the unconsciousness of the spirit, when
freed from the natural body."

RE: .62

|1) "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord" are
|idioms.  They are expressions that refer to the contrasting
|experiences of walking by sight (a fleshly/bodily experience)
|and walking by faith (a "being with the Lord" experience).

...but the reference materials I've seen also show the literal defintions have
the same meaning in the same applications.

|2) This is supported by Paul's unanimous use of the Greek apeimi
|[548] which always occurs when Paul speaks of being
|nonfiguratively (or to put another way - physically) absent from
|the place referred to.  It is used in every absent text save the
|text in question.

How do you know Paul is being figurative or non-figurative when the Greek words
in question have the same literal and figurative connotations?

|3) This is further supported by Paul's use of ekdemeo [1553] in
|the passage in question.  This Greek word is contrasted with
|[548] by referring to a figurative being absent and a figurative
|being present.

Again, how do you know the Holy Spirit is being figurative?  Vine's says it is a
literal application.

|4) This is further supported by Paul's use of "for we walk by
|faith and not by sight" which is nested in the middle of this
|text.  This text alludes to faith which is reliance on the
|evidence of things not seen and thus contradicts an experience
|where things are seen.  (Referring to if Paul was referring to
|really and actually being in the presence of the Lord.)

This isn't figurative, but a spiritual truth/reality.  True believers *DO* walk
by faith.  Why would the Holy Spirit instruct Paul to go from the literal to
figurative within the same verse without giving us an indication that He is
doing so?  I cannot currently think of a Biblical precedent where the Holy
Spirit does this (switching to figurative) without telling us He is.

|5) This is further supported by Paul's unique use of endemeo
|(1736) which can connotate a figurative presence or "home" with
|someone instead of a nonfigurative one.  Paul uses other Greek
|words for a nonfigurative connotation.

Vine's disagrees with you here as well.

|6) This is further supported by the overall context which is an
|exhortation to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh as well
|as the context of related texts (Romans 7,8).

...which isn't figurative, but literal.

|7) This is further supported by Paul's future hope which is that
|of being further clothed.  This is that ultimate hope of really
|and actually being physically in the presence of the Lord which
|is a time when he has an incorruptible body (which time occurs
|at the resurrection).

We mostly agree here.  I'm only hedging on "further clothed" vs. "newly
clothed."

|8) Finally, it is further supported by the the tapestry which is
|inclusive of hundreds of other texts which violate the idea of a
|conscious life between death and resurrection.

See the TSK references above that disagree with this as well.

      Hi Mike,
    
        Just a quickie.
    
        I don't champion any man's interpretation of the Bible as
        necessarily inerrant.  Not even Vine's.
    
        These were/are often evangelical scholars adding their own
        thoughts into the verses/word usages.   Clearly, Vine knows
        where the Greek word exists in the scriptures.  How much
        is he offering that is from *him*?
    
        I thought the text I offered was fairly substantial, but,
        as I said, I had another that I wanted to post first.  I'll
        post it next.  Might be a couple weeks as (as I said), it
        will take quite awhile to develop.
    
        Regarding Michael - sounds like your interpretation again.
        That, in and of itself, does not validate.  As God is a
        messenger, He must be the preeminent (chief) of all messengers.
    
        I don't see that you offered a single text that 'proves' 
        your view.
    
        That is the whole point of my tapestry analogy.  No doctrine
        is built on a single text.  It is the sum total of scripture
        and as far as I'm concerned, the weight put on 2nd Corin 5
        is symptomatic of 'proving' things a false way.  One text 
        won't do it.
    
    						Tony

|       A nit.  Adam wasn't dead.

** Uh, I don't know how to respond because that was exactly my point.

   I said in note .21, "God did not resurrect Adam from the dead. Rather, He
   formed Adam from substance (dust of the ground) which He had called into
   existence from nothing, and then breathed life into him."

   My intent was to establish that this life-giving power and prerogative of
   God is the basis for resurrection, not vice versa.
    
|       Your last reply I think is off the mark (in terms of analysis).
|       It is ironclad that the word usage is figurative and figurative,
|       in and of itself (imo) is open to a wide range of possibilities.

** To which "last reply" are you referring?  Note .69?  Or note .68?

   Of course you think my last reply is "off the mark."  If you thought other-
   wise, then we wouldn't be arguing, would we?  And I would not have offered
   my studied opinion if I thought you had hit the mark. :-)
    
|       I don't want to argue Wayne.  I just don't want to get deluged.

** Understood.  As I said, I'll defer to key off you.

RE: .72 (Tony)

I'm just gonna let the discussion of God = Michael and "the angel of the Lord"
go, if you don't mind. :-)

I would point out again, though, that the Sadducees said there was no resurrec-
tion, neither angel nor spirit.  They denied unseen reality!

|     Anyway, there you have it.  I know of four specific 'persons' (if
|     I include the God-man Jesus Christ) actually in heaven.  All seem
|     to me to be in heaven with bodies intact.

** Based on this statement, I take your definition of "person" to be one who
   has lived in our flesh.

   When you say "with bodies intact," what do you mean?  What was the nature
   of Jesus' resurrected body which could be handled and seen as "flesh and
   bones" (Lu.24:39), yet could come into a room whose doors were shut
   (Jn.20:26)?  With what body did Jesus ascend into heaven?  We know "that
   flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption
   inherit incorruption." (1Co.15:50)

   Yet scripture records men seeing the resurrected Christ, and the (heavenly)
   bodies of Moses and Elijah.  I find interesting that Peter, James and John
   recognized Moses and Elijah, but without physical means of identification--
   there was no way this could have been revealed by flesh and blood!  How did
   they know?
    
|     And thus, a view which seemed to support life outside of a body,
|     seems to support only life wherein body is still intact.

** Again, what do you mean by body "still intact?"  God lives, but what is
   His body?  Did Christ exist before being found in fashion as a man?  If so,
   what was His form?
    
|     And I know I didn't fully respond to your corporeal/incorpeal
|     inputs.

** At your convenience.

/Wayne

      Hi Mike,
    
        An example of being figurative...
    
        "Destroy this temple..."
    
        No, it was not a question of the literal temple being destroyed
        in any capacity just as it need not be an example of Paul 
        departing from his physical body.
    
        It meant something altogether different, didn't it?
    
        Another example: "You must eat my body and drink my blood."
    
        Another figurative example.
    
        I need not prove the Bible is figurative regarding *absent*, I
        need only prove it is sometimes figurative and (on that basis)
        contend that it is flawed scriptural interpretation to look
        at a specific text and INSIST it cannot be!
    
        Maybe it is.  Maybe its not.  We need to add more puzzle pieces.
    
        2 Corin 5, taken by itself, lacks the punch some of you maintained
        it had.  Just as Jesus was not referring to us literally drinking
        His blood, Paul (thus) need not be referring to his literally
        being absent from his body in that text.  
    
        Maybe.  Maybe not.  The text in and of itself does not necessitate
        so.
    
    						Tony

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I meant .69.
    
        My point regarding Enoch, Elijah, Moses is that they seem (to me)
        to have undergone a transition wherein they retained a body.  I
        have no clue as to the differences between this body and the 
        spiritual body, but this does not alter my point.
    
        We have four examples of people...
    
        Enoch - translated.  Corruptible body to incorruptible body.
    
        Elijah - translated.  The same.
    
        Moses - resurrected (I believe).  Thus risen with an incorruptible
                body.
    
        Jesus - resurrected.  Thus risen with an incorruptible body.
    
        What are the odds that mention would only be made of these
        peculiar cases?  Why not a single mention of one that lacked
        the transition to an incorruptible body?
    
        Why not David?  Or Solomon?  Or Isaiah?  Or Jeremiah?
    
        Only the select few who are recorded as still having a body
        (regardless of what its amazing characteristics may be!).
    
    						Tony

    Here are my study notes on 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, with references to the
    NIV (what I was using last time I seriously looked at this passage).

    Besides refusal to accept the literal reading of the text, I think I see 
    where Tony might arrive at an incorrect interpretation of 2 Corinthians 
    5:8.  If one is to use Greek words in a word study, it isn't always
    proper hermaneutics to rely on verbs alone.  You need all of the Greek
    grammar for context: nouns, verbs, verb tenses (about 7 in Greek), 
    prepositions, etc.

    What is involved in being "at home with the Lord"?  To be sure, it
    denotes a change of location.  The Greek preposition translated "with"
    (GK 4639) also implies an active fellowship between 2 persons (cf. its
    use in Mark 6:3).  Being "at home with the Lord" supersedes earthly
    experience where believers simply know the Lord (cf. Philippians 3:10);
    it is a higher form of the intimate fellowship with Christ than what we
    experience on earth (cf. Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:17).

    In v. 7 Paul corrects a possible misinterpretation of v. 6.  If the
    clause "we are away from the Lord" (v. 6) is interpreted in an absolute
    sense, present fellowship with Christ would appear illusory and being
    in the physical body would hinder spirituality.  Since both deductions are
    totally false, Paul qualifies his statement by observing that "we do in
    fact still walk in the realm of faith, not of sight."  To the believer
    the Lord is present, not to sight but to faith.  Any physical spatial 
    separation is temporary, not final.

    With the assured hope of receiving a glorified body (v. 1) and with the 
    pledge of his transformation in the presence and activity of the Spirit 
    with him (v. 5), Paul was always confident, even in the face of death.  
    However, he continues, because we realize that we are absent from the
    Lord's presence as long as this body forms our residence, we really
    prefer to leave our home in this body and take up residence in the
    presence of the Lord.

    Just as the repeated verb "we groan" shows vv. 2 and 4 to be related, so 
    "we are confident" relates vv. 6 and 8, with v. 7 being parenthetical 
    (cf. v. 3).  But v. 8 does not simply repeat v. 6; it stands in 
    antithetical parallelism to it.  The corollary of "residence in the body 
    = absence from the Lord" (v. 6) is "absence from the body = residence with 
    the Lord" (v. 8).  In other words, as soon as a person dies (v. 8a),
    residence in the presence of the Lord begins (v. 8b).

    Mike

      Mike,
    
        I don't think Greek study is typically necessary in understanding
        the word.  All I did was a word study.  The essence of my study
        was simply looking at where every word was used - and where they
        were not used.
    
        I think the Bible may be understood by the 'nonscholar.'
    
        I don't think word studies is tantamount to being overscholarly.
    
        Again, that is the essence of my study.  "Line upon line."  Where
        is this word used?  Where is it not used?
    
        I admit that the fig. part was an extra.
    
        Study much beyond that, I think gets beyond the simple recipe of
        line upon line, here a little there a little.
    
        I don't think its meant for only the Hebrew and Greek scholars to
        understand.
    
        I will continue to use the Greek and Hebrew primarily to simply
        see where the words are used (and not used) and on that basis to
        search for similarities and dissimilarities.
    
        Jesus said "Drink My blood."  I need not conclude He insisted on
        His literal blood.  Paul said "to be absent from the body."  
    
        To me to insist that Paul must be literal is to insist the Bible
        must always be literal and to adopt transubstantiation and a bunch
        of other error as well.
    
        If literalness is not universally applied, on what basis do we
        insist upon its specific application???
    
        I don't see that you answered that for me.
                                                  
    						Tony

    |        Jesus said "Drink My blood."  I need not conclude He insisted on
|        His literal blood.  Paul said "to be absent from the body."  

    You're assuming.  Both assumptions cause several contradictions in
    other Biblical passages.
    
|        To me to insist that Paul must be literal is to insist the Bible
|        must always be literal and to adopt transubstantiation and a bunch
|        of other error as well.

    That's quite a leap of 'logic.'  Again, the laws of Greek and Hebrew
    grammar are important in resolving apparent contradictions, difficult
    passages, and guiding discussions like this one.  
    
|        If literalness is not universally applied, on what basis do we
|        insist upon its specific application???

    Correct Bible hermaneutics is to take God's Word literally except:

    - When the Holy Spirit is saying it is being figurative.
    - When a well-documented Hebrew/Greek figure of speech is being used
      (some cultural and historical context sometimes helps here.  The TSK
      has an entire appendix on these figures of speech keyed to Strong's).
    - When a literal interpretation causes an apparent contradiction.  Then
      we have to investigate the Hebrew/Greek grammar (as well as all possible 
      cultural/historical contexts) to see what is really being said.  Most
      of the time, the Bible will interpret itself.

Hi, Tony.
    
|       I meant .69.

** Okay, thanks.  Rather than defend, I'll leave commendation of truth or
   error in my words to other readers by their own study of the Word and the
   witness of the Holy Spirit.
    
|       My point regarding Enoch, Elijah, Moses is that they seem (to me)
|       to have undergone a transition wherein they retained a body.  I
|       have no clue as to the differences between this body and the 
|       spiritual body, but this does not alter my point.

** Good, we're basically in agreement here.  I would say their bodies were
   changed, rather than retained.

   And we agree that there are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial,
   a natural body and a spiritual body, Adam a living soul and Jesus a
   quickening spirit.  As we have borne an earthy image, so we shall also
   bear the heavenly image.
    
|       We have four examples of people...

** People being those who have lived in our flesh?
    
|       Enoch - translated.  Corruptible body to incorruptible body.
    
|       Elijah - translated.  The same.
    
|       Moses - resurrected (I believe).  Thus risen with an incorruptible
|               body.
    
|       Jesus - resurrected.  Thus risen with an incorruptible body.

** Okay.
    
|       What are the odds that mention would only be made of these
|       peculiar cases?  Why not a single mention of one that lacked
|       the transition to an incorruptible body?

** Guess we'd have to examine the purpose of these four being "seen."

   Enoch walked with God.  His translation represents continuity of
   righteousness.

   Seen in Elijah are the prophets.

   Seen in Moses is the law.

   Seen in Jesus is the fulness of the Godhead bodily and our own life.
    
|       Why not David?  Or Solomon?  Or Isaiah?  Or Jeremiah?

** What would be added to revelation by these (or others) being seen?
    
|       Only the select few who are recorded as still having a body
|       (regardless of what its amazing characteristics may be!).

** Because in these four is revealed the transition of earthy to heavenly,
   from the first Adam to the last.  We need no more evidence of life.

   Consider the lesson of Abraham's bosom--I will stipulate that this need
   not be literal.  I see even the figurative meaning very applicable to the
   living.

   In this life the rich man received his good things, while Lazarus received
   evil things.  Now the rich man is tormented while Lazarus is comforted.
   And a great gulf is fixed between the two.  The rich man begged Abraham to
   send Lazarus back to earthy life that he would testify to the living.  What
   did Abraham say?

   "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."  The rich man
   said, "Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead,
   they will repent."

   Abraham replied, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will
   they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Lu.16:19-31)

Again, I maintain that we have sufficient revelation of life.  The "seeing" of
others with bodies would add nothing because we walk by faith, not by sight.

/Wayne

    Hi Tony,
    
    > To me to insist that Paul must be literal is to insist the Bible must
    > always be literal and to adopt transubstantiation and a bunch of other
    > error as well.
    
    This is kind-of bugging me and I think that it can be divisive (SP?).
    I'm sure you can make your points clear without dragging Catholic
    beliefs into it. I know you don't agree and that many other here don't
    but I feel that you are doing the following.
    
    The RC Church, and others I might add, interperate this literally and
    we all know they are wrong so you can see my point here, seems to be
    the tact you are taking. Tony I'm sure you don't want this note
    ratholed, so I'm asking politely, please don't don't use that tact. I'm
    not a moderator and probably can't ask that, but I see what your doing
    as kinda mean.
    
    Peter
    
    P.S. Myself and other's in this note take those passages on Jesus' real
    presence literally even if you and other's don't.

53.72 � I happen to believe Michael is God and He resurrected Moses (and so 
53.72 � Moses bodily in heaven too).  Michael contested over the body of 
53.72 � Moses, did He not?  I'll bet Moses heard the voice of the archangel!
53.72 � (The voice of Jesus Christ.)
    
Certainly Moses heard the voice of the LORD at the burning bush, but this 
is very distinct from hearing a mere archangel.  Of Mike's profusion of 
references on this point, it is worth singling out Jude verse 9, which is 
presumably the one you refer to in .72:

    "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed
     about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing 
     accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

It speaks for itself.  Michael, the archangel, did not have the authority 
to rebuke the devil, because Lucifer outranked him as an angel, so Michael 
had to call on God's authority to defend the placing of Moses' body outside 
the knowledge of man.  Ergo, Michael is not the LORD Jesus Christ.

Concerning Moses' bodily presence on heaven, the latter half of 1 
Corinthians 15 is most relevant on this point, where is pointed out that
our mortal bodies do not inherit eternity; we are given immortal dwellings 
for that purpose when they are needed (eg verse 50).

� Anyway, there you have it.  I know of four specific 'persons' (if I include
� the God-man Jesus Christ) actually in heaven.  All seem to me to be in
� heaven with bodies intact. 

You have to be very careful there.  In your mortal state, would you be sure
of recognising the difference between a mortal body and an immortal body,
if the owner chose not to make it evident?  Bear in mind the many occasions
on which angels are described as 'men', from their appearance, while their
behaviour clearly indicates that they are not subject to normal physical
constraints.  For instance, we have the Angel of the LORD, also identified
as the LORD, communicating Samson's birth to Mr & Mrs Manoah in Judges
13:16-20.  Bear in mind also the LORD's resurrection appearences. When He
chose, He was recognised (eg Luke 24:31), so His physical appearance
resembled His mortal likeness, even extending to His wounds, received in
crucifixion.  However, His control over this body was such that it did not
require the normal, physical support that our bodies need - cf Luke 24:51,
but could pass through walls/locked doors (John 20:19,26). 

Noting that the word for 'angel' is also 'messenger', it is very easy to 
confuse the two, and equate, for instance, a mortal messenger with an 
angel.  Here we have not only the sense of each passage to guide us, but 
the Holy Spirit, and correlation of the rest of scripture.

					God bless
								Andrew

      Hi Peter,
    
        Can I just say that I disagree strongly with transsubstantiation
        and leave it at that?  Is that OK?
    
    	I will try to offend no person, but in a forum where truth is
        sought, people may be offended by the candid acknowledgment that
        some things are considered very untrue.
    
        But, I'll try not to get personal (outside of discussing doctrine).
    
    							Tony
                                                                           

      Hi Mike,
    
        Are those hermaneutical principles validated by some book/
        chapter/verse in the Bible?
    
        What substantiates their 100% inerrancy???
    
        					Tony

      Hi Andrew,
    
        In the angel topic, I will (eventually) discuss Michael more,
        but I disagree as to why Michael dared not issue a "railing
        rebuke."
    
        Jude 8,9
        Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority,
        and speak evil of dignitaries.
        Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he
        disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a
        railing accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
    
        I believe "railing accusation" and "speaking evil" are synonymous
        (in this passage) or very nearly so.  It is not a question of
        rank that determines why Michael would not give a railing 
        accusation.  It is a question of *character*.
    
        To give a railing accusation is sin and is entirely unlike the
        character of God (Michael).
    
    						Tony

Hi Wayne,

I think the point I have tried to make about Enoch, Elijah,
Moses, and Jesus didn't get across and I'll try to communicate
more effectively here!  (This ought to be easier as I'm writing
from home and have much more time.)

If I was a proponent of a life of existence for man where man
has no body - neither this 'tent' nor that spiritual tent to
come (the one we know that comes at the resurrection), I'd sure
like to see scriptural examples of that.  From a purely
statistical standpoint, the percentage of people in heaven
without a body to the total number of people in heaven is
probably ~99.9% with your view.  (With my view, its 0%!)  In
fact, the only people with a body that I can think of are the
four I mentioned (Jesus being God and  man).

But, instead of a scriptural example of a single human being in
heaven who happen to lack a body of any sort, we have only the
examples of Moses and Elijah and we also have the scripture that
explicitly states Enoch is up there.  The fact that scripture
seems to only mention people in heaven who in fact have bodies
is rather compelling, no?

What are the odds?  Thats why in a past reply I said something
like, why not Jeremiah?  Why not David?  Why not Isaiah?  Why
not Elisha, etc., etc.????

By the way, I don't believe the necromancer (withc of Endor)
really contacted Samuel.  That, I believe, was a demon masquerading 
as Samuel.

Do you get my point?   What are the odds that we would only hear
from that incredible few that happen to have bodies???  (And I
acquiesce that Moses at this time is very up in the air!)

But, you get my point, right?

My posture is that the only reason we only hear from people in
heaven who happen to have a body is simply because those are the
only kind of people there are in heaven!  And the silence
pertaining any 'nonbodily' person, especially given how many
there ought to be up there with your view, is rather deafening!

					Tony

Hi Again,

Time is lacking now and I sure want to dwell on this in the
weeks to come, but there are other soul texts and there are
other deaths (Rom 7:9).  I believe the state of the dead we are
discussing is the physical of the two and the Bible may
sometimes be talking about death where both may apply, or only
one of the two may apply or perhaps both may apply to differing
extents.

I believe soul has more than one application (such as):

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living being (soul in KJV).  [5315 - nephesh]

Here, soul is used to denote the totality of man.

I've used this analogy before, but I think man is like a light
bulb.  For the sake of the analogy, lets say the physical parts
of the light bulb (glass, filament, etc.), after the light bulb
'dies' decompose into the earth.  The vital force would be the
electricity representing the breath of life.  When the light
bulb 'dies', the plug is pulled, i.e. the breath returns to God
who gave it.

We could talk about the light bulbs from a variety of
characteristics.  We could talk about its physical construction
(its glass, filament, etc.).  We could talk about its light or
its heat.  We might talk about its frequency of light or its
intensity of light or heat.

To me, 'soul' refers to something about the characteristic of
the consciousness of a person.  For example, if one said, "Wayne
is a good soul!"  They are really not talking about Wayne's
flesh.  They are talking about his 'spirit.'  And just because
they talked about Wayne's personality, they may not have implied
that one can obliterate Wayne's physical body, brains and all,
and still have Wayne's personality retained.  This need not be
implied.

The huge point I want to make though, is that I think we are
sort of like that light bulb.  In other words, when the light
bulb 'dies', all of its attributes are no more.  Not only is the
physical part (the body) decayed, but the heat and the light are
no more as well (symbolic here for aspects of a man's
personality).

Likewise when we 'die,' we have no brain.  None.  I just think
those nonphysical attributes die as well.  And I think the Bible
points to this.

But, what of Jesus speaking of fearing Him who can destroy both
soul and body in hell?  In the last days, the word will judge as
I believe it will after the lost are resurrected.  To any who
have sin, it will be a consuming fire.  I think Jesus refers to
this experience of seeing God unveiled.  That its not just
something that might injure one's physical body, but, if one is
a sinner, it will do irreperable damage to the person's psyche. 
Sort of like, "Don't worry about something that might kill your
body.  Not if it left your heart intact.  Worry about something
that might totally nuke out your very heart."  

(Even though I believe if the body died, the heart would go with
it, but thats not my point.  I think you know what I mean.  I
mean there will still be a resurrection of the saved, but
'hell', i.e.  the effect of the fires of God's love on the lost
will arouse sin and cause it to just massacre their very
hearts.)  

John Huss died a horrible death and yes, I believe that when his
body died, his consciousness went with it.  But, it did not
suffer damage as a result of that death.  He sang, "Thou Son of
David, have mercy on me!"  He will be resurrected and I believe
he will have the same heart he had the moment he lost
consciousness.  That will be his character.  (More on that I
hope!)

But, a lost person, in the final fires of hell (which I believe
is a totally unveiled revelation of the cross permeating every
crevice of a person's consciousness), will have so much sin
exposed in so short a period of time that it will be "Light's
out."  There will be nothing left.

Don't fear the fires Huss suffered.  That may destroy the body,
but the soul will make it through.  Rather fear that sword that
comes in the end.  That one may make mincemeat of your very soul.

						Tony

Hi, Tony.

|       What are the odds that mention would only be made of these
|       peculiar cases?  Why not a single mention of one that lacked
|       the transition to an incorruptible body?

** Depends on what you mean by "single mention" made.  Consider the scriptural
   record of the OT fathers' and leaders' deaths:

   - The LORD said to Abram, "thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou
     shalt be buried in a good old age." (Ge.15:15) ... "Then Abraham gave up
     the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and
     WAS GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE." (Ge.25:8)

   - "And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and WAS GATHERED UNTO HIS PEOPLE,
     being old and full of days: and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him."
     (Ge.35:29)

   - Jacob said to his sons, "I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with
     my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, In
     the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the
     land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field of Ephron the Hittite
     for a possession of a buringplace. There they buried Abraham and Sarah
     his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I
     buried Leah. The purchase of the field and of the cave that is therein
     was from the children of Heth.

     "And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up
     his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and WAS GATHERED UNTO
     HIS PEOPLE." (Ge.49:29-33)

   - The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Aaron shall BE GATHERED UNTO HIS
     PEOPLE: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto
     the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the
     water of Meribah."

     "And Moses did as the LORD commanded, "and Aaron died there in the top
     of <mount Hor>." (Nu.20:23-28)

   - The LORD said to Moses, "Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto
     mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is over against Jericho;
     and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel
     for a possession: And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and BE
     GATHERED UNTO THY PEOPLE; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and
     WAS GATHERED UNTO HIS PEOPLE: Because ye trespassed against me among the
     children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of
     Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of
     Israel. Yet thou shalt see the land before; but thou shalt not go thither
     unto the land which I give the children of Israel." (De.32:48-52)

     "And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to
     the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him
     all the land...which <He swore> unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
     Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see
     it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

     "So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab,
     according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in a valley in the
     land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his
     sepulchre unto this day." (De.34:1-6)

Now, there is clear literal precedent wherein being buried by family members in
a family buringplace is part of being "gathered unto his people."  But there is
an intriguing ambiguity about who does the gathering, until Moses who could
only have been "gathered unto his people" by God Himself.  Yet the wording
suggests that there was a certain shared sense of being "gathered unto his
people" with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Aaron, i.e., the LORD gathered His
people together.

Moses was "seen" by Peter, James and John on the mount of Jesus' transfigura-
tion.  Since Moses had been "gathered unto his people" by God, can we not see
that Moses' people, the heirs of the promise, if you will, were living, too?
Lest there be doubt, scripture also records Elijah being "seen" by Peter, James
and John, and Christ being seen by eyewitnesses after His resurrection.

Again I assert the seeing of others alive in their heavenly bodies would add
nothing to what the Word of God has already revealed.  Jesus said to Thomas,
"because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not
seen, and yet have believed." (Jn.20:29)

The record is written, "that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing we might have life through His name." (Jn.20:31)

/Wayne

RE: .88

| From a purely statistical standpoint, the percentage of people in heaven
| without a body to the total number of people in heaven is probably ~ 99.9%
| with your view.

** You have NOT understood my view.

   Where did I ever say that the saved do not have a heavenly body?

| We also have the scripture that explicitly states Enoch is up there.

** Where is that scripture?

   "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (Ge.5:24)

   "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not
   found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had
   this testimony, that he pleased God." (He.11:5)

   What is Jesus' own testimony concerning those who believe on Him?  Is our
   testimony not the same as Enoch's?

   Moreover, the Father "hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance
   of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
   and HATH TRANSLATED US INTO THE KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON: In whom we have
   redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Co.1:12-14)

   The Word says that Enoch was translated by faith.  Are we translated
   differently?

   We have no record of Enoch's being seen by men after he was translated.
   How then do you "see" Enoch as now living?  If your basis is Scripture
   saying that he should not see death, then I submit the same basis for
   "seeing" believers alive who have died in the flesh.

| But, you get my point, right?

** Yes, I get your point.  Do you get mine?

By the way, I would not support the inherent or unconditional immortality of
man's soul.  God alone has power and prerogative to give life!

      Hi Wayne,
    
        It was a really quick read.  I probably won't be able to
        volunteer a whole lot until next Sunday as today is my
        last day and looks to be a busy one.
    
        I don't equate "gathered to his people" with "a certain
        thing that means departing to be with God."  I just think
        they probably buried the people in roughly the same locale.
        
        I think Moses was resurrected.
    
        Anyway, what I'd be looking for is an explicit example of
        someone aside from Moses, Elijah, and Enoch being alive
        after death.  (Well, actually only Moses died in these cases.)
    
        "Gathered unto..." does not carry the weight of being equated
        with "some spirit part going up to heaven."  Thats a huge stretch
        (to me!).
    
        Maybe point me to where any of these folks demonstrate conscious
        existence at time = after death.
    
    				       			Tony

Hi Tony,

I see you're swamped here, with so many directions & folks to address, so
I'll leave Michael to the angels topic - as well as it being more
appropriate there.  Obviously my perspective on those verses is very
different from yours, though! ;-) 

				God bless
						Andrew

      Hi Andrew,
    
        Thanks bro!  I am swamped at work!
    
    						Tony

Hi, Tony.
    
|       I don't equate "gathered to his people" with "a certain
|       thing that means departing to be with God."  I just think
|       they probably buried the people in roughly the same locale.

** Now why would you insist on a certain literal/physical interpretation here,
   but not grant the same validity to others who would do so elsewhere?

   I can really convince you of nothing.  If you're as open to revelation as
   you would have others be, then I guess any truth in "my view" must be
   revealed to you by other means.

   Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.  And if you're
   sure that "my view" contradicts God's Word, and that my words "miss the
   mark," then you'll be credited for helping put my self to death.
        
|       I think Moses was resurrected.

** Why do you keep hammering this point?  I haven't disagreed with this
   assertion, and see no reason why I should.  In fact, I believe Moses
   probably was resurrected from the dead unto life because, according to the
   word of the LORD, Moses His servant "died there in the land of Moab."
    
|       Anyway, what I'd be looking for is an explicit example of
|       someone aside from Moses, Elijah, and Enoch being alive
|       after death.  (Well, actually only Moses died in these cases.)

** And again I ask why?  So that in seeing you might believe in life (after
   death)?  Moses and Jesus already testify to that!

   And what do you mean by "being alive after death?"  Life between death and
   the final resurrection?

   But, I'll respond anyway even if you will not see my point:

    1 - Time would fail to tell of <faith whereby> "Women received their dead
        to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance;
        that they might obtain a better resurrection..." (He.11:32-40)

        The son of the widow with whom Elijah dwelled fell sick and died.
        Elijah took her son to a loft, laid him on his bed, stretched
        himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, "O LORD
        my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And
        the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came
        into him again, and he revived."

        The widow said to Elijah, "Now by this I know that thou art a man of
        God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth." (1Ki.17)

    2 - "Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the
        ghost. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from
        the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
        And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which
        slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and
        went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Mt.27:50-53)

    3 - Jesus took Jairus' dead daughter by the hand, and said to her,
        "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise."  And she arose and walked to the
        great astonishment of her father, mother, and Peter, James and
        John.

    4 - In support of life before the final resurrection (to show that 
        resurrection derived from Life, not vice versa), Jesus told Martha
        that Lazarus would rise again.  Martha thought He was referring to
        the resurrection at the last day.  Jesus said, "I am the resurrection
        and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall
        he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
        Believest thou this?"

        Mary said to Jesus, "Lord, if thou hadst been here <not waiting two
        days after hearing that Lazarus was sick>, my brother had not died."
        When Jesus saw Mary and the Jews with her weeping, He was troubled,
        asked where Lazarus had been laid <for four days already>, then He
        wept.  Some wondered why Jesus could not have caused Lazarus to not
        die given that He had made the blind see.  They did not see and
        Jesus again groaned within Himself.  He went to Lazarus' grave,
        prayed to our Father, with a loud voice said "Lazarus, come forth."
        Lazarus came forth from the dead, bound with graveclothes and his
        face covered with a napkin.  Jesus said, "Loose him, and let him go."

        Many who saw what Jesus did believed on Him, but some didn't. (Jn.11)

   After the fall, God said to Adam, "out of <the ground> wast thou taken: for
   dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Ge.3:19)

   "All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
   (Ec.3:20)

   "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
   So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that
   look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
   (He.9:27&28)

   So, did the people referenced above die twice?  Perhaps they were really
   never dead in the flesh?  Well, in one case at least, Jesus said, "Lazarus
   is dead <indeed>." (Jn.11:11-15)
    
|       "Gathered unto..." does not carry the weight of being equated
|       with "some spirit part going up to heaven."  Thats a huge stretch
|       (to me!).

** Okay.  So be it.
    
|       Maybe point me to where any of these folks demonstrate conscious
|       existence at time = after death.

** If by "any of these folks" you mean people other than Enoch, Moses, Elijah
   and Jesus, then I cannot.  And I believe the Word reveals why not.

   If you deem lack of more Scriptural evidence as reason to not "see" life
   after death for believers, in particular, given Christ's teaching of
   Abraham's bosom, then I cannot prove in your sight that there is life after
   death.

   So, as Mike suggested in note .74, maybe the time has come for you to prove
   in my sight that there is not life after death.  And I confess skepticism
   toward such proof because, by faith in God's Word and the witness of His
   Spirit, I've already seen my life in Christ after my death!

In Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life (which is our light),

/Wayne

Hi, Tony.
    
|       I don't equate "gathered to his people" with "a certain
|       thing that means departing to be with God."  I just think
|       they probably buried the people in roughly the same locale.

** Now why would you insist on a certain literal/physical interpretation here,
   but not grant the same validity to others who would do so elsewhere?

   I can really convince you of nothing.  If you're as open to revelation as
   you would have others be, then I guess any truth in "my view" must be
   revealed to you by other means.

   Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.  And if you're
   sure that "my view" contradicts God's Word, and that my words "miss the
   mark," then you'll be credited for helping put my self to death.
        
|       I think Moses was resurrected.

** Why do you keep hammering this point?  I haven't disagreed with this
   assertion, and see no reason why I should.  In fact, I believe Moses
   probably was resurrected from the dead unto life because, according to the
   word of the LORD, Moses His servant "died there in the land of Moab."
    
|       Anyway, what I'd be looking for is an explicit example of
|       someone aside from Moses, Elijah, and Enoch being alive
|       after death.  (Well, actually only Moses died in these cases.)

** And again I ask why?  So that in seeing you might believe in life (after
   death)?  Moses and Jesus already testify to that!

   And what do you mean by "being alive after death?"  Life between death and
   the final resurrection?

   But, I'll respond anyway even if you will not see my point:

    1 - Time would fail to tell of <faith whereby> "Women received their dead
        to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance;
        that they might obtain a better resurrection..." (He.11:32-40)

        The son of the widow with whom Elijah dwelled fell sick and died.
        Elijah took her son to a loft, laid him on his bed, stretched
        himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, "O LORD
        my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And
        the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came
        into him again, and he revived."

        The widow said to Elijah, "Now by this I know that thou art a man of
        God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth." (1Ki.17)

    2 - A dead man, the only son of a widow, was carried out of a city called
        Nain.  The Lord had compassion on the woman, and the pallbearers stood
        still as He touched the coffin and said, "Young man, I say unto thee,
        Arise."  The son who was dead sat up and began to speak.  Fear came
        upon all and they glorified God saying "God hath visited His people."
        (Lu.7:11-17)

    3 - Jesus took Jairus' dead daughter by the hand, and said to her,
        "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise."  "And her spirit came again," she
        arose, walked and ate to the great astonishment of her father, mother,
        and Peter, James and John. (Mk.5:22-24,35-43; Lu.8:41&42,49-56)

    4 - In support of life before the final resurrection (to show that He 
        could quicken whom He would), Jesus told Martha that Lazarus would
        rise again.  Martha thought He was referring to the resurrection at
        the last day.  Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life: he
        that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And
        whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou
        this?"

        Mary said to Jesus, "Lord, if thou hadst been here <not waiting two
        days after hearing that Lazarus was sick>, my brother had not died."
        When Jesus saw Mary and the Jews with her weeping, He was troubled,
        asked where Lazarus had been laid <for four days already>, then He
        wept.  Some wondered why Jesus could not have caused Lazarus to not
        die given that He had made the blind see.  They did not see and
        Jesus again groaned within Himself.  He went to Lazarus' grave,
        prayed to our Father, with a loud voice said "Lazarus, come forth."
        Lazarus came forth from the dead, bound with graveclothes and his
        face covered with a napkin.  Jesus said, "Loose him, and let him go."

        Many who saw what Jesus did believed on Him, but some didn't. (Jn.11)

    5 - "Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the
        ghost. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from
        the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
        And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which
        slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and
        went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Mt.27:50-53)

   After the fall, God said to Adam, "out of <the ground> wast thou taken: for
   dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Ge.3:19)

   "All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
   (Ec.3:20)

   "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
   So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that
   look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
   (He.9:27&28)

   So, did the people referenced above die twice?  Perhaps they were really
   never dead in the flesh?  Well, Jesus said, "Lazarus is dead <indeed>."
   (Jn.11:11-15)  And the bodies of the saints who came out of their graves
   had been buried.

   Note that OT and NT each record an explicit example of the soul/spirit
   (immaterial) coming into the body (material) again.
    
|       "Gathered unto..." does not carry the weight of being equated
|       with "some spirit part going up to heaven."  Thats a huge stretch
|       (to me!).

** Okay.  So be it.
    
|       Maybe point me to where any of these folks demonstrate conscious
|       existence at time = after death.

** If by "any of these folks" you mean people other than Enoch, Moses, Elijah
   and Jesus, then I cannot.  And I believe the Word reveals why not.

   If you deem lack of more Scriptural evidence as reason to not "see" life
   after death for believers, in particular, given Christ's teaching in Luke
   16:19-31, then I cannot prove in your sight that there is life after death.

   So, as Mike suggested in note .74, maybe the time has come for you to prove
   in my sight that there is not life after death.  And I confess skepticism
   toward such proof because, by faith in God's Word and the witness of His
   Spirit, I've already seen my life in Christ after my death!

In Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life (which is our light),

/Wayne

    Wayne, that gets better and better every time I read it ;-)

 ;-)

"And when He opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of
those who had been slain because of the word of God and because of the testimony
which they held; And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O sovereign
Lord, holy and true, will You not judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell
on the earth? And to each of them was given a white robe; and it was said to
them that they should rest yet a little while, until the number of their fellow
slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed even as they were should
be completed also". Rev 6:9-11

All these dead ones appear quite alert to me.

    That was my hope, Mike. :-)  And I know why you winked!
    
    Some have found my wont to change and re-enter things disconcerting in
    terms of seen/unseen maps, if not downright annoying.  I've tried to do
    better, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective)
    note .94 remained the last of the string for quite some time, so I added
    and/or clarified a couple points as I was led.
    
    My next entry will be my last until Tony gives me indication that he
    has caught up to address everything he wants.  I felt impelled to extend
    him that courtesy.

"My view" in a nutshell (nothing new, just salient highlights induced from ex-
tant notes):

 1 - Life is intrinsically God's.  He alone has power and prerogative to give
     and take life.

 2 - The Father has given inherent life to the Son, and the Son quickens whom
     (and when) He will.

 3 - We who hear Jesus' word and believe on God who sent Him have everlasting
     life, and will never be condemned, but be passed from death to life.

 4 - The gospel is preached to all men.  For us who hear with faith remains
     rest wherein we cease from our own work.  For them who sin willfully
     after hearing the truth remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain
     fearful expectation of judgment.

 5 - The souls of men are preserved unto the final resurrection, the good
     coming forth to life, putting on incorruption and immortality, and the
     wicked coming forth to damnation.

The 2nd point helps me better appreciate what Jesus did on the cross.  We
"know" He died.  But have we REALLY thought about what that meant?

The Father gave the Son LIFE IN HIMSELF.  The very life of God was His.  Jesus
had both the power and prerogative to NOT die, even in our flesh.  But, He was
obedient even unto death.  Jesus gave His inherent life, the life given by the
Father, back to the Father.  Say what?!  Jesus chose to die for us, so that our
sins could be put to death in Him.  Jesus life was NOT taken, He gave it!  But,
we "know" that, right?  After all, He said "my Father loves me, because I lay
down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay
it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (Jn.10:17&18)

How painful was that?  Beyond human capacity to know, because He that knew no
sin became our sin.  Make no mistake, the Godhead was in unfathomable pain!
The gravity of sin cannot be overstated.  In Christ were our sins and God's
holiness brought together.  No flesh could stand.  Jesus cried out, "My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  After which He said, "'Father, into thy hands
I commend my spirit:' and having said thus, He "gave up the ghost."

And, glory be, our Lord was resurrected!  The Father returned inherent life to
the Son.  The Lamb who was slain is worthy!  And because He lives (to quicken
whom He will), we live!  Only rest unto everlasting life remains for us who
believe.

May God bless His Word to our hearts.

/Wayne

    Re: .99
    
    > For them who sin willfully after hearing the truth remains no more
    > sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment.
    
    Wayne, what exactly does this mean? Just trying to understand.
    
    This may be a tangent and I don't want to have this note move to
    another topic, so if people want I will make another note for this.
    

    Hi, Peter.
    
    The immediate context for that statement is Hebrews 10:18-39, and v.18
    says "Now where remission of <sins and iniquities> is, there is no more
    offering for sin."  The question then is where is remission of these?
    
    Jesus was fashioned as a man and died in our flesh.
    
    According to v.28, those who despised Moses' law died without mercy
    under two or three witnesses, and v.29 indicates that those who reject
    the Spirit of grace (in Christ's offering) deserve worse.
    
    Now, Jesus calls forth those who are where remission is (in earthly
    life).  The time to hear is now.  Thereafter is no more offering for sin,
    only judgment.
    
    Fear implies consciousness.  Fear of judgment in earthly life works unto
    repentance, except in those who trod underfoot the Son of God--they fear
    nothing.  Thus I see the (conscious) fear of certain judgment that
    remains as the state of the lost after death.
    
    He.10 closes out encouraging us "that believe to the saving of the soul"
    to not cast away our confidence, but by faith to do the will of God who
    takes no pleasure in any drawing back.
    
    To me, eternal life is given only to those who have faith where
    remission of sins is, i.e., in this earthly life.  Any who die without
    faith are lost.
    
    /Wayne

    Re: .101
    
    Oh ok Wayne, I understand now. I just was not sure what you were
    saying.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Peter
    
    P.S. Gotta run for today.
    

    Just wanted to point out that I meant to say only what Scripture says:
    "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of
    the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, But a certain
    fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall
    devour the adversaries." (He.10:26&27, KJV)
    
    Your question of what I meant was really a question of what Scripture
    means.  My answer in note .101 was not offered as the inspired and
    inerrant word to you, but rather as my understanding or interpretation
    of what Scripture says to me.  In other words, I shared only what has
    blessed me.
    
    And what I REALLY wanted to share in note .99 was a deeper appreciation
    and love for our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain to take away
    our sins, the Redeemer who bought us, and the Saviour who lives to make
    us righteous.
    
    /Wayne

    I couldn't let Ace's excellent contribution just go unnoticed as I defer
    to Tony's lead. :-)
    
    My studied opinion is that those "slain for the word of God, and for
    the testimony held" likely are numbered among those "which are baptized
    for the dead" in 1Co.15:29.

    My reasoning:

       - There is only one baptism effectual for the dead, that of Jesus
         Christ.
       - We are buried with Christ in baptism and His love constrains us to
         lay down our lives for those dead in trespasses and sin.
       - If the dead rise not at all, then "why stand we in jeopardy every
         hour?" (v.30)
       - Paul protests "by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our
         Lord, I die daily." (v.31)

    "I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ
    Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do
    count them dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in Him, not having
    my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the
    faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may
    know Him, and THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION, and THE FELLOWSHIP OF HIS
    SUFFERINGS, BEING MADE CONFORMABLE UNTO HIS DEATH; If by any means I
    might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Ph.3:8-11, KJV)

|    And what I REALLY wanted to share in note .99 was a deeper appreciation
|    and love for our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain to take away
|    our sins, the Redeemer who bought us, and the Saviour who lives to make
|    us righteous.
    
    Brother Wayne, you do that every time you contribute.

    .105
    
    Amen.

 and amen

    yes Wayne, thanks.

    "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge
    of God: I speak to your shame. But some will say, How are the dead
    raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou
    sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest,
    thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance
    of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath
    pleased Him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same
    flesh: but one flesh of mean, another flesh of beasts, another of
    fishes, another of birds. Also celestial bodies, and bodies
    terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial one, and of the
    terrrestrial another. One glory of the sun, and another glory of the
    moon, and another glory of the stars: for star differeth from star in
    glory.
    
    "So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is
    raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory:
    it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural
    body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there
    is a spiritual body...The first Adam was made a living soul; the last
    Adam a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is
    spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is
    spiritual. The first man of the earth, earthy: the second man the Lord
    from heaven. As the earthy, such they also that are earthy: and as the
    heavenly, such they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the
    image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."
    (1Co.15:34-49, KJV)

    Welcome!

      Hi,
    
        I'll be on a 'hiatus' for awhile!  This is a four day
        work week.  (Sun thru Wed from 8 to 8)  So, I'll have
        little time to contribute.
    
        I've got a lot of things going on so I need a little
        break.  I hope to (eventually) provide 'other' texts
        that (to me) seem to convey an absence of consciousness
        associated with death.   I also want to just lay out
        my 'tapestry' as that will help.
    
        Both, especially the latter, will take awhile.  I'll have 
        to do all the writing at home and convert to ASCII/8 bit 
        ansi, copy to disk and bring to work.
    
        Might even be a couple of weeks, but I'd rather have more
        quality/thoroughness than if I just whipped out a reply.
        (Which I do all too often.)
    
        Ultimately, I hope to offer a different twist on how it
        is truth implies what it means to glory in only the cross!
    
        Take care and God Bless brothers and sisters...
    
    					 	Tony

>Hi All,

>This really wasn't the first text I wanted to introduce, but the
>one I wanted will be far more time consuming to develop.  The
>following text has been used by proponents of 'no soul sleep' as
>one showing that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now alive because
>"God is the God of the living" and Jesus says this with respect
>to these three patriarchs of old.
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    In .23 I thought I was responding to your first Scripture test as you
    had requested folks do.
    
    Jesus did make it clear that there was life after death abolishing the
    idea of "soul sleep".  His usage of Moses' encounter with God at the
    burning bush was to appeal to the canon which the Saducees
    acknowledged, to point out their ignorance of their own acknowledged
    Scriptures.  This is why the spectators were amazed.


Matthew 22:23-33 
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no
resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: "Teacher,
Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother
shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25
"Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he
had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his
brother. 26 "Likewise the second also, and the third, even to
the seventh. 27 "Last of all the woman died also. 28 "Therefore,
in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For
they all had her." 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are
mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 "But
concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what
was spoken to you by God, saying, 32  'I am the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of
the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the multitudes heard
this, they were astonished at His teaching.


>Now, the Saducees had a problem, didn't they?  They did not
>believe in life after death.  The author (Matthew) and Jesus
>Christ Himself voice their disagreement with the Saducees.  And
>on what basis?  What do they offer as the SUPPORT for disagreement?
    
    The Saducees had a problem for sure.  Their problem was their attempt
    to discredit Christ while building a case for their own minority view
    of the Scriptures.  There was no disagreement per se, rather a clear
    case of Christ demonstrating for all to hear his knowledge of the
    Scripture and his deftness in applying them while teaching the Saducees
    and anyone else that will listen that there is indeed life after death.

>Do they say that God is the God of the living on the basis of
>His creating some facet of man that is immortal?  Do they say
>that God is the God of the living because He upholds some facet
>of man so as to be alive between death and resurrection?
    
    No, Christ demonstrates that Abraham, Issac, and Jacob (characters from
    the canon which the Saducees acknowledged) were alive many years after
    their death.

    
    jeff

>The reason that there are living, in any capacity of life (which
>most fundamental capacity is intelligent consciousness), is
>because God resurrects.  That is, God brings the dead to life. 
>He causes life to come from that which is dead (very simple
>concept).
    
    Some clarification is in order here.  Resurrection is properly
    understood as the raising of the dead body, which Christ and possibly a
    handful of others have experienced.  
    
    This says nothing about the state of the soul while the body is dead
    which according to the Bible continues to live; it is eternal and can
    exist without the body.

>Resurrection: The bringing of dead to life.  To raise that which
>is dead to life.

>But, God did say that He IS the God of the living, did He not?
>And what is an inference of this?  The logic goes like this...
    
    There are all sorts of inferences possible.  But inferences are not
    reliable. 

>God IS the God of the living and He specifically refers to Abraham,
>Isaac, and Jacob.  As God speaks in the present tense and as He
>refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it follows that they must be
>alive in the present tense of when Jesus uttered these words.
    
    Well, they were alive at least when God uttered the words to Moses. 
    Since they had already physically died many years earlier there's no
    reason to believe that they weren't still alive when Jesus uttered his
    words as recorded in Matthew.  But remember, the use of Abraham, Issac
    and Jacob was not to create a special case for these great patriarchs
    but to apply the authority of the Law of Moses, which the Saducees
    acknowledged, to the Saducee argument.

>Very simple rationale except there is a conflict here!  Jesus just
>characterized the truth of life on the basis of resurrection and
>the resurrection was yet future to His time on earth!
    
    Jesus did not base his argument on the basis of his own resurrection
    but on the basis that those who were clearly physically dead to
    earthlings were actually alive to God.  A conflict does not exist.  And
    your argument will fall apart at this point because your premise is
    false.

>Ahhh, but the Bible reconciles this seeming tension!
    
    There is no tension at all.  You are creating a tension which does not
    exist to support your own convoluted argument.

>Did not God also say to Abraham...

>Genesis 17:4-5
>"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be the
>Father of many nations.     [future tense]
>No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
>for I have made you a father of many nations.   [past tense]

>Romans 4:17-18
>(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") in the
>presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead
>and calls those things which do not exist as though they did.  [past tense]

>who contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of
>many nations, according to what was spoken, "So shall your descendants
>be."  [future tense]

>Characteristic of God:
>God calls those things which do not exist as though they did.
    
    What you see here in Genesis is God telling Abram that he would
    physically be the father of many nations which has to occur in time. 
    Abram knew exactly what God was saying.  Then you have God changing
    Abram's name to Abraham and then saying that he is the father of many
    nations.  This is God telling Abraham that his promise is sure and is
    as good as done.  What God promises God will do.
    
    In Romans you see a complete verification of the Genesis passage where
    Paul points out that God's complete power and sovereignty over life
    made his promise to Abraham completely reliable.
    
    Saying, without qualification, that a characteristic of God is to "call 
    those things which do not exist as though they did" is an unreasonable 
    statement subject to all sorts of perversion.  
    
    God's knowledge of his own sovereign will allows him to speak of that
    which he hasn't yet created as if it is created.
    
    jeff

>And speaking of Isaac...

>Hebrews 11:17-19
>By faith, Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had
>received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
>of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called,"
>accounting that God

>[what?  that God made for a part of Isaac to live between death and 
>resurrection?  Was this where Abe's faith laid hold of?  Where is the
>basis for Abraham's hope for Isaac?  And what was Abe's urgent desire?
>Was it that Isaac's 'spirit' be reunited with his body?  Was this really
>Abe's concern?  No!  Abe's concern for Isaac was that Isaac have life!]

    Abraham was being tested, Tony, plain and simple.  At the time of his
    trial he must have had great tension between what God had commanded him
    to do with Issac and the promise concerning Issac.
    
>accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from 
>which he also received him in a figurative sense.
    
    It would be impossible for a physically dead Issac to produce children,
    Tony.  Abraham obeyed God in every way.  And he knew that God's
    original promise of many nations would occur.  He knew it so well that
    he knew that if Issac were killed as a sacrifice God would raise him
    from physical death so he could father children. 

>One last thing before a summarization.  Why would God call something which
>does not exist as though it did?  I believe it is because we can take Him
>at His word!  He said it.  Its guaranteed!  ITS A DONE DEAL!!!

>Thats why He can look at Abe as already alive.  It is such a sure thing
>that He speaks of it thus.

    This is terrible reasoning, Tony.  You suggest that God saw Abraham,
    Issac, and Jacob as alive in his encounter with Moses but that they
    were not actually so?  You have no reason to believe this whatsoever. 
    Jesus was teaching the Saducees that there is life after death on the
    basis that Abraham, Issac, and Jacob were actually alive hundreds of
    years after their death.  It is very poor exegesis and reasoning to 
    then take a statement God made to Abraham as further explained by Paul 
    to suggest that because God promised to make a nation when one did not
    yet exist that God said Abraham, Issac, and Jacob were alive only
    because he looked forward to them being alive.  It will convince no
    one.
    
>To summarize:

>1) Jesus says LIFE is by reason of His power to resurrect.  There is no
>   other way for LIFE.  It is by the resurrection.
    
    No.  Jesus said that Abraham, Issac, and Jacob were alive at the time
    Moses met God at the burning bush, hundreds of years after their
    physical death and even longer before Jesus's death and resurrection.

>2) Proponents of any life at all outside of the resurrection have used 
>   this text as support all the while being blind to its 100% reliance
>   on the resurrection as reason for life after death.
    
    This is pure nonsense Tony.  PURE!

>3) Proponents of any life at all outside of the resurrection have cited
>   the truth that God said, He IS the God of the living.  In doing so,
>   they have left vacant OTHER scripture which so clearly states a
>   characteristic of God, i.e. that He calls those things which do not
>   exist as though they do.  That is, their 'tapestry' is extremely
>   incomplete in this regard and (partially for that reason) an incomplete
>   tapestry yields an erroneas belief system.
    
    There are plenty of Scriptures aside from this one to support life
    after death prior to and after Christ.  It is just ridiculous to apply
    the "calls those things..." as a support for your argument that the
    soul sleeps after physical death until resurrection.

>4) Abraham's hope for Isaac himself was not that God would keep the most
>   fundamental part of who Isaac is alive (His person/his consciousness).
>   Abe's hope for Isaac was faith in ONE THING.  God's power to resurrect
>   him and the belief that God would.  Clearly Abe's overriding concern
>   was not that Isaac might temporarily lack a physical body.  His concern
>   was that Isaac might lack life in all its attributes - the most important
>   being conscious existence.  His hope for Isaac rested in one thing.
>   FAITH IN THE GOD WHO WOULD RESURRECT HIM.
    
    His faith in resurrection was faith in an immediate resurrection. 
    Issac had to be physically alive for the promise to be carried out.

>Conclusion: There is no life after death.  None.  Until the resurrection.
    
    The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there is life after death
    prior to and after Jesus's resurrection.  I suspect the Saducees used 
    some similarly convoluted argument to support their belief.  But Christ
    pointed out how they were ignorant and didn't understand the
    Scriptures since they indeed demonstrated life after death.  We must
    listen to Christ, not the Saducees.

    jeff

						In Pursuit of Truth,

						Tony

Hi Brothers and Sisters,

Well, I've finished writing for my next contribution.  I wanted
to input one fire text, but then the idea occured to me to
describe my 'tapestry' (present understanding of the gospel). 
This is in Topic #66.  Please consider giving it a read.  I
parsed it to make its length more palatable.

The reason then became to stick with only fire texts and to list
some of the unique things I would need the Bible to say with
fire texts - things often highly unorthodox.  Some of those
things are listed below and some fire texts are then provided.

So, the whole thing is a fire study, a look at what the word
fire seems to be saying about the gospel.  However, the one text
I especially offer (as markedly saying something about the
state of the dead) is:


Isaiah 33:14-15 
The sinners in Zion are afraid; Fearfulness has seized the
hypocrites: "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?
Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" 15  He who
walks righteously and speaks uprightly, He who despises the gain
of oppressions, Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes,
Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed, And shuts his eyes
from seeing evil:

This text refers to the "everlasting fires" and asks, "Who dwells
there?"  The answer: the righteous.  The wrong answer?:  The lost.
Conclusion - the lost do not dwell in the everlasting burnings because
they are destroyed by them.  The burnings are God's love and what
is torture for the lost is ultimately bliss for the redeemed.

The gospel that I presented would want fire texts to say the
following...


1) Fire is a metaphor for God's love.

2) There was a metaphorical fire at Calvary.

3) The righteous suffer as a result of fire.

4) Fire destroys sin.

5) People are purified by fire.

6) There is a time way in the future that the saved are in the
   midst of the fire and it is not painful, but rather joyful.

7) The fire that the lost suffer from is mentioned in the same
   context as being accompanied by the saved.

8) Only the righteous dwell in the eternal fires.

9) God Himself is described as a consuming fire.

10) Fire is especially given apocalyptic significance.

11) The fire that cannot be quenched is described as God's love.

1) Fire is a metaphor for God's love.


Song of Solomon 8:6-7 
Set me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For
love is as strong as death, Jealousy as cruel as the grave; Its
flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame. 7  Many waters
cannot quench love, Nor can the floods drown it. If a man would
give for love All the wealth of his house, It would be utterly
despised.


Proverbs 25:21-22
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is
thirsty, give him water to drink; 22  For so you will heap coals
of fire on his head, And the LORD will reward you.


Romans 12:20-21
Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty,
give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on
his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with
good.


Psalm 140:10
Let burning coals fall upon them; Let them be cast into the
fire, Into deep pits, that they rise not up again.

(Note how a here a little, there a little study shows that a
revelation of God's love, the hot coals, is what destroys the
lost.) 

2) There was a metaphorical fire at Calvary.


Psalm 22:14
I am poured out like water, And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me.

(Fire melts wax.)
 
Psalm 68:2
As smoke is driven away, So drive them away; As wax melts before
the fire, So let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

3) The righteous suffer as a result of fire.


Lamentations 1:12-14
Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by? Behold and see If
there is any sorrow like my sorrow, Which has been brought on
me, Which the LORD has inflicted In the day of His fierce anger.
13  "From above He has sent fire into my bones, And it
overpowered them; He has spread a net for my feet And turned me
back; He has made me desolate And faint all the day. 14  "The
yoke of my transgressions was bound; They were woven together by
His hands, And thrust upon my neck. He made my strength fail;
The Lord delivered me into the hands of those whom I am not able
to withstand.


Jeremiah 20:9
Then I said, "I will not make mention of Him, Nor speak anymore
in His name." But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back, And I could
not.


Hebrews 12:21-22,29
And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I am
exceedingly afraid and trembling.") 22 But you have come to
Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,
For our God is a consuming fire.

 
1 Peter 1:7
that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious
than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be
found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus
Christ,

 
Isaiah 43:1-2 
But now, thus says the LORD, who created you, O Jacob, And He
who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I
have called you by your name; You are Mine. 2  When you pass
through the waters, I will be with you; And through the rivers,
they shall not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you
shall not be burned, Nor shall the flame scorch you.

4) Fire destroys sin.


2 Peter 3:12
looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because
of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the
elements will melt with fervent heat?


Galatians 4:3,8-9
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the
elements of the world.
But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those
which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known
God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again
to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to
be in bondage?


(The elements according to Galatians, are sin.  Peter says that
the elements will be melted by fire.)


Hebrews 12:27,29
Now this, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of those things
that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the
things which cannot be shaken may remain.
For our God is a consuming fire.

5) People are purified by fire.


Malachi 3:1-3 
"Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before
Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His
temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. 2  "But who can
endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?
For He is like a refiner's fire And like launderer's soap. 3  He
will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify
the sons of Levi, And purge them as gold and silver, That they
may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness.

 
Isaiah 4:2-4 
In that day the Branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and
glorious; And the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and
appealing For those of Israel who have escaped. 3 And it shall
come to pass that he who is left in Zion and remains in
Jerusalem will be called holy -- everyone who is recorded among
the living in Jerusalem. 4 When the Lord has washed away the
filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the blood of
Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the
spirit of burning,

6) There is a time way in the future that the saved are in the
   midst of the fire and it is not painful, but rather joyful.


Matthew 13:43
"Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom
of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

 
Isaiah 30:26
Moreover the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun,
And the light of the sun will be sevenfold, As the light of
seven days, In the day that the LORD binds up the bruise of His
people And heals the stroke of their wound.

 
(God, being the source of the fire, is symbolized by the sun. 
The righteous, reflecting the character of God, is symbolized by
the moon.)

7) The fire that the lost suffer from is mentioned in the same
   context as being accompanied by the saved.


Daniel 3:19-25 
Then Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury, and the expression on his
face changed toward Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. He spoke
and commanded that they heat the furnace seven times more than
it was usually heated. 20 And he commanded certain mighty men of
valor who were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-Nego, and cast them into the burning fiery furnace. 21 Then
these men were bound in their coats, their trousers, their
turbans, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst
of the burning fiery furnace. 22 Therefore, because the king's
command was urgent, and the furnace exceedingly hot, the flame
of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-Nego. 23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-Nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery
furnace. 
Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste
and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men
bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the
king, "True, O king." 25 "Look!" he answered, "I see four men
loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt,
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."


(In the last days, the same fire that destroys Babylonians is
survived by Israelites (overcomers).)

 
Matthew 13:40-43
"Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so
it will be at the end of this age. 41 "The Son of Man will send
out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all
things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 "and
will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing
and gnashing of teeth. 43 "Then the righteous will shine forth
as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to
hear, let him hear!


(Note, the righteous shine forth as the sun.)

 
Ezekiel 22:17-22 
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 18 "Son of man, the
house of Israel has become dross to Me; they are all bronze,
tin, iron, and lead, in the midst of a furnace; they have become
dross from silver. 19 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:
'Because you have all become dross, therefore behold, I will
gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 20 'As men gather
silver, bronze, iron, lead, and tin into the midst of a furnace,
to blow fire on it, to melt it; so I will gather you in My anger
and in My fury, and I will leave you there and melt you. 21
'Yes, I will gather you and blow on you with the fire of My
wrath, and you shall be melted in its midst. 22 'As silver is
melted in the midst of a furnace, so shall you be melted in its
midst; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have poured out My
fury on you.' "

 
Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a
furnace of earth, Purified seven times.

8) Only the righteous dwell in the eternal fires.


Isaiah 33:14-15 
The sinners in Zion are afraid; Fearfulness has seized the
hypocrites: "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?
Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" 15  He who
walks righteously and speaks uprightly, He who despises the gain
of oppressions, Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes,
Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed, And shuts his eyes
from seeing evil:


(The righteous dwell with the devouring fire - NOT the wicked!!!)

9) God Himself is described as a consuming fire.


Daniel 7:9-10
I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of
Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of
His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its
wheels a burning fire; 10  A fiery stream issued And came forth
from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten
thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was
seated, And the books were opened.


Hebrews 12:29
For our God is a consuming fire.

10) Fire is especially given apocalyptic significance.


Psalm 50:1-6 
A Psalm of Asaph. The Mighty One, God the LORD, Has spoken and
called the earth From the rising of the sun to its going down. 2
Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God will shine forth. 3 
Our God shall come, and shall not keep silent; A fire shall
devour before Him, And it shall be very tempestuous all around
Him. 4  He shall call to the heavens from above, And to the
earth, that He may judge His people: 5  "Gather My saints
together to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by
sacrifice." 6  Let the heavens declare His righteousness, For
God Himself is Judge. Selah

 
2 Peter 3:12
looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because
of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the
elements will melt with fervent heat?

11) The fire that cannot be quenched is described as God's love.


Song of Solomon 8:6-7 
Set me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For
love is as strong as death, Jealousy as cruel as the grave; Its
flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame. 7  Many waters
cannot quench love, Nor can the floods drown it. If a man would
give for love All the wealth of his house, It would be utterly
despised.

    Tony, I only skimmed these replies.  First of all, you entered these on
    the assumption that your tapestry is sound doctrine.
    
    Secondly, how do you resolve the tension and contradictions created by
    your use of the word "fire"?  As you presented, both the righteous and
    the wicked will be burned/tried by fire.
    
    The principles of rightly dividing God's Word tells us not to build
    doctrine on vague or confusing passages.  The same applies to subjects
    rarely mentioned with little or vague cross-reference support.  It also 
    tells us that excessive spiritualizing/symbolizing passages is dangerous.  
    God's Word is a literal book and should be taken literally except where 
    the Holy Spirit says not to.  Jesus Christ, God Himself, always literally
    applied every OT passage He quoted.  Who are we to reject God's
    precedent?
    
    Mike

>    Secondly, how do you resolve the tension and contradictions created by
>    your use of the word "fire"?  As you presented, both the righteous and
>    the wicked will be burned/tried by fire.

An aside, since I didn't really follow the references to fire, but....

A year or so ago Jill mentioned something she had found in her discoveries in
the Word.  She had a perspective that many of us never will - of finding the
Word when she was an adult and seeing it all new.  Anyway, she noted that about
half of the references to 'fire' in the Bible are about the consumption of the
wicked, and about half were about the purifying of the righteous.

It seems that we're ALL going to go through the fire, one way or the other. 
Will we trust in God, and be purified?  Or will we not, and be consumed?

Paul

Reply: Note 53.128

Hi Mike,

    *Tony, I only skimmed these replies.  First of all, you entered these on
    *the assumption that your tapestry is sound doctrine.
    
    This sounds like a chicken verses an egg quandary!  I actually entered
    them because I think they are solid defense of 'my' tapestry.  (By the
    way, I will henceforth use the word "my" not because I want to convey
    the impression that my sinful heart 'wove' it, but because I wouldn't
    want to insist it is 100% inerrant which I feel I would need to be able
    to do in order to rightly call it "His" tapestry.)

    *Secondly, how do you resolve the tension and contradictions created by
    *your use of the word "fire"?  As you presented, both the righteous and
    *the wicked will be burned/tried by fire.
    
    Oh, in a lot of ways.  My favorite being the imagery of travail as of a
    woman in birth pangs.  This is a real nice word study!  My point being
    that I don't believe a woman can survive giving birth if only having that
    FINAL contraction.  She ought have all preceding contractions as well.

    Mike, PLEASE consider reading Psalm 73 and superimposing it to the idea
    of the process of being made righteous to the imagery of birth pangs.
    In Psalm 73, Asaph complains that the wicked has it easy.  He further
    complains that things are rough for him AND EQUATES THE HARDSHIP TO
    THE CHASTENING EXPERIENCE.  He says he has been cleansed in vain and
    "all day long I have been plagued and chastened every morning."  He says
    of the wicked, "there are no PANGS in their death."  But, look what he
    sees in verses 17-19.  They are destroyed *as in a moment*.

    The fire is simply revelations of God's love.  This exposes sin.  The
    Christian drinks in that revelation PROGRESSIVELY, i.e. he has series
    of contractions, chastening experiences.  He feels pain as a result of
    the fire, but he is not hurt by it (ultimately not burned - Isaiah 43:2).
    I take this to mean that their 'being' survives intact.  Their conscious-
    ness is not compromised.  Their psyche is not irreperably broken.

    Consider superimposing James 1:21-25 and (by the way) I have GOT to
    quote verse 21!!!

    James 1:21
    Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and 
    receive with meekness THE IMPLANTED WORD, which is able to [what?]
    SAVE YOUR SOULS.

    (emphasis supplied)

    Mike, have you had the experience of seeing sin in your life and having
    it just ROCK you?  What exposes that sin?  It is the word, the fire.
    I had one experience of acknowledging sin where I was so filled with
    anxiety that I was sleeping about 2 hours a day.  My anxiety level was
    sky high.  I can only thank God that He is so gentle with me.  

    If He showed me all of me at once, I would be consumed.  If the fiery
    revelation of the cross blazed through every crevice of my consciousness
    and exposed all of me to me, I would be SMOKED.  It would be, "Lights
    out."

    Thats what happens to the lost.  They refuse to drink in the implanted
    word (fire) which is able to save their souls.  At the end of time, God
    reveals to the world the awful destructive nature of sin.  To both
    the remnant and the lost.  The remnant and the lost suffer the final
    birth pang.  The remnant survives because they have progressively drunk 
    in the fire of God's love.  It hurts, but it doesn't scorch.

    The lost?  Well, maybe our wives or mother's can give us a rough physical
    analogy.  Ask them if they could survive a one contraction (the FINAL
    contraction) delivery.

    No way.  Light's out.

    *The principles of rightly dividing God's Word tells us not to build
    *doctrine on vague or confusing passages.  

    Where does any principle insist that any passage of God's word is meant
    to be "vague or confusing?"  Doesn't God mean for all passages to be
    clear and understandable?  I reject such a principle on the basis that
    these scriptures are not at all vague and confusing and (ultimately)
    are not meant to be.

    *The same applies to subjects
    *rarely mentioned with little or vague cross-reference support.  It also 
    *tells us that excessive spiritualizing/symbolizing passages is dangerous.  
    *God's Word is a literal book and should be taken literally except where 
    *the Holy Spirit says not to.  Jesus Christ, God Himself, always literally
    *applied every OT passage He quoted.  Who are we to reject God's
    *precedent?
    
    I referred back to the passages I offered.  Jesus' heart melting like
    wax.  Burning coals likened to loving our enemy.  Jeremiah's bones
    on fire.  God's word like fire.

    Mike, I'll go over each and every passage.  I would like an honest 
    investigation of each and every passage to see if they ought be taken
    literally or spiritually.  

    To be really candid, most passages, to even the casual reader, ought 
    be obvious to be taken spiritually.

    I mean...

    Jesus heart literally melting?  Jeremiah's bones literally on fire?
    Jacob walking through literal fire?  The righteous literally shining
    like the sun?  God's WORD in Jeremiah's heart like a burning fire?
    Israel in a literal furnace with literal dross being separated?

    Were you really fair to what I offered?  Can you see how, on the basis
    of your take that the passages ought be taken literally (in contrast to
    how they seem to INSIST on a spiritual 'take'), you seem not to be
    real fair about this one?

						God Bless,

						Tony

    Re: .129  
    
      Amen Paul!
    
      But, watch out.  Such an observation might lead to the idea
      that this whole thing we call redemption (and condemnation)
      follows realities implicit in sin and rightousness.
    
      And that shakes things up a bit.
    
    						Tony

    re .132
    
    Tony I can't follow this at all.  Can you please say it again using
    different words?  
    
    
    Jill
    

    re .128
    
    Mike,
    
    The fact that the bible uses fire in two opposite ways is very clear
    from the verses that Tony posted.  I don't really find that
    questionable.  
    
    The only thing I question is that Tony says this supposedly proves 
    that the unrighteous will not suffer for eternity in the fires of hell
    but only for a moment before they are destroyed or whatever.
    
     
    
    Jill
     

  Hi Jill,

  Reply Note 53.133

    *re .132
    
    *Tony I can't follow this at all.  Can you please say it again using
    *different words?  

    The way the condemned are lost follows a science (if you will).  Its
    like a ball hits the ground after being dropped from a certain height
    at a certain velocity because of a law.

    Condemnation and redemption are the same thing.  It is not mystical
    and it is not arbitrary.  It is rational.  It is according to perceptual
    reality.

Reply: Note 53.134

    *The fact that the bible uses fire in two opposite ways is very clear
    *from the verses that Tony posted.  I don't really find that
    *questionable.  
    
    NO!  It is NOT using fire in opposite ways!  Either way, the fire is
    the exact same thing.  It has CONTRASTING effects!

    Do you see the difference between what I have just said and what you
    said?

    *The only thing I question is that Tony says this supposedly proves 
    *that the unrighteous will not suffer for eternity in the fires of hell
    *but only for a moment before they are destroyed or whatever.
    
    Oh, I wouldn't want to say it _proves_, but certainly the Isaiah text
    I offered seems to say that the righteous dwell in the everlasting
    burnings.  Which means the lost don't.

    Very simple.

						Tony

    re .135
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    I agree with you about the way fire reacts.  I appologize for using
    mis-chosen words.  Like I said, its really quite clear from the
    scripture you posted.
    
    
    Jill
    

|    Condemnation and redemption are the same thing.  It is not mystical
|    and it is not arbitrary.  It is rational.  It is according to perceptual
|    reality.
    
    This to me is the heart of your tapestry, and also something that God's
    Word disagrees with.  
    
    "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
    Jesus." Romans 8:1 (NAS)
    
    Condemnation and Redemption can't be the same in your tapestry
    according to this verse.  You state we aren't totally redeemed yet. 
    This verse says we are.  We as believers in Christ are already saved and
    sealed without condemnation.  

      Hi Mike,
    
        Man, what a poor choice of words on my part!  I 100% agree
        that condemnation and redemption are not the same thing!
        And that idea is not a smidgeon of 'my' tapestry!
    
        I MEANT to say that they are similar in that they follow
        realities.  That they have this similarity.
    
        Regarding "saved."  Well, you would have to ignore a slew of
        scriptures in order to retain your view.  There are verses that
        speak of "being saved" (present continuous tense).  There is
        the verse that says "work out your salvation..."  There is a text
        that refers to a "salvation yet to be revealed."    There is a
        text that says, "The doers of the law WILL BE justified."
    
        Romans 4 again.  Its whole basis is justification.  Obviously,
        you know what I am saying.
    
        The only way we can truly be saved right now (as opposed to being
        saved) is if condemnation is from something other than sin.
    
        That is...if we are saved from God.  You know, that whole idea of
        God needing to kill because we sin (rather than sin condemning
        inherently).
    
        Romans 4 is key.  Romans 7 ain't bad either as it sheds unorthodox
        light on the death of Romans 6:23 (which we all agree is the death
        of the cross).                    
    
        I think you know what I mean.
    
    							Tony

      Mike,
    
        If my mistaken use of words 'was' the heart of my tapestry,
        what now is???
    
    							Tony

|        Regarding "saved."  Well, you would have to ignore a slew of
|        scriptures in order to retain your view.  There are verses that
|        speak of "being saved" (present continuous tense).  There is
    
    ...and also many passages that say we are "saved" (past tense).
    
|        the verse that says "work out your salvation..."  There is a text
|        that refers to a "salvation yet to be revealed."    There is a
|        text that says, "The doers of the law WILL BE justified."
    
    "work out your salvation..." does not equal "work for your salvation"

      re: -1
    
      Romans 4 harmonizes.
    
      Where did I ever say "work for your salvation?"
    
      Why do you insist that the work of heart-change is ours
      and not God's?
    
      That is heresy.
    
    					Tony

    Tony,
    
    What Mike is describing is the part that bothers me too.  I fully
    believe that I am totally "saved" and totally not under condemnation
    right this minute.  That doesn't mean that I don't still sin.  The
    moment I first believed all this was given to me, it just takes a long
    long while (most likely this entire lifetime) for me to totally understand
    
    
    Jill
    

|        If my mistaken use of words 'was' the heart of my tapestry,
|        what now is???
    
    Off the top of my head...
    
    I've always thought you confused salvation and sanctification.  We've
    been down this road before.
    
    I still have a problem with your view that this wasn't 100% finished at
    the cross.
    
    I don't believe in symbolizing/spiritualizing every passage in the
    Bible to suit predetermined beliefs/views.  Creates more
    problems/contradictions than it solves.
    
    Some of this information (coincidental or not) appears to be based on
    the teachings of someone who has been proven to be a false prophetess and
    has 0% credibility with me.
    
    If I think of more, I'll let you know.
    
    Mike

    Oh no, I lost a line in my reply .142 
    Let me try again...
    
    Tony,
    
    What Mike is describing is the part that bothers me too.  I fully
    believe that I am totally "saved" and totally not under condemnation
    right this minute.  That doesn't mean that I don't still sin.  The
    moment I first believed all this was given to me, it just takes a long
    long while (most likely this entire lifetime) for me to totally
    understand what is mine and to become that person.
    
    Jill
    
    
    

      Mike,
    
        You didn't answer my question.
    
        Why do you seem to insist that the heart-change is
        our work
    
        Also, would you be willing to point out which fire texts I
        offered that should have a literal interpretation?
    
        Did Jesus' heart literally melt like wax?  Were Jeremiah's
        bones burning with a literal fire?
    
    						Tony

|        Why do you seem to insist that the heart-change is
|        our work
    
    I never said it was.  We're nothing without God.  He does all the work,
    we just accept it and believe, and strive for more intimacy with Him
    (latter not required but we should anyway).
    
|        Also, would you be willing to point out which fire texts I
|        offered that should have a literal interpretation?
    
    I'm getting there.  You posted 1200 lines of stuff between your
    tapestry and fire texts.  Give us some time.
    
|        Did Jesus' heart literally melt like wax?  
    
    Ever read a doctor's report on the crucifixion?  Our Lord died of a
    broken heart!
    
    | Were Jeremiah's bones burning with a literal fire?
    
    This one will have to wait until I get to it.

Reply: Note 53.143

  Hi Mike,

    *Off the top of my head...
    
    Well, let it be off the top of scripture's head.

    *I've always thought you confused salvation and sanctification.  We've
    *been down this road before.
    
    Justification includes two facets.  To be made right and to show one
    to be right.  Sanctification is a SUBSET of salvation.

    Philipians 2:12b-13
    ...work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
    for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His own
    good pleasure.

    James 1:21
    Therefore lay aside all filthiness and wickedness, and receive with
    meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls.


    There are so many texts you (conveniently) leave unexplained.  You never
    explain how it is that the Priest finishes atonement and Hebrews clearly
    says Christ was not a priest while on earth.  You never have explained
    how Paul is dying the death of Romans 6:23 (see Romans 7:9).  You never
    explained the sequence of Jewish feasts and how it is atonement is
    way future of Passover.

    With the above in mind, in my opinion, we really have not "been down this
    road before" for you detour off the road when you decide to be unresponsive
    to portions of the word of God.

    *I still have a problem with your view that this wasn't 100% finished at
    *the cross.
    
    Sanctuary = our hearts.  Cross supplies the blood.  Day of atonement
    is finished when our High Priest has cleansed the sanctuary with the
    blood.  Very simple...and scriptural.

    *I don't believe in symbolizing/spiritualizing every passage in the
    *Bible to suit predetermined beliefs/views.  Creates more
    *problems/contradictions than it solves.
    
    As I said in a couple past replies, the scriptures I provided are,
    by far for the most part, obviously spiritual.  I invite you to show
    me otherwise.  (And I just read your latest reply.  A physically broken
    heart is not the same as a melted heart.)

    *Some of this information (coincidental or not) appears to be based on
    *the teachings of someone who has been proven to be a false prophetess and
    *has 0% credibility with me.
    
    I have been using the word.

    *If I think of more, I'll let you know.
    
    No scripture.  Thus supportless, imo acording to the tenets of this 
    Conf.

						Tony
                                             

Reply: Note 53.144
    
    *What Mike is describing is the part that bothers me too.  I fully
    *believe that I am totally "saved" and totally not under condemnation
    *right this minute.  That doesn't mean that I don't still sin.  The
    *moment I first believed all this was given to me, it just takes a long
    *long while (most likely this entire lifetime) for me to totally
    *understand what is mine and to become that person.
    
    You know...

    I just thought of something I NEVER thought of before and (in a sense)
    I agree that we are totally saved RIGHT NOW.

    How?

    Well, condemnation is via sin.  I am free from the condemnation of sin
    due to Christ covering me with a veil.  He isn't showing me all my
    sinfulness.  He has so many things to tell me, but He knows I can't
    bear it all now - so He doesn't tell me all.

    In that sense, I can see that I really am actually saved from sin's
    condemnation RIGHT NOW.

    HOWEVER, in a sense I am not saved right now.  God's salvation work is
    one of renovating my heart.  "The doers of the law WILL BE justified."
    That is what the word SAYS.  Don't ignore it.  Look at Philipians 1:12.
    Don't ignore it!

    I guess we need to be more explicit with *meaning*.  Instead of saying
    "salvation," perhaps say WHAT IT IS.

    What are you saved from?  What is God's work of salvation?  What was
    condemning you in the 1st place?

    Mike, I believe, will tell you that sin does not condemn at all.  What
    condemns is God.  God must kill someone because we sin.  So He kills
    His Son.

    Do you realize what kind of a concept this is?  This is extremely close
    to the concept of needing to appease a bloodthirsty God!

    I don't think it works that way!

							Tony

    re .148
    
    Hi Tony,
    
        You know...
    
        I just thought of something I NEVER thought of before and (in a sense)
        I agree that we are totally saved RIGHT NOW.
    
        How?
    
        Well, condemnation is via sin.  I am free from the condemnation of sin
        due to Christ covering me with a veil.  He isn't showing me all my
        sinfulness.  He has so many things to tell me, but He knows I can't
        bear it all now - so He doesn't tell me all.
    
        In that sense, I can see that I really am actually saved from sin's
        condemnation RIGHT NOW.
    
        HOWEVER, in a sense I am not saved right now.  God's salvation workis
        one of renovating my heart.  "The doers of the law WILL BE justified."
        That is what the word SAYS.  Don't ignore it.  Look at Philipians1:12.
        Don't ignore it!
    
    Yes this I can agree with.  It reminds me of Romans 4:17!  :-)
    
    
    
        I guess we need to be more explicit with *meaning*.  Instead of saying
        "salvation," perhaps say WHAT IT IS.
    
        What are you saved from?  What is God's work of salvation?  What was
        condemning you in the 1st place?
    
    I am saved from sin through Jesus's death on the cross.  
    
    For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in
    Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
    
    We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body
    of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)
    
    
    What was condemning me?  Is the a test of my knowledge of Romans? :-)  
    The law was condemning me, the world was condemning me, my heart was 
    condemning me.
    
    Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law.
    (Romans 7:7)
    
    
    
        Mike, I believe, will tell you that sin does not condemn at all. What
        condemns is God.  God must kill someone because we sin.  So He kills
        His Son.
    I will leave Mike to answer this for himself.
    
    
    
    Jill
    
    
      
    
    
    

Hi, Tony.

Dawn breaks over (my) Marblehead! :-)  From your tapestry in note 66 I now see
why the "orthodox" view of life and death is such a stumblingblock for you.

You have concluded that God's ultimate purpose in Jesus Christ is to perfect
sinful flesh.  And since no sinful flesh has yet been made perfect, none who
have died in the flesh yet live.  Have I captured the gist of your "unorthodox"
position?

You said:

| For all preceding generations, the path was never completed.  It
| ended in the grave.  These people were being saved.  When they
| first responded to the saving word of Christ (which is the
| merits of the cross) by faith, they began to undergo salvation
| and God looked at them as being fully as righteous as Jesus
| Christ Himself.  What He started, He would finish.  (Romans 4)

Are you asserting that dead saints are not yet saved, i.e., that no one will be
actually delivered from sin until someone besides Christ has lived for some
arbitrary amount of time without sin in the flesh?  And believers need not be
concerned with dying before sinful flesh is made perfect because God in fact
will enable an end-time people to live without sin, and on that basis He will
perfect all who have died in faith.

Thus, our faith is NOT in seeing our sin put to death in Christ and ourselves
raised with Him unto life and righteousness, but rather in God's perfecting at
least one yet-to-be-revealed person or group in sinful flesh.  In other words,
our hope is NOT in seeing ourselves made like Jesus without sin, but rather in
believing that God raised Jesus to make an end-time people perfect, so that we
might be delivered from sin in spirit after their example in the flesh.

Or, we might hope/strive to be among those who are delivered from sin in our
earthly life such that God is free to perfect saints who have died, to put sin
away from His creation forever, and to usher in His eternal kingdom.

That is tantamount to saying our salvation depends NOT on grace by faith in
Jesus Christ ALONE, but on someone else's will to be made perfect, and not just
their willingness, but their actually being made perfect in the flesh.  And our
hope IS in this life only, if not for ourselves, then for someone else besides
Christ, such that the promise of eternal life can be fulfilled.

You said:

| To settle the great controversy, God needs to demonstrate
| something in a generation.  Those in the grave would have to
| wait until the great controversy of issues is settled.   After
| its settling, they would be risen and their salvation would
| continue and be completed before their arrival to heaven.  They
| would be saved in the same way everyone is saved.

| 1 John 3:2-3
| Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been
| revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed,
| we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And
| everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He
| is pure.

| This process will be much easier for the resurrected saints as 
| they will not have sinful flesh as a constant witness and they 
| will have the company of Jesus Christ, unfallen angels, etc.  I 
| suspect it may take just a moment before the revelation of Jesus' 
| love perfectly saves their hearts from sin.

Now, not just Enoch, Moses and Elijah present a problem to your position, but
any indication of life after death before the final resurrection.

You argue against anyone else having life after death because, if there is
(uninterrupted) life after death, then the perfection of sinful flesh is NOT
the basis for our salvation, rather faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Although Scripture clearly shows that there is life after death before the
final resurrection (see note .94), for the sake of argument let us consider
only Enoch, Moses and Elijah.

You said:

| Meanwhile, what of those already in heaven?  What of Enoch,
| Moses, and Elijah?  I can think of only one reason they would
| already be in heaven while some, like David, are still in the
| grave.  It must be that God respects Satan's arguments until
| they are silenced and Satan claims the sleeping saints as his
| own partially on the basis that they did not perfect righteous
| characters.  (If sin destroys, how then can sinners be saved?) 
| Until the end of time, his claims are not silenced.

Are you asserting that the basis for "soul sleep" is Satan's legitimate claim
on all who die until such time as sinful flesh is made perfect in earthly life?
Again, dead saints are in the grave awaiting the perfection of someone besides
Jesus.

| How then can Enoch, Elijah, and Moses be exceptions?  There can
| be only one explanation.  By the grace of God, they perfected
| righteous characters.  They became sinless by the merits of the
| cross and Satan's arguments had no sway regarding them (where
| they would have sway in the case of sinners such as David who is
| still in the grave, Acts 2:29,34.)

** I'm assuming you meant to say that God perfected righteous characters in
   Enoch, Moses and Elijah.

   Does Scripture support the only explanation left open by your position,
   that Enoch, Moses and Elijah became sinless in the flesh?

You said:

| <How it is that Paul and Christ died the same death> is seen as it is
| realized that the path of righteousness is the
| cross.  Christ went to the cross not to exempt us from it, but
| to enable us to bear it.  Our cross would  have been that
| forerunner cross.  One where there is no example to follow, no
| revelation of the cross to behold.  In that sense, the cross of
| Christ is entirely vicarious/substitutionary.  However, we still
| go to the cross as Paul and Christ both say.

You assert that Paul shared Christ's death figuratively, but nonetheless
remained a sinner literally; therefore, Paul's understanding was imperfect to
see himself with the Lord when he died because neither his nor anyone else's
sinful flesh was yet perfected.

Are we to see Christ's uniqueness primarily in His being our forerunner?  Was
Christ the only begotten Son of God conceived by the Holy Ghost, or was He the
Son of man by virtue of being perfected in the flesh as the first of many with
the will and ability to go where no man had gone before?

I join Mike in being left speechless.  I find untenable the subtle shift in
emphasis

	- from the person and work of Christ alone

	- to a revelation of the cross effecting sinless perfection in
	another person's or group's sinful flesh

as the key "freeing" God to finally save us.

I understand that you see perfection as entirely the work of God's grace, in no
way our own.  But your gospel bases our salvation on Christ PLUS SOMEONE ELSE
being (made) sinless in the flesh!

In Christ who is our life,

/Wayne

|    Mike, I believe, will tell you that sin does not condemn at all.  What
|    condemns is God.  God must kill someone because we sin.  So He kills
|    His Son.
    
    I don't support this belief.  Sorry if I gave you that impression.

      I am sorry Mike for assigning such a belief to you!
    
    					Take Care,
    
    					Tony

      Wayne,
    
        I replied to your long reply over in 66.
    
    						Tony

Re: 53.115

|Isaiah 33:14-15 
|This text refers to the "everlasting fires" and asks, "Who dwells
|there?"  The answer: the righteous.  The wrong answer?:  The lost.
|Conclusion - the lost do not dwell in the everlasting burnings because
|they are destroyed by them.  The burnings are God's love and what
|is torture for the lost is ultimately bliss for the redeemed.

The "consuming fire" is God (cf. Hebrews 12:29).  The cry of the convicted seems
to require a negative answer.  No human being can dwell in God's holy presence.
The image of God's consuming fire in Scripture is often of divine judgment and
this passage is no exception.  This fits perfectly with the consuming fire of
the red heifer sacrifice that yielded purification of sin for God's people.

The prophet goes on to give his hearers a wonderfully positive reply.  Time
and again he had called his people to faith in God.  To find security through
the fear of the Lord is to have the key to great spiritual treasure, including
that practical wisdom that indicates the way for the individual to walk as
well as the right approach to international politics for the leaders
(cf. 58:6-12; cf. also 32:3-8).  The book of Isaiah shows a deep concern about
sins of speech (cf. esp. 6:5-7).  The man of God will neither speak evil nor
listen to it from the lips of others.  The final line of v. 15 underlines the
importance of fleeing from temptation.

Re: 53.117

1) Fire is a metaphor for God's love.

|Song of Solomon 8:6-7 
I'm okay with this passage.  Love's flames are all consuming whether it is our
zeal for Christ (Acts 2:3, Romans 15:30, Phil. 2:17), which Christ set a
precedent for (Psalm 69:9, Luke 12:49-50), or our zeal for our spouse.
Nothing can quench our love for the Lord.  Song of Solomon is a beautiful
picture of the Church as the Bride of Christ.

|Proverbs 25:21-22
|Romans 12:20-21
I don't agree this this supports fire as a metaphor for God's love.  I think
this is speaking of kindness to your enemies.  People who treat their enemies
with kindness will bring remorse to them and blessing from God.  The "burning
coals" represent pangs of conscience, more effected by kindness than violence,
causing shame and guilt.  Paul conveys a similar idea.  The Lord rewards those
who are kind to their enemies.

|Psalm 140:10
Again, fire here is a metaphor for God's divine judgment, not His love.

Re: 53.118
2) There was a metaphorical fire at Calvary.

|Psalm 22:14
|(Fire melts wax.)
This is eisegesis, even though we know fire melts wax.  This passage expresses
formlessness and bring out the inner feelings of an anguished man.  He can no
longer function as a human being.  The bones, heart, strength, tongue fail him
because of a traumatic response to being hated and alienated.  This is a broken
man.  I've mentioned before that everyone should read a physician's analysis of
the crucifixion.  Jesus Christ died of a broken heart.  This is evidenced by the
water and blood mixture that poured out of His side after being pierced by the
spear.

|Psalm 68:2
In God's presence no foe can stand.  The impotence of the opposition is likened
to smoke and to wax.  The wind, smoke, and fire are manifestations of God's
presence (theophany).  The theophany does not instill the righteous with dread.
Instead, the perishing of the wicked is an answer to their repeated prayers, and
God's people will rejoice greatly in that hour of vindication (cf. 2 Thess.
1:5).

Re: 53.119

3) The righteous suffer as a result of fire.

|Lamentations 1:12-14
This is easily refuted.  Jerusalem wasn't destroyed because God's people were
righteous.  They were judged by God for their sinful ways!  From God Jerusalem
turns with a plea for pity to the nations round about, pictured as travelers
passing along the roads of devastated Judah.  The day of his fierce anger is
the Day of the Lord.  Just as in Mark 13 and parallels the fall of Jerusalem
is linked with the sufferings of the end time, so it is here (cf. also
Jeremiah 4:23-28).  The fire from on high continues the picture of God's
burning anger, acting like a high fever with its racking pains, which brings
death.  Not Jerusalem's enemies, but God himself had entrapped the city,
bringing it to an inescapable and ignominious end (cf. Ezekiel 12:13, 17:20).
The result has been an example of desolation and weakness, as though from a
fatal disease.  They have come upon my neck implies that Jerusalem just could
not withstand her enemies when they came against her.  For a city that had
Jerusalem's strength, the siege, which lasted only a year and a half, was
surprisingly short (2 Kings 25:1-2; cf. 17:5-6).

|Jeremiah 20:9
Another eisegesis.  In summary form Jeremiah sets forth the gist of his
messages: violence and destruction.  Jeremiah's prophecies were about coming
disaster.  The burden became so heavy that he finally decided he would no longer
serve as a prophet.  But he found out the impossibility of denying his call.  He
learned that it was irreversible and that God's word was irrepressible.  Though
he aroused opposition from his enemies, he could find no other satisfaction than
in preaching God's truth.  For Jeremiah the word of God was a reality, not the
product of his thinking.  It demanded expression in spite of opposition and
derision.  So great was this compelling force of the revelation that he never
doubted its reality.  

|Hebrews 12:21-22,29
|For our God is a consuming fire.
Another eisegesis.  This is a quote of Deuteronomy 4:24.  Our God, in whom we
hope is also to be feared.  He is love, yet there is another side of His
character: God has wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:27,31).  God is not to be
trifled with.  We can be so taken up with the love and compassion of God that we
overlook His implacable opposition to all evil.  The wrath of God is not a
popular subject today, but it looms large in biblical teaching.  We overlook
this wrath only at our peril.

By now a pattern has started developing: spiritualizing God's Word leads to
eisegesis (where have we heard this before?).  With respect to all these
passages speaking of fire, complete focus on God's Agape love has also
completely ignored the other aspects of God's nature.  Proper exegesis has to
balance Scripture within the context of the entire Bible and allow Scripture to
interpret itself.

|1 Peter 1:7
Another eisegesis with respect to the righteous and fire.  When gold is
refined, its impurities are removed by a fiery process.  Though extremely
durable, it belongs to the perishing world-order.  Faith, which is more
valuable than gold because it lasts longer and reaches beyond this temporal
order, is purified in the tests of life.  Gold, not faith, is presently highly
valued by people.  But God will set his stamp of approval on faith that has
been tested and will show this when Christ is revealed.  Then believers will
openly share in the praise, glory, and honor of God.

|Isaiah 43:1-2 
Another eisegesis.  I think the point is made by now.  The righteous have no
part of, or suffering in, God's fiery judgment.  Fire is not considered a
metaphor of God's love in Scripture.

Re: 53.120

4) Fire destroys sin.

|2 Peter 3:12
|Galatians 4:3,8-9
|Hebrews 12:27,29

No problems here.  As stated, God's fire in Scripture is His judgment, which
destroys sin.
    
Re: 53.121
5) People are purified by fire.

|Malachi 3:1-3 
|Isaiah 4:2-4

Well since we know God's judgment destroys sin, then yes we can deduce that
God's fire purifies people.
    
Re: 53.122

6) There is a time way in the future that the saved are in the
   midst of the fire and it is not painful, but rather joyful.

|Matthew 13:43
Another eisegesis. This is an allusion to Daniel 12:3. In contrast to the
wicked, the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
These righteous people, once the light of the world, now radiate perfection and
experience bliss in the consummation of their hopes.  
 
|Isaiah 30:26
|(God, being the source of the fire, is symbolized by the sun. 
|The righteous, reflecting the character of God, is symbolized by
|the moon.)

Show me the Book, Chapter, and Verse that leads you to make this statement.
This is what I mean by eisegesis - you continually read into the text what isn't
there to attempt to prove your argument.  This verse says nothing about what you
claim it does.
    
Re: 53.123

7) The fire that the lost suffer from is mentioned in the same
   context as being accompanied by the saved.

|Daniel 3:19-25 
|and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
Another eisegesis.  This is a physical fire in the furnace, not the fiery
judgment of God.  God Himself was inside the fire!

|(In the last days, the same fire that destroys Babylonians is
|survived by Israelites (overcomers).)

Yes because we know Israel will go through the Great Tribulation (Jacob's
Trouble).  God will shield them from His divine wrath and judgment.

|Matthew 13:40-43
|(Note, the righteous shine forth as the sun.)
This doesn't apply to your crumbling argument.  You can't possibly prove that
the wicked will experience this same thing.

|Ezekiel 22:17-22
You prove my point here - God's fire in Scripture is divine wrath and judgment.
What is "dross"?  Hint: it's not a good thing!  It is literally "scum."  If the
house of Israel had become scum to God, then it was subject to His divine wrath
and judgment.

|Psalm 12:6
Doesn't apply or support your assertions.
    
Re: 53.124

8) Only the righteous dwell in the eternal fires.

|Isaiah 33:14-15 
|(The righteous dwell with the devouring fire - NOT the wicked!!!)
This was covered in the begin.  Again you have an eisegesis in misapplying the
passage when you have confused what God's fire is to begin with.

Re: 53.125

9) God Himself is described as a consuming fire.

|Daniel 7:9-10
|Hebrews 12:29
Yes, it is but one of many aspects of God's nature.  You ignored the rest of
God's nature while trying to prove your argument and unsound doctrine.
    
Re: 53.126

10) Fire is especially given apocalyptic significance.

|Psalm 50:1-6 
|2 Peter 3:12

Of course it is.  It is God's divine judgment in Scripture and we all know that
His divine judgment is a major factor in the apocalyptic passages.
    
Re: 53.127

11) The fire that cannot be quenched is described as God's love.

|Song of Solomon 8:6-7 
Again this is eisegesis because you attempt to universally make this application
without regard to passages that contradict this statement or without regard to
the other aspects of God's nature.

  Hi Mike,

    Thanks for your efforts in forming a response.  My overall posture
    is that what you call "reading into a text what is not there" 
    (eisegesis), I honestly feel is "reading into a text what is there
    on the basis of the relevent incorporation of several other texts."

    I also see it that you fail to see spiritual meanings where they
    are very apparent.

    As my discernment is that you will not be swayed, just a couple examples.

     1) The overall theme I have seen time and time and time again is that
        God judges by the word (as Jesus said) and the word of God is love
        for "God is love" and Jesus is the Word and the cross is the fullest,
        most expressive revelation of that word that we have.   And the 
     	support I see for this is exhaustive.  Examples are Isaiah 6 where 
	Isaiah is full of fear as a result of seeing the throne of God.  Or 
	Psalm 73 where Asaph describes the chastening process and then 
	discusses the lost being destroyed as in a moment.  (You know how I 
	have linked birth pangs to this.)  Or Paul in Romans 7 describing how 
	the commandment (which we all know is simply a pale transcript of 
	God's love - Paul quotes "Thou shalt not covet") arouses sin and 
	produces death.  Romans 7 makes it seem an agonizing experience.  

	I have mentioned James which refers to the mirror (the perfect law
	of liberty) and how people respond.  Some face the mirror and turn
	away from the sin that is revealed.  Others turn away from the mirror,
	but the day comes when God judges them by that mirror.  He sends the
	word in unveiled clarity and all their sin is exposed at once.
	Psalm 9 is a compelling psalm for it explicitly mentions God's justice
	and justice ("God is a just judge") and His wrath.  Pay close attention
	to verses 15 and 16 (of Psalm 9).  The lost suffer 100% inherent 
	penalty.  Now, given that love exposes unrighteousness, the support
	for God's revelation during judgment being synonymous with His simply
	forcing a revelation of His goodness on the lost (and thus exposing 
	their sin which consumes them) has, imo, a lot of support.

	So while you separated judgment from God revealing His love, I believe
	they are one and the same.  And I fail to see how this can be con-
	strued to be eisegetical.  In fact, take Judas as a type of the lost.
	(He would seem to be an awful good type after all he dies by hanging.)
	What led him to his demise?  HE SAW HIS SIN.

	So, Mike, this is why I fail to see your repeated stance that I am
	being eisegetical.  What I fail to see from you is a response to what
	seems to be a VAST amount of scripture.  (And I haven't even scratched
	the surface.)

     2) Psalm 22:14/Psalm 68:2
	Here is a small example of "here a little, there a little."  I could
	place a slew of texts next to Psalm 22:14, but time does not permit.

	Now you said I was being eisegetical to suggest there was a fire at
	Calvary.  (Keeping in mind the support for God being love, the law
	[a transcript of God's love] being that which exposes not only sin,
	but the lusts of our flesh] being that which causes the death of the
	cross - see also 1 Corin 15:56.)

	Psalm 22:14b
	My heart is like wax; it has melted within Me.

	Psalm 68:2
	As smoke is driven away, so drive them away.  As wax melts before
	the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

	What did scripture just point to in Psalm 68:2?  Wax is a highly
	unique word, no?  It just said that it "melts before the fire."
	Doesn't Jesus bear what the lost do?  Isn't it by the same process?
	How then is it eisegetical for me to simply place two texts side by
	side and allow each to convey a more complete meaning?

     3) the example of sun and moon.
	You said I was eisegetical.  Well, the following are truths I have
	seen supported by the word.  The last generation is perfected.  They
	perfectly reflect the character of God.  They then have a cross exp.
	during which God seems to have forsaken them.

	The sun, we know, contains light by essence.  The moon, we know, 
	is not a source of light, but rather reflects light from another
	source - the sun.

	We have an apocalyptic text which refers to the moon fully reflecting
	the sun.  This sounds a lot like God's people reflecting His character.
 	We have another text that describes the woman...

	Songs 6:10
	Who is she who looks forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear
	as the sun, awesome as an army with banners?

	I mentioned seeing scripture point to a cross experience in the
	saints.

	Joel 2:31
	The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
	before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.

	Sounds like a good description (and in an apocalyptic sense).

	I fail to see that as eisegesis.

     4) One more example.  The fiery furnace of Daniel.
	You said I was being eisegetical.  Again, I don't think so.
	Daniel, as all scripture, has apocalyptic application.
	We have already seen the Lord referred to as fire.  What happens
	with this physical story?  A group refuses to worship BABYLON.
	(Does Babylon have endtime application?)

	Nebuchednezzar heats a fire.  Seven times hotter.  He bids ISRAELITES
	be thrown in the furnace.  Babylonian guards are mentioned as
	throwing them in the fire.  They are destroyed.  The Israelites
	survive.  Common theme.  Israelites overcome.  Babylonians are
	destroyed.  They are both exposed to the same thing.

	The cup (Isaiah 51:17-23), the storm that hits two houses, the birth
	pangs (Jer. 30 for Jacob and other texts for the surrounding nations),
	etc. etc.  And yet you, in contrast, say that Israel is prevented 
	from being judged.  That is not what God says.  He judges all; their
	response is different.  

	You do know that the sword judges, right?

	Jeremiah 31:2
	Thus says the Lord:
	"The people who survived the sword found grace in the wilderness - 
	Israel when I went to give him rest."

	Israel was not exempt from the sword, but Israel survived it.  This
	is in stark contrast to your position.

	Is there a pattern here?  Everyone is exposed to the sword.  I don't
	call this eisegesis.

     5) Finally, the coals.  You decribed the coals heaped on the evil in the
	following:

|Proverbs 25:21-22
|Romans 12:20-21
I don't agree this this supports fire as a metaphor for God's love.  I think
this is speaking of kindness to your enemies.  People who treat their enemies
with kindness will bring remorse to them and blessing from God.  The "burning
coals" represent pangs of conscience, more effected by kindness than violence,
causing shame and guilt.  Paul conveys a similar idea.  The Lord rewards those
who are kind to their enemies.

	How can the burning coals represent the conscience, in this verse,
	when they are HEAPED from the saints ONTO them?  (They are coals 
	before they even reach the evil and the originate with the righteous.
	The coals represent the revelation of love heaped into the consciences
	of the evil.

	And here you seem to flip flop and well describe my position.  Kindness
	exposes sin causing shame and guilt.  

	I'll just extrapolate this idea.  What would happen if the full fire
	of God's love was heaped into their minds?  

	This is judgment and you described the process well.  Their guilt
	and shame will consume them.


	So, in summary, please understand Mike...I am honestly not meaning
	to be eisegetical.  I honestly see a pattern whose basis is humongous.
	I 'spiritualize' where I see scripture speak of common themes - over 
	and over and over again.

	If nothing else, I'd sure like to see how you insist the last genera-
	tion is not exposed to the same thing all the while scripture repeat-
	edly describes them as such.

	birth pangs
	cup
	storm that hits both houses
	fire
	deep waters
	sword

	Which one specifically are the remnant exempt from???

							Tony

Re: 53.160

| Is This Really Eisegesis?
|    Thanks for your efforts in forming a response.  My overall posture
|    is that what you call "reading into a text what is not there" 
|    (eisegesis), I honestly feel is "reading into a text what is there
|    on the basis of the relevent incorporation of several other texts."

    I'm afraid so. Your 11 points are a circular argument based on things
    you have assumed or can't prove via Scripture.  Your sole basis for
    much of your argument is found in typology that is read into the text.
    Sound exegesis does not establish doctrine based on typology (most don't
    use poetical books to establish doctrine either).  Your first clue
    should've been taking the focus off the redemptive work of Christ and
    placing it on anyone else (whether in part or in full - doesn't matter).

|    I also see it that you fail to see spiritual meanings where they
|    are very apparent.

Not necessarily.  What I see in typology has to measure squarely with the word
or I'm just flat out wrong.  I enjoy typological studies in certain areas too.
However, I'm not going to toss out the plain teaching of Scripture with
regards to Christ's complete and sufficient atonement because of "spiritual
meanings."  I'm not going to ignore all aspects of God's nature to focus on His
love.  As I stated in .157,

"Our God, in whom we hope is also to be feared.  He is love, yet there is
another side of His character: God has wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:27,31).
God is not to be trifled with.  We can be so taken up with the love and
compassion of God that we overlook His implacable opposition to all evil.  The
wrath of God is not a popular subject today, but it looms large in biblical
teaching.  We overlook this wrath only at our peril."

|     1) The overall theme I have seen time and time and time again is that
|        God judges by the word (as Jesus said) and the word of God is love
|        for "God is love" and Jesus is the Word and the cross is the fullest,
|        most expressive revelation of that word that we have.   And the

God is many things, one of which is love.  He is also:
    
    Elohim: The Creator
    El Elyon: The God Most High
    El Roi: The God Who Sees
    El Shaddai: The All-Suffiecient One
    El Gibhor: The God-Man
    Adonai: The Lord
    YHWH: The Self-existent One
    YHWH-jireh: The LORD Will Provide
    YHWH-nissi: The LORD Thy Banner
    YHWH-mekoddishkem: The LORD Who Sanctifies You
    YHWH-shalom: The LORD is Peace
    YHWH-sabaoth: The LORD of Hosts
    YHWH-raah: The LORD Thy Shepherd
    YHWH-tsidkenu: The LORD Our Righteousness
    YHWH-shammah: The LORD is There
    YHWH-rapha: The LORD that Heals

|	So while you separated judgment from God revealing His love, I believe
|	they are one and the same.  And I fail to see how this can be con-
|	strued to be eisegetical.  In fact, take Judas as a type of the lost.

Tony, how does Love hate?  This is one contradiction you put yourself in.  

|	So, Mike, this is why I fail to see your repeated stance that I am
|	being eisegetical.  What I fail to see from you is a response to what
|	seems to be a VAST amount of Scripture.  (And I haven't even scratched
|	the surface.)

I told you to give me passages to respond to and I did.  However, I don't see
the pattern changing.  Until you allow God's Word to filter you, instead of you
filtering it within your preconceived doctrines, you will still flirt with
heresy.  It's been this way for a few years now and you haven't convinced us
because your argument is just plain wrong.  I'm trying to be patient, but am not
sure how much more time I can invest in this tired debate.  It appears none of
us will change.

Re: 53.161

|	Now you said I was being eisegetical to suggest there was a fire at
|	Calvary.  (Keeping in mind the support for God being love, the law
|	[a transcript of God's love] being that which exposes not only sin,
|	but the lusts of our flesh] being that which causes the death of the
|	cross - see also 1 Corin 15:56.)

I keep in mind the fact that God is many things, one of which is love.

|	Psalm 22:14b
|	My heart is like wax; it has melted within Me.
|
|	Psalm 68:2
|	As smoke is driven away, so drive them away.  As wax melts before
|	the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
|
|	What did Scripture just point to in Psalm 68:2?  Wax is a highly
|	unique word, no?  It just said that it "melts before the fire."
|	Doesn't Jesus bear what the lost do?  Isn't it by the same process?
|	How then is it eisegetical for me to simply place two texts side by
|	side and allow each to convey a more complete meaning?

Because you are proposing that God melted Himself on the cross.  Can't you see
how strange this sounds?!  Last I read, there is no record of God melting on
the cross.

|     3) the example of sun and moon.
|	You said I was eisegetical.  Well, the following are truths I have
|	seen supported by the word.  The last generation is perfected.  They
|	perfectly reflect the character of God.  They then have a cross exp.
|	during which God seems to have forsaken them.

Not good enough.  Show me book/chapter/verse that explicitly says God = Sun,
Believers = Moon.  Since you are proposing unorthodoxy/heresy, the burden of
proof is on you.  You need more than typology to prove this.

Re: 53.162

|     4) One more example.  The fiery furnace of Daniel.
|	You said I was being eisegetical.  Again, I don't think so.
|	Daniel, as all Scripture, has apocalyptic application.
|	We have already seen the Lord referred to as fire.  What happens
|	with this physical story?  A group refuses to worship BABYLON.
|	(Does Babylon have endtime application?)

You state that this is a physical story and that you aren't reading into the
text.  What exactly do you call what you are doing in the above paragraph?  Is
this a physical story or not?  Are you reading into the text or not?

Also, explain this for me: How did God manage to melt Himself on the cross, but
not in the fiery furnace in Daniel?

Also, how do you know all Scripture has apocalyptic application?  Is this
another byproduct of spiritualizing Scripture?  Could you show us how
apocalyptic Philemon is?  How about III John?  Proverbs?  Ecclesiastes?

|  etc. etc.  And yet you, in contrast, say that Israel is prevented
|        from being judged.  That is not what God says.  He judges all; their
|        response is different.

I don't believe this is what I was trying to convey regarding Israel going
through the Great Tribulation.  We agree that all will be judged.
    
Re: 53.163

|	I'll just extrapolate this idea.  What would happen if the full fire
|	of God's love was heaped into their minds?  
|
|	This is judgment and you described the process well.  Their guilt
|	and shame will consume them.

We've all suffered guilt and shame (saved and unsaved).  Why don't we see more
instances of spontaneous human combustion?

      Hi Mike,
    
        For now I'll end this conversation by stating that Jesus Himself
        said His heart melted within Him.
    
        Its just a metaphor that describes Himself being in a mentally
        excruciating ordeal.
    
        No combustion or anything of the sort.
                                                                      
    							Tony

Here is an example where I am met with silence.  This is the kind of
thing I cannot deny.

I said:

	"So, in summary, please understand Mike...I am honestly not meaning
	to be eisegetical.  I honestly see a pattern whose basis is humongous.
	I 'spiritualize' where I see scripture speak of common themes - over 
	and over and over again.

	If nothing else, I'd sure like to see how you insist the last genera-
	tion is not exposed to the same thing all the while scripture repeat-
	edly describes them as such.

	birth pangs
	cup
	storm that hits both houses
	fire
	deep waters
	sword

	Which one specifically are the remnant exempt from???"

        I also quoted:
	Jeremiah 31:2
	Thus says the Lord:
	"The people who survived the sword found grace in the wilderness -
	Israel when I went to give him rest."

	To see NO significance to the idea that there is VAST support for
	the idea that last generation and lost are exposed to the same
	thing and how they respond is what makes the difference - well,
	thats a huge filter, imo.

	The rock is the same.  If we fall on it, we are broken.  If it
	falls on us, we are crushed.

							Tony

Hi All,

Proverbs 1:2-7
To know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of
understanding
To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, judgment,
and equity
To give prudence to the simple, to the young man, knowledge
and discretion -
A wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man of
understanding will attain wise counsel.
To understand a PROVERB and an ENIGMA, the words of the 
wise and their RIDDLES.

The entirety of scripture is much like an enigma.  On the
surface, it appears as stammering lips.  Mike, you hit the
nail on the head when you contrasted our views.  You said I
deny aspects of the nature of God.  Yes, this is your perspective.
I say you give God's nature attributes that are evil.   I readily
acknowledge that the Bible says that God hates Esau and that He
does not hate Esau.  A here a little there a little study will
reveal that God loves Esau, but He hates him in the sense that
He will facilitate a process that will cause him excruciating
pain.  He will pour His love in Esau.  HOT COALS.
    
Truly, the Bible is an enigma.

You also say I spiritualize too much.  I say you deny the word's
spiritual meaning.

So...I write the following for you - and for others.  You need not
respond.  Our's is probably an impasse, but perhaps others will
see the light you presently cannot.

Romans 9:13 
13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Malachi 1:2-3 2
I have loved you," says the LORD. "Yet you say, 'In what way
have You loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the
LORD. "Yet Jacob I have loved; 3  But Esau I have hated, And
laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the
wilderness."


Matthew 5:43-48 43
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor
and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies,
bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and
pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45
"that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His
sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just
and on the unjust. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what
reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47
"And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than
others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 "Therefore you
shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.


Luke 6:27-36 27
But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those
who hate you, 28 "bless those who curse you, and pray for those
who spitefully use you. 29 "To him who strikes you on the one
cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your
cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 "Give to everyone
who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not
ask them back. 31 "And just as you want men to do to you, you
also do to them likewise. 32 "But if you love those who love
you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who
love them. 33 "And if you do good to those who do good to you,
what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34
"And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back,
what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to
receive as much back. 35 "But love your enemies, do good, and
lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be
great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to
the unthankful and evil. 36 "Therefore be merciful, just as your
Father also is merciful.

 
Romans 12:19-21 
19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather
give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I
will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore "If your enemy is
hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so
doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21 Do not be
overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 
Luke 23:33-34 
33 And when they had come to the place called
Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the
right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said,
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." And
they divided His garments and cast lots.


2 Samuel 14:14 
14 "For we will surely die and become like water
spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. Yet
God does not take away a life; but He devises means, so that His
banished ones are not expelled from Him.

Of the endtimes Jesus said, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was
not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And
except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for
the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe not.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great
signs and wonders; insomuch that, if possible, they shall deceive the very
elect." (Mt.24:21-24, KJV)

To the Thessalonians the Apostle Paul wrote, "<By the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and our gathering together unto Him> be not soon shaken in mind, or be
troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the
day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that
is called God, or this is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of
God, shewing himself that he is God.

"Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And
now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until
He be taken out of way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord
shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the bright-
ness of His coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with
all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unright-
eousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved.

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness.

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for <brethren beloved of the
Lord>, because God hath chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto He called you by our gospel, to the
obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been
taught, whether by our word, or our epistle.

"Now our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved
us, and hath given everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort
your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work." (2Th.2)

As I've said before, I see that endtime believers of the truth will face the
great tribulation, along with the lost who will believe a lie.  However, what I
see is wickedness coming with great power, yea, even as good to eyes of the
elect.  What I don't see is this "fiery trial" being revelation of God's love.

On the other hand, the "flaming fire yielding vengeance on them that know not
God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" clearly is
associated with the Lord Jesus' being "revealed from heaven with the angels of
His power." (2Th.1:7&8)  Moreover, the context of this passage shows the
destruction of the wicked and glorification of the saints happening at the same
time.  Thus, seeing the saved purified and the lost consumed by the same fire
is reasonable.

    Hi, Tony.
    
    You quoted only vs. 2-6 of Proverbs chapter 1.  Verse 7 says, "The fear
    of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: fools despise wisdom and
    instruction." (KJV)
    
    You say Mike gives "God's nature attributes that are evil."  I may have
    missed something, so where did Mike most recently say something
    explicitly about God that Scripture does not say?
    
    The problem seems rather that Mike is saying something about God that
    you, in particular, not necessarily others, in general, see as evil
    based on your, not Mike's, understanding of God.
    
    To insist that Scripture is like an enigma while also maintaining that
    your understanding is right seems inconsistent, especially when you
    ascribe features to the understanding of others that they themselves do
    not believe.
    
    I think your case would be much stronger were there clear evidence that
    you really understood what others (whom you've labeled "orthodox")
    really believe.
    
    I would encourage you as much as possible to let the Word go forth to
    accomplish the purpose for which it is sent.  To the degree you read
    things into the understanding of others, to that degree you compromise
    your own understanding in their eyes.  Saying "perhaps others will see
    the light you presently cannot" cuts both ways, my brother!
    
    That applies to us all.  I get caught up in "defending" God, too, and
    lose sight of the fact that His Spirit, not my understanding, ultimately
    reveals the Word of Truth to hearts and minds.  Since the selfsame
    Spirit indwells believers, then we need do no more than present the Word
    through which Truth has been revealed to our own hearts.
    
    /Wayne

|So...I write the following for you - and for others.  You need not
|respond.  Our's is probably an impasse, but perhaps others will
|see the light you presently cannot.
    
    This about sums it up for me.  You assume there is light in your
    proposal to begin with.  I've seen some pretty condescending things in
    here, and this one ranks right up there with them.

    .172
    
    We all assume there is light in our beliefs, Mike.  As each of us stand
    before God, we will stand based on the Light within us and then be
    judged for the fruits of our labors.  
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

  Hi Wayne,

    But, I think I was fair.

    I think I assessed our differences accurately.  The word says,
    "God hated Esau."  Jeremiah says God is angry at him (as does David).
    Literalistic translations imply that God hates.  They also imply that
    God gets mad at Christians.  I am describing Mike's basic package 
    to the best of my ability (which I assume he freely embraces).  

    I say that to hate any person is evil.  I say that the Bible is
    an enigma and as stammering lips.  I conclude that God does not hate
    anybody and (in fact) when He calls us to LOVE our enemy, He is saying, 
    "Be like Me."

    I say that what begins to 'solve' the enigma is the precise kind
    of study that I nakedly convey.  I did not refrain from mentioning
    the cup, sword, two houses, fires, deep waters.  I did not refrain
    from the fire study.  Or the hot coals.

    I still await a reply to the scripture that says Israel received the
    sword.  Zechariah says the same thing.  In fact, Zechariah says the
    sword that smites the *shephard* smites the remnant.

    More support, but support ignored (imo).

    We have different beliefs regarding how to interpret scripture.  One
    leads to the conclusion that God hates people.  Another, I believe,
    does not.  One gives God certain attributes that another does not.
    Just as Mike stated when he said I denied things about God's nature.
    But, thats Mike's package and not mine and based, in part, on a 
    belief as to *how* to study God's word.  (One which I do not ascribe to.)

    Wayne, if you look at Mike's recent reply to me, he said roughly the
    same thing about me that I said about him (save the fact that his 
    position on it is not mine).  I am the one who lacks sight.  I am one 
    who borders on heresy, etc., etc.

    I understand (I think) the essence of our conversation.

    One thing that stands out (for me) is that your message singles me out
    and not Mike.

    But, Mike said essentially the same thing about me.

    (???)

						Tony

      You called some of my beliefs "bordering on heresy" which implies,
      in relative terms, that I am in darkness and you are the enlightened
      one.
    
      So what singles me out from yourself?
    
    						Tony

    If you two would like to continue this discussion, I request that you
    take it offline.  Please read the noting policies in 2.*.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy Morales
    Co-Moderator

Hi, Tony.

|   But, I think I was fair.

** Okay.

|   We have different beliefs regarding how to interpret scripture.  One
|   leads to the conclusion that God hates people.  Another, I believe,
|   does not.  One gives God certain attributes that another does not.
|   Just as Mike stated when he said I denied things about God's nature.
|   But, thats Mike's package and not mine and based, in part, on a 
|   belief as to *how* to study God's word.  (One which I do not ascribe to.)

** Are you saying that the study of others who believe differently than you
   necessarily "leads to the conclusion that God hates people?"  Well, I for
   one have NOT concluded that God hates people.  And I'm sure Mike would not
   say God hates people.  Such a conclusion is contrary to the clear teaching
   of Scripture.

   God hates sin.  And His wrath will be revealed against those who take
   pleasure in unrighteousness.  The wicked will be destroyed in their
   trespasses and sin.

|   Wayne, if you look at Mike's recent reply to me, he said roughly the
|   same thing about me that I said about him (save the fact that his 
|   position on it is not mine).  I am the one who lacks sight.  I am one 
|   who borders on heresy, etc., etc.

** True.  That's between you and Mike and God.

|   I understand (I think) the essence of our conversation.

** Okay.

|   One thing that stands out (for me) is that your message singles me out
|   and not Mike.

** Really?  My closing paragraph was:
    
    That applies to us all.  I get caught up in "defending" God, too, and
    lose sight of the fact that His Spirit, not my understanding, ultimately
    reveals the Word of Truth to hearts and minds.  Since the selfsame
    Spirit indwells believers, then we need do no more than present the Word
    through which Truth has been revealed to our own hearts.

   I used inclusive words us and we, and ascribed the difficulty to myself, as
   well.  I used the occasion of your note to make a point.  And if my target
   audience wasn't clear, then I hereby declare that I meant my words for Mike,
   too.

   And Nancy also pointedly addressed Mike.

   My intent was NOT to "single you out."  If you've been offended, then I
   ask your forgiveness.

   And perhaps the time has come to terminate dialog on this particular
   subject, if the Lord wills.

In Christ who loves despite our failure,

/Wayne

|    I think I assessed our differences accurately.  The word says,
|    "God hated Esau."  Jeremiah says God is angry at him (as does David).
|    Literalistic translations imply that God hates.  They also imply that
|    God gets mad at Christians.  I am describing Mike's basic package 
|    to the best of my ability (which I assume he freely embraces).  
    
    Tony, I may be wrong, but I don't remember bringing up God and hate. 
    It seems like you did, even though I kept stressing love is but one
    aspect of God's nature.

|      You called some of my beliefs "bordering on heresy" which implies,
|      in relative terms, that I am in darkness and you are the enlightened
|      one.
    
    Tony, is there a kinder, gentler term for an idea that removes sole 
    responsibility of redemption from Christ?

      No there isn't Mike, but I believe it is all of Christ.
    
      The last generation will be entirely dead.  They will be
      entirely submitted to the promptings of Christ.
    
      It will be His word and His word only that flows through
      them.
    
      And the only thing that will have redemptive significance
      will be that word that flows through them!
    
    					Tony

  Hi,

    Just a quickie.  I stopped in to get a couple things done here at
    work, but its an off day for me.

    Mike, did you say that God does not hate?

    But, what do you do with the passage that says, "Esau, I hated."?

    Does the Holy Spirit explicitly state here to spiritualize?
    In addition, if we adhere closely to Webster, the passage is
    saying clearly that God hated Esau!  Not his sins.  Not his behavior
    (though I'm sure He does), but *ESAU*!

    My point:

    If you truly believe God does not hate Esau, aren't you then 
    acknowledging a couple things?

    1) Webster doesn't always cut it.

    2) The word has, as Proverbs says, enigmatic qualities - and 
       purposely so.

    3) Correct interpretation is to 'spiritualize' even without explicit
       reference, within the passage in question, to do so.

    In short, the way it seems to me is that you must either state that
    God hated Esau or you must acknowledge, at least to a tiny extent,
    the very type of interpretive manner of the word that I am talking
    about!

    Help me out here!

					Take Care and God Bless,

					Tony

    re .181
    
    Now this is an interesting question.  Did God hate Esau - the person? 
    Or did God hate the actions of Esau?
    
    Anyone?
    
    
    Jill
       

This must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was
written.

This is a typical middle eastern hyperbole.

God loved Esau's brother so much that God's love for Esau appeared to be
hate by comparison.

/john

    huh!  I don't know if I can go along with this!  

      The thing I don't understand is what I can't help but perceive
      as *subjectivity* in handling the word of God.
    
      I thought Mike said (and Mike, please correct me if I am wrong)
      that the correct way to interpret scripture is to not spiritualize
      _unless_ the Holy Spirit says so.
    
      Where (in the passage where it says that God hated Esau) are we
      given explicit allowance to spiritualize?  If we are not, what
      is the basis for making exception?
    
      In addition, Webster seems to take a back seat.  The Bible clearly
      says, "Esau, I hated."  How do we interpret it to mean "Esau's
      sins I hated" (though I don't doubt this).
    
      Now, I don't believe we need a specific directive from the Holy
      Spirit (whatever that means, I'm not sure) to 'spiritualize' for
      "God's word IS spirit."  (That's all the directive I need.)
    
      That is, my approach to how to interpret the word accomadates
      not having to be literalistic about the passage, "Esau, I hated"
      because I don't think one needs explicit mention to be able to
      do so before being able to do so.  We have generic mention.
    
      Anyway, to be frank, I see a contradiction here.  But, if its
      really not there, I apologise for my lack of discernment.
    
    						Tony
                                                                 

    re: .183
    
    Hi John,
    
      Would not this make God a respector of persons and then contradict
      the statements that say God is no respector of persons?
    
      Does God love us partially on the basis of our character or does
      He love us entirely on the basis of His character (with no depen-
      dence on our own)?
    
    						Tony

"God is no respector of persons" does not mean that God does not pour out
more of his grace/favor on certain people when he needs to move them with
that grace to carry out his plan for salvation.

What it does mean is that God's grace is freely available to all, without
respect of person.

/john

      Hi John,
    
        How much more can God give than the gift of Himself.  I tend
        to believe that the amount received is entirely dependent on
        how much one is willing to receive and not how much God is
        willing to give.
    
        But, I do believe the grace that is received lies entirely 
        within the realm of revelation.  It is something perceived.
    
    						Tony

>I tend to believe that the amount received is entirely dependent on
>how much one is willing to receive and not how much God is willing to
>give.

In most cases, certainly.

But sometimes God needs to use someone to carry out his plan, and in
those cases he supplies sort of a kick start, and then some high-test.

/john

      John,
    
        I might see things a little differently, but I like your
        jargon.
    
    						Tony

    I can agree with the ideas, but I feel like I need to remind you both
    that we really cannot mess up God's plan.  (but please lets not launch
    back into the soveignty discussion)
    
    I'm still not happy with the answers to the question:  Did God hate
    Esau - did God really hate him or just his behavior.  John says the 
    language was just relative (compared to how much God loved Issac), 
    I don't believe that.  That might mean that God hates me.  I don't
    believe that.
    
    Anyone else?  Andrew?
    
    
    Jill
    

|      I thought Mike said (and Mike, please correct me if I am wrong)
|      that the correct way to interpret scripture is to not spiritualize
|      _unless_ the Holy Spirit says so.
    
    The main guideline I try to follow is:
    
    1. Observation - What does it say?
    2. Interpretation - What does it mean?
    3. Application - How does it apply?
    
    I can create a new topic that expands on this if anyone is interested
    (I think it was in the last version too).

God's Words is written for mankind, to teach us to know God.  Sometimes the
lessons are difficult, and we may not know anyone who can adequately
explain them.  However, to say that a meaning is so limited to the
spiritual dimension that it has no discernable meaning to humans in their
mortality, and that we should effectively write it off from mans
understanding is to say that God did not write it for us, but for Himself,
and it should not have been included in temporal writings; ultimately, that
He made a mistake in including it in His Bible!

I believe that all Scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching, 
rebuking, correcting anmd training in righteousness. (1 Timothy 3:16) - it 
is given for US.

.191� I'm still not happy with the answers to the question:  Did God hate 
.191� Esau - did God really hate him or just his behavior.

The Bible says that God hated Esau (as quoted, in Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3)

So - it was Esau that God hated.  However, the Esau that God hated wasn't
the Esau that people of the world saw.  We know that from God's response to 
Samuel's reaction to Eliab in 1 Samuel 16:7 - "The LORD does not look at the 
things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD 
looks at the heart."

When God looked at Esau, He saw his heart.  The _real_ Esau.  The Esau who
counted God's blessing of inheritance as contemptible; apparently, someone
who had no room or time for God, or the blessings He longed to pour out on
all mankind.  Someone who thought he was good enough in his own right. 

.182�    Now this is an interesting question.  Did God hate Esau - the person? 
.182�    Or did God hate the actions of Esau?

Just as faith without actions is dead, so lack of faith is typified by its 
resultant actions.  The actions of Esau were a result of the real spirit of 
Esau inside; they typified that spirit.  We know this, not because we 
spiritualise, or extrapolate from a few of his recorded actions, but because 
of God's witness concerning him.  God forgives sinful deeds through the 
blood of Jesus.  Some actions of Esau were presumably detestable, but it 
was his unrepentant heart that denied him forgiveness.  In Hebrews 12:16-17 
it seems that Esau had human regret for loss of his inheritance, but no
personal repentance for that within himself that caused it.

I read this to mean that effectively, Esau had blasphemed against the Holy
Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness (Luke 12:10), by saying "I'm good
enough; I don't need God's help or forgiveness."

					God bless
							Andrew

    Re: Romans 9:13
    
    This is difficult to understand.  Why before Jacob and Esau were ever
    born, would God accept one and reject the other?  The reason is that
    salvation stands by election alone and not by works.  God calls and
    elects whomever He wishes.  I can't honestly look at myself and say
    that God elected me because I'm so good.  God simply acted on the basis
    of His own divine sovereignty.  The fact that God chose to elect me
    thrills me and makes me ever grateful to Him!
    
    God chose between Jacob and Esau before they were born (Genesis 25:23). 
    God foreknew the attitudes and responses of each son before he was
    born.  God made His choice with the knowledge that Jacob would be a
    spiritual man and Esau a fleshly one.  Yet no one can say that Jacob
    was elected because he was wonderful, kind, or generous.  God simply
    chose him.  
    
    Our logical conlusion to this is that God is unfair.  However, carrying
    the truths of God to our own logical conclusions is dangerous.  There
    are facts about each case that we don't know or understand, because our
    knowledge is limited.  We cannot reason as God or know all the things
    He knows.
    
    Finally, God's love for Jacob and his hatred for Esau should not be 
    construed as tempermental.  Malachi 1:2-3 is appealing to the course of 
    history as fulfilling the purpose of God declared long before.  Hatred in 
    the ordinary sense would not fit the situation, since God bestowed many 
    blessings on Esau and his descendants.  The "hatred" is simply a way of 
    saying that Esau was not the objects of God's electing purpose (cf. the 
    use of "hate" in Luke 14:26).  The value of using these 2 brothers is to 
    make clear that in election God does not wait until individuals or nations 
    are developed and then makes a choice on the basis of character or 
    achievement.  If he did so, this would be a mockery of the concept of 
    election, because it would locate the basis in a human being rather than 
    in God.  God's love for Jacob, then, must be coupled with election rather 
    than explained by some worthiness found in him (cf. Deut. 7:6-8).
    
    Mike

|   I can agree with the ideas, but I feel like I need to remind you both
|   that we really cannot mess up God's plan.  (but please lets not launch
|   back into the soveignty discussion)

** Most assuredly we "cannot mess up God's plan!"  None can stand against what
   God has determined to do.  And the sovereignty of God in effecting His Word
   is the key to understanding love (of Jacob) and hate (of Esau)!
    
|   I'm still not happy with the answers to the question:  Did God hate
|   Esau - did God really hate him or just his behavior.  John says the 
|   language was just relative (compared to how much God loved Issac), 
|   I don't believe that.  That might mean that God hates me.  I don't
|   believe that.
    
|   Anyone else?  Andrew?

** Let's follow Mike's guideline:

   1. Observation - What does the Scripture say?

      "I have loved you, saith the LORD <to Israel>. Yet ye say, Wherein hast
      thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved
      Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste
      for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impover-
      ished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the
      LORD of hosts, They shall build, but will throw down; and they shall call
      them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD
      hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The
      LORD will be magnified from upon the border of Israel." (Mal.1:2-5, KJV)

      "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah
      shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived
      by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born,
      neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according
      to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;) It was
      said unto her, The greater shall serve the lesser. As it is written,
      Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

      "What shall we say then? Is unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For He
      saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will
      have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then not of him that
      willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
      (Ro.9:9-16, KJV)

   2. Interpretation - What does Scripture mean?

      The clear context for the LORD's loving Jacob and hating Esau is His
      "purpose according to election," or the means of His blessing to all
      nations and people, if you will.

      God set Esau (the greater) aside, and chose Jacob (the lesser).  Again,
      the context was NOT condemnation or judgment, but rather blessing.  For
      the purpose of blessing, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.  Check the
      record of Scripture:  Esau became a rich and powerful man, and even
      Jacob called Esau his lord!  But, Esau was set aside as the means of
      God's blessing to all nations according to promise.

      However, the blessing of God through Jacob included Esau and his
      descendants: "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob AND ESAU concerning things to
      come." (He.11:20, KJV)

      So, God loved Jacob and hated Esau as the expression of His choice in
      effecting the promise.

      Jacob represents spirit/faith, and Esau flesh/works.  The Edomites
      (descendants of Esau) always seek to build up, but their work is always
      torn down by God who loves (gives grace to) the humble and hates
      (opposes) the proud.

      The blessing of God will NEVER come through flesh/works!  But after our
      foolishness and disobedience "the kindness and love of God our Saviour
      toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
      but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
      and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which He shed on us richly through Jesus
      Christ our Saviour; That being justified by His grace, we should be made
      heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Ti.3:4-7, KJV)

      The purpose of God according to election is setting aside the flesh for
      righteousness by (grace through) faith, or the wisdom of men versus the
      foolishness of God, if you will.

   3. Application - How does Scripture apply?

      There is "no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk
      not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Ro.8:1)

      "For we walk by faith and not by sight." (2Co.5:7)

May God bless His Word to our hearts.

/Wayne

| Just as faith without actions is dead, so lack of faith is typified by its 
| resultant actions.  The actions of Esau were a result of the real spirit of 
| Esau inside; they typified that spirit.  We know this, not because we 
| spiritualise, or extrapolate from a few of his recorded actions, but because 
| of God's witness concerning him.  God forgives sinful deeds through the 
| blood of Jesus.  Some actions of Esau were presumably detestable, but it 
| was his unrepentant heart that denied him forgiveness.  In Hebrews 12:16-17 
| it seems that Esau had human regret for loss of his inheritance, but no
| personal repentance for that within himself that caused it.

** I would present a word of caution regarding this conclusion!

   "Follow peace with all, and holiness, without which no man shall see the
   Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fall from the grace of God; lest any
   root of bitterness springing up trouble, and thereby many be defiled; Lest
   there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of
   meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have
   inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance
   (or way to change his mind, or way to undo that which was done), though he
   sought it carefully with tears." (He.12:14-17, KJV, parentheses mine)

   The record is that "no place of repentance" is associated with the time
   immediately after "when he would have inherited the blessing."

   "And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed
   him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at
   hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob." (Ge.27:41, KJV)

   Jacob lived with the fear that Esau intended to kill him, or so he thought.
   The record is that when Jacob and Esau met, "Esau ran to meet <Jacob>, and
   embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept."
   (Ge.33:4, KJV)

   Jacob said to Esau, "I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of
   God, and thou wast pleased with me." (Ge.33:10)  And Esau even offered to
   give Jacob some of his own folk to help Jacob on his way.

   Esau was a changed man!

| I read this to mean that effectively, Esau had blasphemed against the Holy
| Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness (Luke 12:10), by saying "I'm good
| enough; I don't need God's help or forgiveness."

** I wouldn't draw this conclusion regarding Esau.

   Again, I would join with Mike in pointing to the sovereignty of God in
   establishing His "purpose according to election."  God's choice is not
   tied to our merit (or lack thereof).  In fact, Jacob was a much more
   devious man than Esau.  God loved (chose to bless) Jacob, and accomplished
   His purpose even in Jacob's schemes.

   We must read into Scripture what is not there in order to deem Esau
   condemned as a man for whom "there is no forgiveness."

/Wayne

    re .195
    
        For the purpose of blessing, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
    
    I'm having trouble grasping this.  
    
    
        "...the blessing of God through Jacob included Esau and his
        descendants: "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob AND ESAU concerning things
        to come." (He.11:20, KJV) 
    
    Ok so how can you hate and bless at the same time.  This lead me to
    look up the definition of bless and hate:
    
    bless
      1. to make holy; sancify
      2. to invoke devine favor upon
      3. to make fortunate; favor
    
    hate
      1. to loathe; detest
      2. to dislike - animosity
    
    Interesting.  Are we called to bless our enemies or just to love them?
    Are enemy and hate the same, I'm lumping them together.  Can God
    "invoke devine favor" on someone He hates?  Apparently.  hmm.  Maybe
    I'll go and study Romans 9 tonight.  God will have mercy on whom He has
    mercy.
     
    
    Jill
    

re .197

The answer will be found in my previous reply:  God loves every one of his
creatures; his love for Jacob was so great that his love for Esau appeared
to be hate by comparison, especially in the context of the middle eastern
culture and its use of hyperbole.

/john

|   Ok so how can you hate and bless at the same time.  This lead me to
|   look up the definition of bless and hate:
    
|   bless
|     1. to make holy; sancify
|     2. to invoke devine favor upon
|     3. to make fortunate; favor
    
|   hate
|     1. to loathe; detest
|     2. to dislike - animosity

** In the context of blessing, loving is to bless (favor) and hating is to not
   bless (not favor).

   In the context of condemnation, loving is to not condemn and hating is to
   condemn.

   "That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not
   of works, but of Him that calleth" God said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau
   have I hated."
    
|   I'll go and study Romans 9 tonight.  God will have mercy on whom He has
|   mercy.

** Exactly! :-)

/Wayne

>       For the purpose of blessing, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
    
>>  I'm having trouble grasping this.

** Why?

   Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
   send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
   father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
   her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He
   that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that
   loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh
   not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth
   his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find
   it." (Mt.10:34-39)

   "If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
   children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
   be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me,
   cannot be my disciple." (Lu.14:26)

   CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.  Love and hate are understood in context.

   In the context of valuing God and the world, even our own flesh, we are
   called to love God and hate all else.

   We who first love Christ are called to love even our enemies.

   God loved (favored) Jacob and hated (despised or rejected) Esau as the
   means to effecting His promise.  Again, please note that even Esau was
   blessed in the promise effected through Jacob!

   I offer an analogy:  For the purpose of personal/home computing, I love
   Macintosh and hate PC.  In that choice I in no way intend that PC's be
   destroyed, rather, for my purpose, I favor Macintosh and despise PC! :-)

   The meaning of love and hate is in no way compromised by examining the
   context in terms of purpose.

/Wayne

>       For the purpose of blessing, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
    
>>  I'm having trouble grasping this.

** Why?

   Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
   send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
   father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
   her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He
   that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that
   loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh
   not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth
   his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find
   it." (Mt.10:34-39)

   "If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
   children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
   be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me,
   cannot be my disciple." (Lu.14:26)

   CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.  Love and hate are understood in context.

   In the context of choosing God or the world, even our own flesh, we are
   called to love only God and hate all else.

   Yet we who love the LORD our God are called also to love even our enemies,
   and lay aside sin.

   God loved (favored) Jacob and hated (despised or rejected) Esau as the
   means to effecting His promise.  Again, please note that even Esau was
   blessed in the promise effected through Jacob!

   I offer an analogy:  For the purpose of personal/home computing, I love
   Macintosh and hate PC.  In that choice I in no way condemning PC's, rather,
   for my purpose, I favor Macintosh and despise PC! :-)

   The meaning of love and hate is in no way compromised by examining their
   object in terms of purpose.

/Wayne

>   "If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, ...

This is yet another example of precisely what I said about Esau.

You _must_ understand this in the cultural context in which it was written.

This is hyperbole.  "Hate" is not hate.  It is simply contrasted with a
love which is much greater.

/john

      Hi,
    
        Just a quickie.
    
        I especially liked Mike's and Wayne's replies.  I am not sure
        what the verse means and I'd have to read the replies a lot
        more thoroughly to better understand.  (It was a quick read
        before plunging myself into work.)
    
        But, I think my main point is supported.  If you take that
        scripture alone, you must conclude that God hates the person
        Esau, "God hated Esau."
    
        If you include both context and a word study, as Isaiah 28
        instructs us to do, you will find that the passage is a bit
        of an enigma.  Its like its kind of twisted.  It doesn't mean
        exactly what it says.  It just doesn't.  It is not to be taken
        entirely literally.
    
        After reading the replies (and learning from them), I think at 
        least partial meaning is that God foreknew Esau's choices and
        Jacob's.  With this foreknowledge, He utilized the two in order
        to fulfill His sovereign plans.  Jacob gets the blessing.  Esau 
        does not.  The love of Jacob refers to Jacob receiving the
        blessing.  The hatred of Esau refers to Esau not receiving the
        blessing both temporally (when Isaac gave the blessing) and
        eternally (I tend to believe).  It does not refer to the heart
        of God having hatred, in a Webster sense, for the person Esau
        for "God is love" and "God is no repector of persons."
    
        Regardless, my main point, I believe, is supported and because 
        the *example* is one that strikes against most of our views, we
        had less problem with methodology.  Context was used.  Word study
        was used (the verse about hating our relatives).  They were
        incorporated as an *aid* in helping us understand just what this
        _divinely twisted_ verse really means.
    
        I don't mean to be trying to be real frictional here, but the 
        way I see it, the method used here for this example is essentially
        what I used for others.  And they (the others) were dismissed
        because of preceonceptions.  Literalism was sought for them where 
        it was not sought for this "God hated Esau" verse.
    
        Thats my sincere and honest take anyway.
    
    						Tony
                  

|        But, I think my main point is supported.  If you take that
|        scripture alone, you must conclude that God hates the person
|        Esau, "God hated Esau."
    
    Tony, I've always said that context is the *entire* Bible.
    
    You notice how neither Wayne nor myself spiritualized any of the text? 
    Our approach was still literal in context.  We didn't rely on any
    typology.  Only the complete context of the entire Bible.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        "The complete context of the entire Bible..."  I don't think
        I would ever claim such 'expertise!'
    
        Mike, what do you mean by 'spiritualize?'
    
        What I meant by it is simply seeing that the word (or phrase)
        being considered may be seen as not necesarily having a 100%
        literal meaning.
    
        With all the study that was done, a bottom line remains (to
        me).  The text said that God hated Esau.  An entirely literal
        interpretation means just what the text says.  God hated Esau.
        He hated the person Esau.
    
        In my opinion, you guys essentially added context and like word
        passages in order to support a 'less than entirely literal'
        interpretation.
    
        Which is *exactly* what I did.                      
    
    							Tony

|        Mike, what do you mean by 'spiritualize?'
    
    Basing doctrine on typology or symbolism.
    
|        With all the study that was done, a bottom line remains (to
|        me).  The text said that God hated Esau.  An entirely literal
|        interpretation means just what the text says.  God hated Esau.
|        He hated the person Esau.
    
    Well, this is obviously not true since God's Word tells us elsewhere
    that God loves the whole world and sent His Son to die for us.  
    
|        In my opinion, you guys essentially added context and like word
|        passages in order to support a 'less than entirely literal'
|        interpretation.
    
    No, we used the entire Bible as context for proper exegesis, as every 
    believer should.
    
    |    Which is *exactly* what I did.                      
    
    I don't agree.

      Hi Mike,
    
        Just two points.  You said (again) you used the *entire*
        Bible.  Daniel, for one, is sealed until the end.  But,
        you have full understanding of Daniel?  If not, how can
        you maintain you used the entire Bible.  If so, well, 
        I am speechless!
    
        I believe it is entirely OK to base doctrine *in part*
        on typology and symbolism.
    
        Where does the Bible say this is not OK?
    
        I think it is "not OK" to not do so!
    
    						Tony

      Mike,
    
        A third point.
    
        You went here a little and there a little to establish
        that the scripture that says God hated Esau is not to
        be taken entirely literally.
    
        This is what I believe I did with (for example) the fire
        texts.  They all formed a consistent picture with the study
        I introduced.
    
    						Tony

.206 � Daniel, for one, is sealed until the end.  

 Daniel 12:4 
    "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the
     time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be
     increased."

Hmmm... Tony, are you saying that no-one will ever understand the
prophecies of Daniel until they see the LORD?  It's not 'until the end',
but 'until the time of the end'.  ie, as these things begin to occur, and
as seen with other scripture, it becomes clear in the light of the Holy
Spirit's revelation.  Specifically, the book of Revelation is complementary
to Daniel, and they throw a lot of light on each other.   But this is a
side track ... sorry ;-)  I know what you mean by querying that 'the whole
Bible' is the basis, but on the premise tht the Bible does not contradict
its own teaching ... I'll let Mike come back in here ;-) 

						Andrew
 

    Hi, Tony.
    
    I guess I wasn't clear.  "That the purpose of God according to election
    might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth," God literally
    loved Jacob and literally hated Esau.
    
    Jacob was chosen by God as the means for effecting His promise, and
    Esau was despised and rejected for that purpose, but not condemned.
    
    I do not see God's loving Jacob and hating Esau as enigmatic, i.e.,
    puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable.

    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Well, then the part I see as enigmatic is just *what* Esau
        is.  Esau is not Esau and this is the enigma!  What was hated
        was not Esau, but something else.
    
        Still a twist!  (I was thinking about this just yesterday.  The
        idea that the twist might not be with the word "hate," but with
        the word "Esau."
    
    						Tony

    Hi, Tony.
    
    In note .195 I suggested that Jacob represented spirit/faith and Esau
    flesh/works.  Tracing Edom (line of Esau) through Scripture shows God
    forever tearing down what man builds up.
    
    However, I repeat that God indeed hated Esau for the purpose of
    effecting His promise.  Jacob and Esau were brothers, Jacob being the
    younger/lesser and Esau the "rightful" heir as the elder/greater by
    man's understanding.
    
    The theme of spirit/faith versus flesh/works extends through Jacob and
    Esau taking wives.  Isaac charged Jacob to "not take a wife of
    the daughters of Canaan," and sent him away unto Laban, Rebekah's
    brother's son in Padanaram.  Esau saw "that the daughters of Canaan
    pleased not Isaac his father" so he "went unto Ishmael."
    
    Ishmael was the son of flesh/works, i.e., Abraham's and Sarah's attempt
    to help God keep His promise.  Esau heard the desire of Isaac, but
    rather than take a wife from the line of Rebekah, as Jacob had been
    directed, Esau rather went to Ishmael--makes sense to take a wife from
    his grandfather's line.  Esau obeyed the letter of Isaac's charge to
    Jacob, but missed the spirit.  He was right in not taking a wife from
    Canaan, but Esau went the way of man's wisdom, as did Abraham himself
    in begetting Ishmael.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Again,
    
        After further thought, the text seems less ambiguous than I
        formerly thought.  (Thanks for the inputs.)
    
        However, it still illustrates a point.  If one reads the text
        on its own, one would be likely to interpret the meaning that
        God hated Esau.  However, when paying attention to context and
        doing a here a little there a little study *and* doing word
        studies (such as the 'hate' text Wayne brought up where Jesus 
        spoke of hating brother or sister, etc.), one may come to a
        very different take on the text.
    
        I think the Lord purposely veiled the word in this way.  I think
        truth emerges from the exact type of digging that was done here.
        
        Another interesting text is the one in Samuel where (I think
        Abigail) says that God does not take a life.  Hmmmmm.  Or the
        text where Jesus tells the rich young ruler how to be saved.
        He tells the rich young ruler to keep the commandments.  Or the
        text that says "the doers of the law WILL be justified."  Right
        in Romans!  These texts are everywhere.
    
        Anyway, I thought my fire contribution was fair.  God is love.
        On Mt. Zion, God is a consuming fire.  Songs says love is like
        an unextinguishable fire.  Proverbs says that placing hot coals
        is heaping love on a person.
    
        Incorporating this with Paul's exposition on guilt as a result 
        of seeing sin as a result of seeing the law (which is simply
        a transcript of God's character - love) dovetails beautifully
        with the fire texts.  And by the way, this facet is not typing 
        or using symbol - it is exegesis.  Also throwing in Isaiah 6.
    
        Other texts suggest that seeing one's sin can lead to hopeless
        despair (Judas for example).  The idea that an unveiled revela-
        tion of love itself does the whole thing has much support, imo.
    
        The remnant progressively behold this love and are saved by it.
        The lost refuse to behold it (James 1) and are forced to see all
        of it at the end and are destroyed.
    
        Finally, the time comes when the saints no longer bear sinful
        flesh and are sinless.  Where once this love was painful (the
        chastening process), now it is bliss.
    
        Psalm 73 adds weight.  As do so many other texts.  Such as the
        consistent theme that remnant and lost are exposed to the exact
        same thing AND "God IS love."
    
        So yeah, I used types.  I used symbols (fire).  I also used
        exegesis of passages (such as Romans 7, Isaiah 6, Psalm 73).
    
        So, I don't think I was being unfair or *only* basing doctrine
        on spiritualizing.
                    
        I honestly believe the support I used for what the fire is was
        vast - and largely overlooked.
    
    							Tony

      Wayne,
    
        Just to let you know...
    
        I wrote .212 as .211 was being entered.
    
    					Tony

    Tony, you leave me no choice but the change the rules in the middle of
    the game ;-)  The rules are now:
    
    1. Observation - what does it say?
    2. Interpretation - what does it mean?
    3. Organization - how does it fit into whole of Bible?
    4. Application - how does it apply?
    
Nehemiah 8:8  
    So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense,
 and caused them to understand the reading.
    
    This is the precedent in God's Word for expository teaching.  This is
    the preferred method for proper exegesis.
    
|        However, it still illustrates a point.  If one reads the text
|        on its own, one would be likely to interpret the meaning that
|        God hated Esau.  However, when paying attention to context and
|        doing a here a little there a little study *and* doing word
|        studies (such as the 'hate' text Wayne brought up where Jesus 
|        spoke of hating brother or sister, etc.), one may come to a
|        very different take on the text.
    
    I don't agree with this "here a little, there a little" approach you
    embrace for some very good reasons:  all the Cults teach that way and
    end up with bad doctrine.  They will string together several verses,
    each one taken out of context, to come up with some very unsound
    doctrine.  Then when you ask them to read the entire chapter, it blows
    away their assumptions.  I could probably prepare a solid argument for
    murder using the "here a little, there a little" approach.
    
    Expository study is the only way to prevent bad doctrine.

    Mike,
    
      But, I believe in Isaiah 28:10.   Sure, it can be misused, but
      that does not mean it cannot be properly done.
    
      I don't see how the fire study was improper.  The fire of God
      is a deepening reelation of His love.  The fire purifies the
      saints and causes the lost to be destroyed as it arouses their
      sin.  In the hereafter, the fire is joy for the saints to live
      about as they shine as the sun.
    
    					Tony
                                     

    Yeah, but we have also seen where fire was misapplied to Christians
    (i.e., it didn't fit the whole of the entire Bible and didn't have
    valid application).
    
    Tony, you have put yourself in an awkward position with your stance. 
    Jeff inquired about the authority of your position with respect to
    thousands of years of the teaching of sound doctrine.  
    
    Doing a study on the use of fire isn't improper, misapplying it is.

      Hi Mike,
    
        Yeah, but for thousands of years, the idea that the blood of
        animals made atonement was prevalent.
    
        And as you know, I believe the transition in covenant then is
        a type of a last day transition in covenant.
    
        We already have a scriptural example of orthodoxy undergoing a
        dramatic shift in understanding of truth.
    
        Let's heed it!
    
        Again, Mike, there is a fire that comes upon the remnant.  It
        purifies them.  This same fire arouses the sin which destroys 
        the lost.
    
        You know...the hot coals.  Song of Solomon 8:6-7.  God (who is
        love) being a consuming fire.  The righteous shining as the sun.
        Not what I'd call outlandish in consideration of this all...
    
    						Tony

Of course, I am fully in agreement with Mike in .194, and Wayne in .195
concerning the sovereignty of God in election from before creation.  That
is basic, but answers the question of the source of choice and
predestination, rather than the characteristic involved in that exclusion
from God.  The latter is rather what I understood the question to concern,
and what I addressed. 

Beyond that, much of the discussion concerns how we interpret aspects which
are, at most, very secondary - ie, not fundamental to our salvation (though 
it sounds otherwise for Esau! - whose decision does not lie with us).  So
before continuing to address the ideas put forward, I want to underline
that this is not considered a contentious issue, but one where we can agree 
to differ!

First, John (.183, .197, .201, etc) sees 'Jacob loved and Esau hated' as
parallel to the command of Luke 14:26, where our attitude in the closest of
personal relationships should be 'hatred' comnpared to our love for the
LORD.  I see the two cases as rather distinct.  Our love for the LORD must
amount to worship, where He has the right to command, against which
anything which would in any way impose an alternative will is forbidden. 
The extreme case is given in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 13:6-11. 
However, in the case of Jacob and Esau, we are not dealing with how men
regard them, but with how God regards them, and while God loves all
mankind, made in His image (He is not vindictive, but provides salvation -
2 Peter 3:9, 2 Samuel 14:14, Ezekiel 18:23...), His judgement is absolute,
and I feel that taking scripture with scripture these verses have more to 
tell us about God and about man.

Secondly, Wayne is not happy with some aspects of my interpretation - you
expand this in .196, so I'll try to explain a litle more thoroughly.  If
you consider the passages - in Malachi, Romans and Hebrews - where Esau is
referred to, you will realise how starkly he is drawn, particularly in
Hebrews 12, where he is contrasted with those who inherit salvation.  Even
12:14-17, the verses you quoted, refer to him as a 'profance person' -
indicating by nature - though citing but one act as an example - contrasted
with those who 'pursue holiness, without which no man shall see the LORD'. 
The warning of that section of Hebrews 12 contrasts salvation with
damnation; it would be inappropriate to use as the 'eternal' warning
someone who later came to repentance.  [ I can safely say this, knowing
that the decision is not 'mine' or 'ours', but the LORD's, Who knows the
heart, and that in heaven we shall know as we are known, seeing that the
Judge of all the earth _did_ right. ] 

However, you seem to have an idea of a reformed Esau on the basis of the 
details of the meeting between Jacob and Esau, which I see rather differently.

Jacob comes to this meeting in a highly emotional state.  In spite of his
experience at the Jabbok, he is still a coward, grovelling in fear before
man.  In his relief at being greeted warmly in a reunion after 20 years 
absence (and still remembering the threat on his life), his enthusiasm is
that of a weak man's reaction.  To compare 'seeing Esau' to 'seeing God' is
the craven speaking - a man of God would have at least moderated giving or
receiving such words, which are close to idolatrous.  Note the reason for
his enthusiasm too - 'because he was received favorably' - totally selfish,
if under stress!  Jacob's active faith in God is weak just here, and in his
relief he gives way to words which are excessive, inappropriate and
selfish, giving glory to man rather than to God. 

Now while Esau's greeting is very different from his threat of 20 years 
before, I do not see it as indicating a changed man, but rather one of 
butterfly emotions who loves and hates lightly; the one who sold his 
birthright for a passing appetite, and briefly enjoys greeting a long lost 
brother again.  Note that the response received from him in 32:6 was 
ambiguous enough to terrify Jacob, rather than reassure him and give him a 
positive anticipation of the meeting.  Note also, their speedy parting, as 
Jacob isn't so keen to fellowship with this brother as to leave his worldly 
goods for a while; nor is Esau so overjoyed as to pause and take things at
Jacob's pace while they share the things of God.  To me, this is reminiscent 
of a disjoint and immature family making extravagent overtures as they meet
for a Christmas (or other celebration), only to be sick to death of each 
other by the end of a few days (I believe there are such families!).

While Esau's state does not directly control that of his descendants, the
many prophecies against Edom (particularly in respect to their opposition
to Israel) are very stringent.  They even have their own book, in Obadiah.  
The measure of their status compares to the curse inherited by other 
nations.

No, I stand by .193 in my understanding of what God is telling us about 
Esau in his Word. - and to be frank [rather than andrew;-] believe that you 
read into scripture what is not there, in holding that Esau repented.
Certainly, like our LORD, we do not _wish_ any to perish, but grasping at 
straws to squeeze sinners' excuses into the kingdom can trivialise the need
for repentance, in the eyes of those who stand most in need. 


						God bless
								Andrew

Hi Tony, 

I presume your reference to Abigail (.212) is to 1 Samuel 25:28-29, where
she points out to David how the LORD will preserve his life, while
destroying his enemies.  Again a selective distinction between the loved
and the judged, where the lives of the enemies 'He will hurl away as from
the pocket of a sling'. 

.215 � But, I believe in Isaiah 28:10.   Sure, it can be misused, but
Tony, as we pointed out in a previous version of CHRISTIAN, you believe in 
the interpretation you want to take from Isaiah 28:10.  Just as Mike says, 
it ignores the context, and when you take it in context, it is invalidated.

The crucial part of Isaiah 28 reads:

 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line,
    line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to
    rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon
    precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a
    little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared,
    and taken.
 14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this
    people which is in Jerusalem.

You choose to take this to mean that scripture can be nibbled at regardless 
of context, to support the theory of your choice.  However, the Hebrew for
the relevant words in verse 10 is obscure, and difficult to translate.  It
is thought, in fact, that the words represent a childish 'dah-de-dah'
sing-song routine - as if saying that the people under condemnation were
treating the Word of the LORD as if it were a meaningless chant.  This is
further born out by the repetition and expansion in verse 13, where the
result of following this method is clearly spelled out as a punishment -
"that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and
taken."  Tony - that's not what you're aiming for! 

						God bless
								Andrew

Reply: Note 53.219

Hi Andrew, 

**I presume your reference to Abigail (.212) is to 1 Samuel 25:28-29, where
she points out to David how the LORD will preserve his life, while
destroying his enemies.  Again a selective distinction between the loved
and the judged, where the lives of the enemies 'He will hurl away as from
**the pocket of a sling'. 

I was wrong.  The verse is 

2 Samuel 14:14
"For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which
cannot be gathered up again.  Yet God does not take away a life; but He
devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him."

Regardless, in that day Jesus nor the Father will judge, but His WORD will
judge.  Being hurled away sounds no more condemning than being filled with
hot coals and that is exactly what will happen.  The word, the sword, will
come forth.  God will speak kindness to the lost.  He will fill every crevice
of their consciousness with a revelation of His pardoning love, of the cross.
This will expose all their sin as in a moment and their sin will destroy.

It would be well if you incorporated more texts such as the one where Jesus
says He will NOT judge, but the word will judge.

**.215 � But, I believe in Isaiah 28:10.   Sure, it can be misused, but
Tony, as we pointed out in a previous version of CHRISTIAN, you believe in 
the interpretation you want to take from Isaiah 28:10.  Just as Mike says, 
**it ignores the context, and when you take it in context, it is invalidated.

Again, I think it would be a higher path to travel to discuss only the merits
of one's interpretation rather than taking the low road of discussing the
status of one's heart, i.e. "the interpretation YOU WANT TO TAKE."  Refrain
from this in a public conference and discuss the more personal offline
(please).

While, as usual, your words are couched in a nice eloquence, the barbs are
still there and thus the lowness of your decided path is revealed (in spite
of your eloquence).  Once again, as at other times, I ask you to refrain 
from these depths.

**The crucial part of Isaiah 28 reads:

 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line,
    line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to
    rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon
    precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a
    little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared,
    and taken.
 14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this
    people which is in Jerusalem.

***You choose to take this to mean that scripture can be nibbled at regardless 
**of context, to support the theory of your choice.  

"to support the theory OF YOUR CHOICE."

And once again, you descend into that low road...

I actually do believe there is a place for taking a multitude of texts
that are of like word usages and that they may have something to say
outside of what their context was.

**However, the Hebrew for
the relevant words in verse 10 is obscure, and difficult to translate.  
**It is thought, 

"IT IS THOUGHT..."

By whom?  By God?  I think, once again, we agree the text is inspired,
we disagree as to what it means.

**in fact, that the words represent a childish 'dah-de-dah'
sing-song routine - as if saying that the people under condemnation were
treating the Word of the LORD as if it were a meaningless chant.  This is
further born out by the repetition and expansion in verse 13, where the
result of following this method is clearly spelled out as a punishment -
"that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and
**taken."  Tony - that's not what you're aiming for! 

I see another possible meaning.  Which is that the people were superficial
hearers of the word.  They read only at the surface while the depths of
the word could only be extracted by doing thorough word studies and 
comparing spiritual with spiritual.

I see it that God purposely veiled His word and if a surface study is done,
He appears as stammering lips.  And because the word has this quality, if
they continue to show their lukewarmness by superficial studies, they will
go and fall backward.

Repetition need not connotate a "meaningless chant."  It can connotate
*emphasis*.

Again, this is what I believe the passage means...

1) God is indicating that His word is veiled and one who really aches to
   learn from it will dig deep.  He will compare spiritual with spiritual.
   He will do word studies.  He'll have his concordance open.

2) He gives a recipe for how to dig.

3) He knows they are lukewarm and thus will only employ a cursory study
   of His word.  Thus, because the recipe He gave is disregarded and because
   the word was written as it was (veiled and requiring really digging), it
   will be as stammering lips to them that they may fall backward, be broken,
   snared, etc.

4) The word, because of how it was written, will simply be a barometer of
   their lukewarm spiritual condition.  The combination of how the word
   was written and their approach to it will reveal things about their
   spiritual state.

Andrew, I've asked this for years.  Can you please stick to discussing the
merits of interpretation and not get into discussing our hearts/our motives?
Your eloquence means nothing to me as your content (once again) belies it.

						Tony

Hi, Andrew.

| Of course, I am fully in agreement with Mike in .194, and Wayne in .195
| concerning the sovereignty of God in election from before creation.  That
| is basic, but answers the question of the source of choice and
| predestination, rather than the characteristic involved in that exclusion
| from God.  The latter is rather what I understood the question to concern,
| and what I addressed.

** "Exclusion from God?"

| Beyond that, much of the discussion concerns how we interpret aspects which
| are, at most, very secondary - ie, not fundamental to our salvation (though 
| it sounds otherwise for Esau! - whose decision does not lie with us).  So
| before continuing to address the ideas put forward, I want to underline
| that this is not considered a contentious issue, but one where we can agree 
| to differ!

** Uh, if God indeed predestines some for salvation and others for damnation,
   then what can be more "fundamental to our salvation?"  But, God loved Jacob
   hated Esau in terms of benefactor, not beneficiary.

| Secondly, Wayne is not happy with some aspects of my interpretation - you
| expand this in .196, so I'll try to explain a litle more thoroughly.  If
| you consider the passages - in Malachi, Romans and Hebrews - where Esau is
| referred to, you will realise how starkly he is drawn, particularly in
| Hebrews 12, where he is contrasted with those who inherit salvation.  Even
| 12:14-17, the verses you quoted, refer to him as a 'profance person' -
| indicating by nature - though citing but one act as an example - contrasted
| with those who 'pursue holiness, without which no man shall see the LORD'. 
| The warning of that section of Hebrews 12 contrasts salvation with
| damnation; it would be inappropriate to use as the 'eternal' warning
| someone who later came to repentance.  [ I can safely say this, knowing
| that the decision is not 'mine' or 'ours', but the LORD's, Who knows the
| heart, and that in heaven we shall know as we are known, seeing that the
| Judge of all the earth _did_ right. ]

** Unhappy with some aspects of your interpretation, but not unhappy with you,
   Andrew. :-)

   Yes, Esau is characterized as a "profane person" who sold his birthright
   for food.  I would agree that Hebrews 12 is an "eternal warning."  But the
   circumstances of Esau's not receiving the blessing is the example, not
   Esau himself.  If you take blessing to be salvation, then only those who
   received the blessing by birthright (either rightfully given or deceitfully
   taken) are saved.  Nay, the beneficiary of the blessing becomes the
   benefactor of/for the family.

   Yet, God loved Jacob, the younger/lesser, and hated Esau, the elder/greater
   and rightful heir, "that the purpose of God according to election might
   stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth."

| However, you seem to have an idea of a reformed Esau on the basis of the 
| details of the meeting between Jacob and Esau, which I see rather differently.

** Am I missing something?  "Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for
   my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob." (Ge.27:41)  Both
   Rebekah and Jacob were convinced that Esau intended to kill Jacob.  But when
   Esau had both wherewithal and opportunity, he "ran to meet <Jacob>, and
   embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept."
   (Ge.33:4)  I'm sure Jacob was relieved to not be killed, but why would Esau
   have wept?  Esau's only other recorded tears were in bitterness (Ge.27:34)
   and remorse (v.38) at not receiving the blessing given Jacob.

   Moreover, Esau both received Jacob's present (Ge.33:11) and desired to help
   Jacob on his way (v.15).  An unrepentant heart desires to neither give nor
   receive blessing.

| Jacob comes to this meeting in a highly emotional state.  In spite of his
| experience at the Jabbok, he is still a coward, grovelling in fear before
| man.  In his relief at being greeted warmly in a reunion after 20 years 
| absence (and still remembering the threat on his life), his enthusiasm is
| that of a weak man's reaction.  To compare 'seeing Esau' to 'seeing God' is
| the craven speaking - a man of God would have at least moderated giving or
| receiving such words, which are close to idolatrous.  Note the reason for
| his enthusiasm too - 'because he was received favorably' - totally selfish,
| if under stress!  Jacob's active faith in God is weak just here, and in his
| relief he gives way to words which are excessive, inappropriate and
| selfish, giving glory to man rather than to God.

** Granted all you say about Jacob, but I see him neither cowering before Esau
   after their meeting nor giving glory to man.  I think Jacob was genuinely
   grateful to both Esau and God.  He humbled himself before God in requesting
   deliverance from the hand of Esau (Ge.32:10-12).  After wrestling with the
   "man" of God, Jacob was renamed Israel (prince of God, having "power with
   God and with men") and said, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is
   preserved." (v.30)

   So, in seeing his deliverance from the hand of Esau, I submit that Jacob
   could see Esau's face "as though <he> had seen the face of God" who was
   pleased.  I believe Jacob was confessing God's work in the heart of Esau.
   Jacob's earnest prayer as the craven was answered!  After he and Esau
   parted company, Jacob erected an altar before Shalem to proclaim
   EleloheIsrael (God the God of Israel) as his God.

| Now while Esau's greeting is very different from his threat of 20 years 
| before, I do not see it as indicating a changed man, but rather one of 
| butterfly emotions who loves and hates lightly; the one who sold his 
| birthright for a passing appetite, and briefly enjoys greeting a long lost 
| brother again.  Note that the response received from him in 32:6 was 
| ambiguous enough to terrify Jacob, rather than reassure him and give him a 
| positive anticipation of the meeting.  Note also, their speedy parting, as 
| Jacob isn't so keen to fellowship with this brother as to leave his worldly 
| goods for a while; nor is Esau so overjoyed as to pause and take things at
| Jacob's pace while they share the things of God.  To me, this is reminiscent 
| of a disjoint and immature family making extravagent overtures as they meet
| for a Christmas (or other celebration), only to be sick to death of each 
| other by the end of a few days (I believe there are such families!).

** Okay, that could have been what happened, but that's not the explicit
   record.  In fact, the record in Ge.36:6-8 is that Esau "went into the
   country from the face of his brother Jacob. For their riches were more than
   that they might dwell together; and the land wherein they were strangers
   could not bear them because of their cattle. Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir:
   Esau is Edom."

| While Esau's state does not directly control that of his descendants, the
| many prophecies against Edom (particularly in respect to their opposition
| to Israel) are very stringent.  They even have their own book, in Obadiah.  
| The measure of their status compares to the curse inherited by other 
| nations.

** Agreed.  But are you suggesting that none of Edom can be saved?  "Know ye
   not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
   deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effemi-
   nate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
   drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
   And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye
   are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
   (1Co.6:9-11, KJV)

   Does that not describe Edom?  From whom might some of us who believe have
   descended?

   Praise God, the blessing of God's promise through Jacob extends to even
   Edom!  By grace God has revealed the pride of Edom's heart that we might
   look diligently lest we go the way of disobedience.

| No, I stand by .193 in my understanding of what God is telling us about 
| Esau in his Word. - and to be frank [rather than andrew;-] believe that you 
| read into scripture what is not there, in holding that Esau repented.

** Show me again where I read into Scripture.  I've carefully tried to say no
   more than what Scripture says.

| Certainly, like our LORD, we do not _wish_ any to perish, but grasping at 
| straws to squeeze sinners' excuses into the kingdom can trivialise the need
| for repentance, in the eyes of those who stand most in need.

** Obadiah, the book to Edom, is evidence of God's grace toward Edom, unless,
   of course, you see God having precluded repentance for Edom.  That begs the
   question then of how some of us were able to hear the gospel with faith!

   Did I "trivialise the need for repentance?"  God forbid!

In Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life unto all who believe,

/Wayne

Hello Tony!

Re .220; I was trying to keep to the topic under discussion, that's why I
didn't diverge into details of the judgement! 

� I was wrong.  The verse is 2 Samuel 14:14

Ah!  I thought Abigail's response wasn't quite like your usual choice.

� Again, I think it would be a higher path to travel to discuss only the
� merits of one's interpretation rather than taking the low road of
� discussing the status of one's heart, i.e. "the interpretation YOU WANT TO
� TAKE."  Refrain from this in a public conference and discuss the more
� personal offline (please). 

Tony, you can't hide from the Word by claiming that it is unacceptable to 
point out that you have misinterpretted Scripture.  We are interested in 
examining the true meaning of the Bible, as far as the LORD reveals it to 
us.  There are many points where we agree, and often we focus on these.  
Where we have differences, we can address them together, hopefully to our 
mutual encouragement and brotherly love, whether or not we come to the same 
conclusion!  I thought you, too, would find the examination and 
constructive study of scripture to be an exciting and helpful exercise to 
share. 

Actually, you have treated my reply just as you treat Scripture (well ... 
perhaps there might be differences! ;-).  What I mean is that you take 
words and phrases out of context, and comment on them, totally missing 
the point of the reply.  

For instance, you focus on 'it is thought', where I am trying to give you
the honest position.  In fact, whether the view is correct or not is
irrelevant to the result, which is the clear conclusion of verse 13. 

You also say:
� Repetition need not connotate a "meaningless chant."  It can connotate
� *emphasis*.
If you read my note carefully, you will see that my use of 'repetition' 
referred to something other than that which referred to 'meaningless chant'.

The 'meaningless chant' is the string of words in verses 10 and 13 which 
you take to authorize taking small portions out of context.  The 
repetition of this in verse 13 is in order to amplify what it means to the 
people who say it, and it continues, to warn of the consequences.  So you 
cannot claim that verse 10 gives a principle to follow, because verse 13 
explicitly says that it is an erroneous path.

So your conclusions about how to study scripture may be valid (I'm not
diverging to comment on that just now), but because you justify it from a
passage which is not saying that at all, you actually discredit more than 
you support it.

I have occasionally heard sermons which take this sort of approach - the
preacher has an idea, and finds something from the Bible which he can use
to support it. The passage is taken out of context, and for the careless
listener can sound very convincing.  However, for any Berean, it grates.
The context shows up the sermon to be false.  This undermines acceptance of
the principle preached about, which may be valid, but because its
presentation was on a passage which wasn't saying that, it casts doubt on
the integrity of what is taught. 

Tony, do you understand why we ask you to take scripture as it is given, 
not out of context to support any theory?  This is not judging hearts and 
motives; this is basic honest interaction and dialogue!

						God bless
								Andrew

Wayne,

    I *think* we're getting there, but I'm, not quite sure... ;-)  The 
principles we hold are the same, but we're expressing them differently.  
Perhaps it's because one of us is foreign ... ;-)  The basic difference is 
how we believe it worked out in Esau's particular example.  I see also that 
we read their characters differently, which affects not principle, but 
where and how we would use their examples.  So ... I'll dive into a reply...!

� ** "Exclusion from God?"
I thought that shorthand would be understood as the fate of those who fall
short of salvation - as I understand it, in Esau's instance, also expressed
as hated by God.  I see that you do not equate God's hatred with being
outside salvation, but thought you would understand what I meant. 

� ** Uh, if God indeed predestines some for salvation and others for 
�    damnation, then what can be more "fundamental to our salvation?"
�    But, God loved Jacob hated Esau in terms of benefactor, not beneficiary.

I'm a little puzzled as to your precise meaning here.  I'm not saying that 
predestination is not fundamental to our faith, nor that God's choice of us 
is not fundamental, obviously.  No wonder you were puzzled if that's what 
you thought I was saying!

What I _was_ saying - trying to say! - was that our discussion centred not on 
'the fundamentals of the faith', but on 'whether Esau ever repented or not'.
Now Esau's eternal state is of great concern to Esau (or not, as the case
may be, if you're right about his ultimate repentance! ;-), but it does not
affect the quality of our glorious LORD; our own hold on eternity; our
confidence in our LORD Jesus, or the salvation of any one sinner. 

� ** Unhappy with some aspects of your interpretation, but not unhappy with 
�   you, Andrew. :-)

;-)  Thanks bro ... I appreciate you, and your contributions here very much.  
It's why I can feel comfortable about discussing things with you even if it
needs a bit of unravelling to sort out where we are!  We don't _need_ to
hammer out a conclusion on Esau, but it's interesting and worth while to
understand each other's perspective on a bit of scripture we see differently! 

I won't come back on the Hebrews 12 passage - our difference in perspective
there is only on a detail of the example, and not on any principle that the
passage is laying down.  

� ** Am I missing something?  "Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning 
� for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob." (Ge.27:41) 
� Both Rebekah and Jacob were convinced that Esau intended to kill Jacob.  
� But when Esau had both wherewithal and opportunity, he "ran to meet <Jacob>,
� and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept."

Hmmm.  I can see why you find it puzzling that I take Esau's greeting of
Jacob as rather superficial.  I think it is partly because I have met
people who show this sort of character [not that I cease to pray for them,
but rather pray the more; their tears apparently denoted something less
than repentance], and it matches the picture of Esau drawn throughout the 
Bible (no-one here, of course! ;-) - and I don't see it as important
that we interpret Esau's integrity identically in this instance.  However, 
it clarifies why we give a different interpretation to verses which address 
Esau's state.  I also continue to see Jacob as a weak character (largely in
the family picture, and also in the character of his response to Pharaoh in
Genesis 47:9, though I by no means discount his relationship of grace with
God, and the new name God bestowed upon him. 

I think the rest of our conclusions about Jacob and Esau could be covered
in the same light, so I won't go into them in detail unless you wish.

� ** Agreed.  But are you suggesting that none of Edom can be saved?
Wayne, remember Revelation 7:9? - there _will_ be Edomites in heaven.  God 
is big enough for that too!  In fact, one of the interesting facets of
Israel's choice by God is that they are given the opportunity to be a
kingdom of priests to all the nations (Exodus 19:6), but although they do
not grasp the magnificance of this offer, God Himself draws gentiles of 
His choice to worship in many places throughout the Old Testament, starting 
with those who accompanied them out of Egypt (Exodus 12:38)...


� ** Show me again where I read into Scripture.  I've carefully tried to say no
�    more than what Scripture says.
Yes - I know you're careful (it's why we can discuss usefully!), and it
comes from where you/I stand in understanding the interplay behind the 
meeting of Jacob and Esau.  You took them at face value as reflecting the
heart.  I took the witness of other scripture to override the depth of 
intent of men's reported speach.  I felt that reading a heart change into 
Esau's greeting was going beyond the Word, but equally, you are liable to
consider my calling it into question in the same way!

It's late, and I'm due away now.  I hope this helps, bro! - not necessarily 
to change your view of scripture ( ! ;-), but to see where I'm coming from.

I'll tackle more tomorrow, if you think it's needed.

						God bless
								Andrew

Hi, brother Andrew.

Let me first say that your view has merit, and, in fact, puts you in good
company!  You are supported by more learned scholars than I, for sure.  Never-
theless, by God's grace according to truth commended to my heart, I will always
stand against seeing God say "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" to
indicate Esau's predestined damnation.

In my studied opinion, seeing two purposes in God's love of Jacob and hate of
Esau, i.e., salvation for Jacob and condemnation for Esau, is to diminish the
powerful gospel of grace wherein God desires that all men should come to
repentance.

The LORD GOD said "concerning Edom...The pride of thine heart hath deceived
thee...Though thou exalt...thence will I bring thee down...Shall I not in that
day even destroy the wise out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of
Esau? And thy mighty shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount
of Esau may be cut off by slaughter. For violence against thy brother Jacob
shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever." (Ob.3-10)

I submit that the "violence against thy brother Jacob" refers to Esau's hating
Jacob and purposing in his heart to kill him (Ge.27:41).

The man Esau did not kill the man Jacob, and I submit that God foreordained to
deliver Jacob NOT by destroying Esau, but by changing his heart.  Nonetheless,
the first bitterness of Esau toward Jacob has defiled many (iniquity of the
fathers visited upon the children) to the point Edom even now commits murder
against the house of Jacob.

Edomites who do not turn from hate will be destroyed, as will those from the
house of Jacob who reciprocate in kind.  Lust conceived brings forth sin, and
sin finished brings forth death, whether in Esau or Jacob.

"An hundred forty four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel"
will stand before the Lamb with "a great multitude, which no man could number,
of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues...saying, Salvation to
our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb" and will hear the
host say, "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour,
and power, and might, unto our God for ever and ever. Amen." (Re.7:4-12)

No nation is excluded, rather people "who received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved...but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (see 2Th.2)

May the Holy Spirit bless the Word of God to our hearts.

/Wayne

Whew!  Wayne, I'm so relieved not to be beyond hope ... ;-) ;-) ;-)
  - ie I'm glad you see my position doesn't do violence to the Word!

� In my studied opinion, seeing two purposes in God's love of Jacob and hate of
� Esau, i.e., salvation for Jacob and condemnation for Esau, is to diminish the
� powerful gospel of grace wherein God desires that all men should come to
� repentance.

I struggled with that for some years, before coming to my current position.

� ...For violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and
� thou shalt be cut off for ever." (Ob.3-10) 

� I submit that the "violence against thy brother Jacob" refers to Esau's 
� hating Jacob and purposing in his heart to kill him (Ge.27:41).

Interesting.  I would see that interpretation as punishing the sons for 
the sins of the fathers in contravention of Ezekiel 18.  I would rather
take "Jacob" generically to refer to Israel in this instance, and the
specific "violence" to be as specified in Obadiah :11ff, Ezekiel 25:12,
35:5,10.  

I also find it interesting that in Ezekiel 35:5, the source of their enmity
is a propagation of an inherited hatred.  They weren't judged for disliking
them, but for giving [unrestrained] expression to it.  That is a more subtle
inheritance, which has to (and can) be overcome with difficulty, and which 
I see as reflecting the 'iniquity of the fathers visited upon the children' 
as in Exodus 20.

						God bless
								Andrew

Hi, Andrew.

| Whew!  Wayne, I'm so relieved not to be beyond hope ... ;-) ;-) ;-)
|  - ie I'm glad you see my position doesn't do violence to the Word!

** "Do violence to the Word?"  Nay, rather concludes something which the Word
   does not say, and perhaps misses what the Word does say. :-)

| I struggled with that for some years, before coming to my current position.

** So, you see Esau lost because he was hated, not falling from grace, but
   cut off from grace by God and condemned from the beginning?

   Tell me again the basis for that position.

| Interesting.  I would see that interpretation as punishing the sons for 
| the sins of the fathers in contravention of Ezekiel 18.  I would rather
| take "Jacob" generically to refer to Israel in this instance, and the
| specific "violence" to be as specified in Obadiah :11ff, Ezekiel 25:12,
| 35:5,10.

** "Punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers?"  Nay.  Scripture says
   "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children...of them that
   hate me."  God does not clear the guilty.

   Since Esau did not kill Jacob, what was the sin visited upon Edom?

   Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
   not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But
   I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
   shall be in danger of the judgment." (Mt.5:21&22a, KJV)

   "That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within,
   out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications,
   murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil
   eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: And these evil things come from within,
   and defile the man." (Mk.7:20-23, KJV)

   "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity
   of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the
   righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of
   wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins
   that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is
   lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his trans-
   gressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in
   his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at
   all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: not that he should
   return from his ways, and live? ...

   "When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth
   iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he
   die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he
   hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save
   his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his
   transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not
   die." (Ez.18:20-28, KJV)

   God was calling the house of Israel to repent!  The house of Israel did not
   understand grace, and they did not understand that the righteousness of
   their father Jacob did not make them righteous, nor did the sin of Esau make
   Edom wicked.  And I submit that the arrogance borne from Israel's mis-
   understanding of grace in part incurs the bitterness in Edom, yea, Esau's
   sin visited unto his children.  The Lord God said, "I have no pleasure in
   the death of him that dieth: wherefore turn, and live ye." (Ez.18:32, KJV)

   We might even ask if Esau were "angry with his brother without a cause."

   No, God cannot deny Himself.  He does not preclude repentance in even Edom.

   And yes the house of Jacob is Israel--I thought that was obvious--and the
   violence of Edom against the house of Israel is as you say.
   
   But "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, of
   your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye envy, and
   desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not,
   because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye
   may consume upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not
   that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore
   will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the
   scipture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth enviously?
   But He giveth more grace. Wherefore He saith, God resisteth the proud, but
   giveth grace unto the humble." (Ja.4:1-6, KJV)

   When lust is conceived, it brings forth sin, and when sin is finished, it
   brings forth death.  If Esau were predestined to damnation, then God must
   have precluded repentance in causing him to sin.  God forbid!

| I also find it interesting that in Ezekiel 35:5, the source of their enmity
| is a propagation of an inherited hatred.  They weren't judged for disliking
| them, but for giving [unrestrained] expression to it.  That is a more subtle
| inheritance, which has to (and can) be overcome with difficulty, and which 
| I see as reflecting the 'iniquity of the fathers visited upon the children' 
| as in Exodus 20.

** Exactly!  I could not agree more, and tried to explicitly say that above.
   I never said God punished the children for the iniquity of their father.
   Rather, you took me to say what the very Scripture I quoted did not.  Now
   that I find "interesting!" :-)

/Wayne

    Tony, take control of your topic!  Andrew and I have warped into
    hyperspace. :-)

    And we journey on:

    1 - Andrew and I looked at the same Scriptural record of Jacob's and
        Esau's meeting, yet perceived differently.  Andrew saw Esau's
        greeting as "rather superficial," his tears denoting something other
        than repentance.  Andrew questioned Esau's integrity.

        I saw Esau as a man whose heart had (been) changed.  He had purposed
        in the past to kill Jacob, but neither took present, nor sought
        future, opportunity to do so.  Rather he "ran to meet <Jacob>, and
        embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept."

        Was Esau genuine?  Is an explicit record of Esau's lying to be found
        anywhere in Scripture?  Was Esau ever anything other than what he
        appeared to be?  Contrast the dearth of Esau's documented acts of
        wickedness with the many records of Jacob's scheming and deceiving.
        Who could more likely be taken at face value in their meeting?

        And the record of their meeting sounds very similar to the record of
        Joseph's greeting of his brothers in Egypt wherein he "fell upon his
        brother Benjamin's neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck.
        Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that
        his brethren talked with him." (Ge.45:14&15, KJV)  Joseph's brothers
        were not expecting to see him, and, were they to see him, they likely
        would have expected vengeance.  But, how did Joseph reveal his heart
        to them?

        Why should Esau's eternal state be of great concern?  Because the
        BASIS of his eternal state, not so much his eternal state itself,
        affects the quality of our glorious LORD, our own hold on eternity, our
        confidence in our LORD Jesus, and the salvation of any one sinner.  If
        God truly loved Jacob for the purpose of salvation and hated Esau for
        the purpose of damnation, then we must see both salvation and damna-
        tion foreordained.  And if Esau's predestined state was to be lost,
        then God may create an unrepentant heart in any and all who are lost.

        I cannot say with certainty that Esau was saved.  The explicit record
        is that he did not kill Jacob.  I am saying that if Esau is lost, then
        he was lost on the basis of not trusting/obeying God's Word, not
        because he could not repent according to predestination.

    2 - Is there only wickedness in Edom and righteousness in the house of
        Jacob?  Note that Isaac "by faith blessed Jacob AND ESAU concerning
        things to come." (He.11:20)  Remember that part and parcel of the
        (birthright) blessing are resources and responsibility to care for
        the family in lieu of the father.

        Isaac blessed Jacob (with the blessing he intended for Esau) and said,
        "See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD
        hath blessed: Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the
        fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine: Let people serve
        thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let
        thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth
        thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee." (Ge.27:27b-29)

        Isaac blessed Esau and said, "Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fat-
        ness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; And by thy
        sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come
        to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his
        yoke from off thy neck." (vs.39b&40)

        Was Esau not to serve Jacob?  Why would the yoke be broken?  Again,
        the blessing assumed righteousness.  But what if the one blessed
        turned from righteousness unto wickedness?  "And in the fifth year of
        Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of
        Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign...
        and he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of
        Ahab: for the daughter of Ahab was his wife: and he did evil in the
        sight of the LORD. Yet the LORD would not destroy Judah for David His
        servant's sake, as He promised him to give him alway a light to his
        children.

        "In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a
        king over themselves. So Joram went over to Zair, and all the chariots
        with him: and he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed
        him about, and the captains of the chariots: and the people fled into
        their tents. Yet Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this
        day." (2Ki.8:16-22a)

        The yoke was broken off Edom's neck in the context of Israel's evil in
        the sight of God!  So, who was righteous and who was wicked?  The
        record is that God spared Israel by virtue of His promise to David,
        NOT because Israel was righteous.

    For the record, ancient Hebrew writings agree with Andrew.  It is
    recorded in ancient Hebrew commentaries that Esau went off to hunt 
    and totally blew off Abraham's funeral (his grandfather).  The
    commentaries basically state that he got what he deserved because of
    his insincerity and lack of family loyalty.

    Mike

    So what is that worth, Mike?  What do you think?

    What can I say?  I'm trying to base my conclusions only on what
    Scripture says.
    
    Would the ancient commentaries draw our attention to something
    recorded in Scripture that I may have missed?
    
    /Wayne

>    I'm trying to base my conclusions only on what
>    Scripture says.

While that _is_ the premise of this conference, it was never the way that
the Jews did theology, nor was it ever the way Christians did theology
until the 16th century.

Scripture has always been interpreted in the light of tradition; tradition
includes the written commentaries on scripture by respected prior teachers.

/john

    Please forgive me if I've violated your sense of propriety.
    
    I would expect nothing of what I've said to be accepted as truth apart
    from commendation of the Holy Spirit.
    
    I have no need to be right.  I study to show myself approved unto God,
    a workman not needing to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
    truth.  We stand individually accountable before God.
    
    Try my spirit whether it is of God.

    Please forgive me if I've violated your sense of propriety, "for in
    many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is
    a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body." (Ja.3:2)
    
    I am not a perfect man.  Nothing I say should be accepted as truth
    apart from commendation of the Word and Spirit together.
    
    I have no need to be right in the eyes of those who see themselves as
    right.  We stand individually accountable before God.  I study to show
    myself approved unto God, a workman not needing to be ashamed, rightly
    dividing the word of truth.  And I very much respect the work of God
    in others past, present and future who share truth revealed to their
    hearts.
    
    On what basis should we hold and perpetuate tradition?  I would hope
    because the Holy Spirit gives us peace.  Try my spirit whether it is
    of God.

    Which tradition do you recommend, John?  You would be wrong to assume
    that my views are unique and without the support of tradition, but
    judging tradition by tradition seems vain.  They that "measure them-
    selves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are
    not wise." (2Co.10:12b)

    May we together grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus
    Christ whose person and work may have been veiled from the eyes of
    Hebrew tradition that we might obtain mercy through their unbelief.

    /Wayne

>    Which tradition do you recommend, John?

The tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit and passed on by the successors
of the apostles, which enhances our understanding of scripture without
contradicting it.

/john

    Who are "the successors of the apostles," John, who holds the tradi-
    tion you describe, and who determines what might contradict scripture?

    Jesus prayed to our Father, "They are not of the world, even as I am
    not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
    As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into
    the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might
    be santified through the truth. Neither pray I for those alone, but for
    them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all
    may be one; as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may
    be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
    (Jn.17:16-21, KJV)

>    Who are "the successors of the apostles," John, who holds the tradi-
>    tion you describe, and who determines what might contradict scripture?

Those who have hands laid upon them by the apostles and their successors,
who show that they have been sanctified in the truth, when they can
answer the question "who told you that" with a chain of predecessors
back to the apostles, showing development of theology rather than any
sudden break or divergence.

/john

    Wayne, you know I believe as you do - Scripture over tradition
    *ALWAYS*.  I just offered that little tidbit from the ancient Hebrew
    commentaries because I thought it was appropriate.
    
    In contrast to RCC beliefs, the Bible states Scripture is the Word 
    of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Revelation 22:18-19).  
    Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).  God alone is infallible 
    (Numbers 23:19).  God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).  
    Every Christian, aided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability and the right 
    to interpret Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 2:12-16).  The Holy 
    Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26, 16:13, 
    1 John 2:27).
    
Mark 7:1  
    Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes,
 which came from Jerusalem.
7:2  And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to
 say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
7:3  For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat
 not, holding the tradition of the elders.
7:4  And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And
 many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing
 of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
7:5  Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples
 according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
7:6  He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you
 hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but
 their heart is far from me.
7:7  Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
 commandments of men.
7:8  For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as
 the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
7:9  And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye
 may keep your own tradition.
7:10  For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth
 father or mother, let him die the death:
7:11  But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban,
 that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he
 shall be free.
7:12  And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
7:13  Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye
 have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

    And do you see me as breaking or diverging from the gospel entrusted to
    the Apostles?  Have I contradicted Scripture?

    Mike, I know why you offered the ancient Hebrew commentaries FWIW.  I
    was wondering what specific worth you saw in those commentaries in
    terms of pointing out something in scripture that I may have missed.
    
    Regarding Esau, I just observed that little mention was made in
    Scripture concerning actual acts to manifest an evil heart, or even
    lapses of integrity, whereas Jacob's character flaws were well
    documented.
    
    I grant that one could see God hating Esau, and Esau's selling his
    birthright for food, and his hatred after being tricked, and conclude
    that he was indeed lowlife pond scum.  Well, aren't we all?!
    
    The problem with that view, of course, is that an assumption is made
    about Esau's character while we know that election is not based on
    man's righteousness.
    
    I very much value commentaries on Scripture.  What I question is
    "commentary" that adds to or takes from Scripture.
    
    Oh, by the way, I think every Christian, aided by the Holy Spirit, has
    the ability and RESPONSIBILITY, not just right, to personalize and
    share truth, given "that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
    interpretation."  Holy men of God spoke moved by the Holy Ghost.
    
    But you know that! :-)
    

re .236

No.  I was replying to your reluctance to accept other writings as being
important.

re .235

Nothing in what you have said is in contrast to RCC teaching at all.

/john

| No.  I was replying to your reluctance to accept other writings as being
| important.

** My conviction is that other writings can complement, but never supplement,
   Scripture.

   Again, you would be wrong to assume that I do not deem the expounded
   faith of our fathers important!  Clearly, the wisdom from above in the
   lives and words of our Lord's faithful servants points us to truth we
   might otherwise overlook in His Word.

Well, Wayne .... it seems your first response in .226 matches mine to your 
position, because we look at the same words with different eyes.

� ** So, you see Esau lost because he was hated, not falling from grace, but
�    cut off from grace by God and condemned from the beginning?
� 
�    Tell me again the basis for that position.

I'm not quite sure where you paragraph starting with ** came from.  I 
presume that's your paraphrase or understanding of a (my?) position?

We are all 'naturally' under condemnation (just for the record, say Romans 
3:23, as an example).  There is that sinful nature within us.  Esau was 
'hated' because he clung to that sinful nature, deeming it to be 'good 
enough'.  Good enough for what? - for life here on earth, and for any 
eternal need.

I do not believe that any lesser rejection would merit God's hatred, and a 
consequent exclusion from heaven.  God's hatred for Esau is mentioned in 
Malachi and repeated in Romans as typical of a type and a situation.  The 
sin of Esau which is also referred to in Hebrews 12 is not the basis of his 
condemnation, but an example of the fruit - and behaviour - of one who is 
outside of grace, and motivated by / satisfied with fallen standards.  
Hebrews 12 warns us to beware of such behaviour, because of what it 
indicates.  Hebrews 12 then follows with a contrast between Mount Sinai and 
the law, which cannot save because man cannot attain to it, and Mount Zion, 
where Jesus' blood gives us the life we cannot otherwise obtain.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but if you care to clarify, 
I'll have another go ;-)

Now, you included a number of quotes concerning the source of sin.  I
raised that issue because I understood one of your references to Edom to
depend on a specific sin of Esau's.  I was therefore pointing to the
contrast between a phrase in Exodus 20:5 
    "for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity 
     of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth 
     generation of them that hate me;..."
and Ezekiel 18:20 
    "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the 
     iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity 
     of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, 
     and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
  
The difference in terminology between the two passages, with the fact that 
they both come from our omniscient God indicate that we need to dig to 
understand what is intended.  The Exodus 20 'curse of the fathers' implies 
that a bad family background affects a child's nature - as we well know.  
And also that it is liable to reach another generation or two, as that
effect is carried on through a combination of human weakness, inheritance 
of character, poor experience meaning that right teaching is lacking, etc
However, particularly under the New Covenant, we know that this is not a 
binding curse, but that Jesus' blood is sufficient to deliver us from this. 
The Ezekiel passage underlines that a man with an evil father is _not_ 
condemned to be evil himself, although he has a harder learning curve than 
one who is brought up to know and follow the LORD faithfully.  While the
Ezekiel passage was specifically addressed to Israel, it was stating
principles which apply to every generation, every nation and every
individual.  

So Edom, as a nation was not condemned by the fact that Esau was 
unregenerate; nor were they punished because of one sin of Esau's. However,
it would appear from prophecy that they inherited his nature of rejection
and rebellion, and in spite of God's warnings, they did not turn from this 
path in a significant enough volume to merit specific note.

But ... from the end of your note .226 perhaps that is what you're saying?  
You will need to explain how you intend to apply the verses you quote, so I'll
know when you're agreeing, and when you're putting up an alternative view ;-)

.226�   Since Esau did not kill Jacob, what was the sin visited upon Edom?
I think you saw this from the end of .225, with which you agreed.

Maybe we're going in circles, here....

re .227 ...

Note - I don't gauge Esau's heart character solely from his outward 
transient actions, but from God's record of him.  A kiss is no guarantee of 
love, as we see in Judas.  Tears can sometimes flow easily from an emotion 
which is soon forgotten.  If we had no other scriptural information, Esau's 
heart would be a closed book to us, but God tells us differently, and so 
his outward actions have to be viewed in the light of God's Word on his 
character.

The subsequent sinfulness of Israel does not justify Edom's position.  The 
'breaking of the yoke' didn't indicate that Edom was regenerate, but that
Israel was receiving a warning from God.  I'm not sure what point you are 
intending to make in these verses, as I don't see it affecting what we're 
discussing.  Israel was never identified as a 'righteous' nation.  Their 
covenant was never on that basis, but on the basis of God's faithfulness.
The choice of Jacob was not because of any inherent virtue he possessed -
the evidence suggests to me (which you may or may not agree with! - ah! - I
see that you probably do, from .237 ;-) that Jacob was not a socially
attractive character.  It amuses me to see how he is greeted by Laban, who,
from his later behaviour appears to be an arch-twister too.  Jacob tells
him why he has come (presumably about the deceiving of Esau to win the
blessing), and Laban then responds by greeting him as a true blood
relative! - Genesis 29:13-14. 

GOd's election is not based upon our behaviour or our character, but upon
God's gracious gift, which one bowed to receive, and the other didn't. 

�    The problem with that view, of course, is that an assumption is made
�    about Esau's character while we know that election is not based on
�    man's righteousness.

The point I have been trying to establish throughout is that I am not
basing my assuption on the outward record concerning Esau's perceived
character or deeds, but upon what God says about Esau.  In that light I
look back at the record of Esau's life and realise that there is more to
learn than a superficial reading would suggest.

Thanks Mike (if you read this far...;-), for the information about the
position of the Hebrew writings. Obviously this does not affect the
sovereignty of scripture, but where different views exist of what is meant
by scripture, it can be a hint towards a position worth examining. 

						God bless 
								Andrew

    You might look at Genesis 32:13-23.  Jacob, who's character isn't
    perfect either, selected many choice animals and sent them ahead to
    Esau in many groups.  So basically Esau would get a new gift many many
    times before he reached Jacob.  
    
    18 you are to say, `They belong to your servant Jacob. They are a gift
    sent to my lord Esau, and he is coming behind us.'" 
    20For he thought, "I will pacify him with these gifts I am sending on 
    ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me."
    
    So when Esau and Jacob finally met it seems that the bribe worked. 
    Perhaps thats why Esau wept, because of his good fortune?  Its hard to
    really know.
    
    
    Jill
     

    Unlikely, Jill.  Esau said, "What meanest thou by all this drove which
    I met? And <Jacob> said, These are to find grace in the sight of my
    lord. And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; be that to thee that is
    thine. And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in
    thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have
    seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast
    please with me. Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee;
    because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have all
    things.  And <Jacob> urged <Esau>, and he took." (Ge.33:8-11)
    
    Perhaps Jacob wept "because of his good fortune" in not being killed,
    but clearly Esau was not looking to add to his own.  He took what Jacob
    offered as a sign that Jacob had found grace in his eyes.
    
    /Wayne

Hi, Andrew.

| Note - I don't gauge Esau's heart character solely from his outward 
| transient actions, but from God's record of him.  A kiss is no guarantee of 
| love, as we see in Judas.  Tears can sometimes flow easily from an emotion 
| which is soon forgotten.  If we had no other scriptural information, Esau's 
| heart would be a closed book to us, but God tells us differently, and so 
| his outward actions have to be viewed in the light of God's Word on his 
| character.

** This is my sticking point with your position.  Firstly, I never based my
   view of Esau's heart on a kiss.  Rather, I compared scripture with
   scripture in order to discern the genuineness of Esau's greeting.  The
   record bore striking similarity to Joseph's greeting of his brothers who
   likely were expecting vengeance.

   Secondly, you claim that Esau's heart is a closed book except for what
   God's Word reveals.

   Now, we seem to agree that God's election is not based on character, so
   God's saying that He loved Jacob and hated Esau cannot be used to support
   the assumption that Esau was evil.  And my observation is that, unlike the
   explicit record of many others who incurred God's wrath, nowhere does
   Scripture state that Esau did evil in the sight of the Lord.

   That leaves us with Hebrews 12:16 comparing any fornicator, or profane
   person, to Esau in the context of chastisement of believers unto godliness.
   To this I offered 1Co.6:11 showing that some believers were such people,
   but have been washed, sanctified and justified.  Am I missing something
   else?

| The point I have been trying to establish throughout is that I am not
| basing my assuption on the outward record concerning Esau's perceived
| character or deeds, but upon what God says about Esau.  In that light I
| look back at the record of Esau's life and realise that there is more to
| learn than a superficial reading would suggest.

** I'm impelled to debate no more.  If you really feel you've satisfactorily
   addressed my points, then so be it.  As for me, please be so kind as to
   elucidate what God says about Esau's heart and eternal state one more time,
   such that I by God's grace may prayerfully consider your words again and
   perhaps have their truth commended to my heart by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks, bro.

/Wayne

      re: .243
    
      Wayne, I just love that last paragraph!
    
      The whole recent set of replies was an enjoyable read!
    
    					Tony

    RE: .244
    
    Thanks, Tony.  This is your topic, and I'm pleased that you see added
    value in this digression. :-)
    
    RE: .243
    
    Andrew, I realize that you've provided a good deal of detailed support
    for your position.  What I'm asking is a summary, like an outline or
    list of bullets, with explicit scripture to support each conclusion
    drawn about Esau's heart and eternal state.
    
    I do not intend to argue, but rather understand.  Really!
    
    Thanks.
    
    /Wayne

� As for me, please be so kind as to elucidate what God says about Esau's
� heart and eternal state one more time, 

� The record bore striking similarity to Joseph's greeting of his brothers
� who likely were expecting vengeance.

Ah!!!!  Now Joseph was a different character altogether from both Jacob and 
Esau.  In him we see a strong character, who could take rejection by his 
brothers, false accusation and imprisonment, and STILL be faithful in doing 
his best for the LORD, so that he was given responsiblity in the prison, 
and the other prisoners came to him for advice.  He was one of whom Pharaoh 
could later say "Can we find anyone like this man, in whom is the Spirit 
of God?"  Genesis 41:38.  'Even' Jacob just didn't seem to evoke that
response in anyone, somehow. 

� I compared scripture with scripture in order to discern the genuineness 
� of Esau's greeting.  

No - you compared the outward record of events; not the heart commitment
behind the greeting.  Just as Samuel judged Eliab worthy from an outward
appearance, so the words of the text spell out a kiss from Esau.  We are
not explicitly told what Esau's heart held, so, in the absence of other
evidence we would assume it reflected his heart, with nothing further to
learn.  However the sum of his ongoing behaviour; the ambiguity of his
response to Jacob's approach; above all, the later standing record of him
as one who met with disfavour from God, throws the sincerity of his heart
into doubt.  Note that 1 Corinthians 6:11 does not name the believers who
repented - it passes most delicately over sins, however grievious, that
preceded their salvation.  They are no longer branded with these sins,
which are now, rather, associated with the cleansing of Jesus' blood. 

Esau goes down in the record as one who found no place of repentance
(Hebrews 12:17). Because of the context, I take that to mean more than just
the single outward event.  He is cited as an example, not just of someone
who slipped, but of someone who was of nature 'Godless' or profane; whose
mind was dim and closed to God's grace and mercy.  The emphasis is that the
act sprang from the nature - the last reminder we have of him - rather than
just a symptom of a state from which he later repented. 

1 Corinthians 6:11 shows that we should never give up praying for those on
our hearts in this life, however Godless their lifestyle and total
commitment may be.  It also shows that that past deeds do not prohibit 
anyone from effective repentance; salvation is not out of anyone's reach, 
and that, once saved, they need not fear that any of their pre-salvation 
sins will come back to haunt them, in terms of endangering their salvation.
However, this does not mean that such sins are of no account, as clinging
to them, rather than to the LORD _is_ a symptom of an unregenerate heart;
this is why it is so wonderful that people can be saved from this state as 
to merit its special mention in 1 Corinthians 6:11.

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply - there was a UK 'holiday' yesterday,
which meant time swallowed up before too...  However, I hope this clarifies
a little bit, Wayne; if not to convince, at least to show how I arrive at
this position! 

					God bless
							Andrew 

Reply: Note 53.219

Hi Andrew,

  The following is an example of how I might have worded your reply
  (.219) differently if I believed as you do.  In rereading the replies,
  at least one thing is clear.  You believe that it is clear to me that
  my own interpretation of a passage of scripture is KNOWN BY ME to be
  out of context and also that I have consciously chosen to hide behind
  the word.

  I HONESTLY am not aware that my interpretation is out of context and
  thus (regardless of WHAT is truth - your understanding, my understanding,
  or some other), you have ventured into presumption which is a place I
  advise no one to go.  I am also not aware of hiding behind scripture.
  I invite you to prove to me that I am

  1) Knowingly misinterpreting a passage of scripture.

  2) Knowingly hiding behind scripture.

  Anyway, the following is the kind of reply which would be more palatable
  to me.  (To be candid, more 'right' to me.)  It removes none of your 
  perceived merits of your reply nor does it keep away from informing me 
  that you see no merit in my interpretation.

  I ask you to read this reply and your own to see if you discern any
  meaningful differences.

  (Another like reply follows.)

Hi Tony, 

I presume your reference to Abigail (.212) is to 1 Samuel 25:28-29, where
she points out to David how the LORD will preserve his life, while
destroying his enemies.  Again a selective distinction between the loved
and the judged, where the lives of the enemies 'He will hurl away as from
the pocket of a sling'. 

.215 � But, I believe in Isaiah 28:10.   I honestly don't see how you
are being fair to the context in this passage!  It is so clear to me that
the context shows a different interpretation - and one that invalidates
your own.

The crucial part of Isaiah 28 reads:

 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line,
    line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to
    rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon
    precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a
    little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared,
    and taken.
 14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this
    people which is in Jerusalem.

Your understanding of the passage seems to me to be that it defends a manner 
of interpreting scripture which includes taking small sections of scripture,
seemingly (to me) without a whole lot of regard to each's individual context, 
to form doctrinal understandings of things.  (Provided of course the passages 
have something in common such as word usages or thematic parallels.  This I'll
acquiesce!))

However, the Hebrew for
the relevant words in verse 10 is obscure, and difficult to translate.  It
is thought, in fact, that the words represent a childish 'dah-de-dah'
sing-song routine - as if saying that the people under condemnation were
treating the Word of the LORD as if it were a meaningless chant.  This is
further born out by the repetition and expansion in verse 13, where the
result of following this method is clearly spelled out as a punishment -
"that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and
taken."  Clearly a method not recommended for anyone!

						God bless
								Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Reply: Note 53.222

This is similar to the last posting.

Hello Tony!

Re .220; I was trying to keep to the topic under discussion, that's why I
didn't diverge into details of the judgement! 

� I was wrong.  The verse is 2 Samuel 14:14

Ah!  I thought Abigail's response wasn't quite like your usual choice.

� Again, I think it would be a higher path to travel to discuss only the
� merits of one's interpretation rather than taking the low road of
� discussing the status of one's heart, i.e. "the interpretation YOU WANT TO
� TAKE."  Refrain from this in a public conference and discuss the more
� personal offline (please). 



Tony, I find it extremely hard to see how it is that you don't see your
interpretation as mistaken.  From my perspective, this should be about as
obvious as getting whacked by a 2x4!

We are interested in 
examining the true meaning of the Bible, as far as the LORD reveals it to 
us.  There are many points where we agree, and often we focus on these.  
Where we have differences, we can address them together, hopefully to our 
mutual encouragement and brotherly love, whether or not we come to the same 
conclusion!  I thought you, too, would find the examination and 
constructive study of scripture to be an exciting and helpful exercise to 
share. 

Actually, my sense is that you have treated my reply just as I perceive
you to treat Scripture (well ... 
perhaps there might be differences! ;-).  What I mean is that it seems
to me that you take 
words and phrases out of context, and comment on them, totally missing 
the point of the reply.  

For instance, you focus on 'it is thought', where I am trying to give you
the honest position.  In fact, whether the view is correct or not is
irrelevant to the result, which is the clear conclusion of verse 13. 

You also say:
� Repetition need not connotate a "meaningless chant."  It can connotate
� *emphasis*.
If you read my note carefully, you will see that my use of 'repetition' 
referred to something other than that which referred to 'meaningless chant'.

The 'meaningless chant' is the string of words in verses 10 and 13 which 
you take to authorize taking small portions out of context.  The 
repetition of this in verse 13 is in order to amplify what it means to the 
people who say it, and it continues, to warn of the consequences.  So you 
cannot claim that verse 10 gives a principle to follow, because verse 13 
explicitly says that it is an erroneous path.

So your conclusions about how to study scripture may be valid (I'm not
diverging to comment on that just now), but because you justify it from a
passage which is not saying that at all, you actually discredit more than 
you support it.

I have occasionally heard sermons which take this sort of approach - the
preacher has an idea, and finds something from the Bible which he can use
to support it. The passage is taken out of context, and for the careless
listener can sound very convincing.  However, for any Berean, it grates.
The context shows up the sermon to be false.  This undermines acceptance of
the principle preached about, which may be valid, but because its
presentation was on a passage which wasn't saying that, it casts doubt on
the integrity of what is taught. 

Tony, do you see merit in my suggestion that your interpretation misses out
on the context of the passage?


						God bless
								Andrew

Hi, bro.

| Ah!!!!  Now Joseph was a different character altogether from both Jacob and 
| Esau.  In him we see a strong character, who could take rejection by his 
| brothers, false accusation and imprisonment, and STILL be faithful in doing 
| his best for the LORD, so that he was given responsiblity in the prison, 
| and the other prisoners came to him for advice.  He was one of whom Pharaoh 
| could later say "Can we find anyone like this man, in whom is the Spirit 
| of God?"  Genesis 41:38.  'Even' Jacob just didn't seem to evoke that
| response in anyone, somehow.

** What do you make of Joseph regarding Israel's blessing of his sons, Ephraim
   and Manasseh, as evil?  (see Ge.48)  Israel, who had himself obtained the
   birthright by deception, knowingly continued to set the younger before the
   elder.

   Did only Esau propagate the "root of bitterness?"

| No - you compared the outward record of events; not the heart commitment
| behind the greeting.  Just as Samuel judged Eliab worthy from an outward
| appearance, so the words of the text spell out a kiss from Esau.  We are
| not explicitly told what Esau's heart held, so, in the absence of other
| evidence we would assume it reflected his heart, with nothing further to
| learn.  However the sum of his ongoing behaviour; the ambiguity of his
| response to Jacob's approach; above all, the later standing record of him
| as one who met with disfavour from God, throws the sincerity of his heart
| into doubt.

** You confused me on this one.  I thought I compared two scriptural records
   of similar events, i.e., Ge.33:4 with 45:14&15.  What is scripture?

   What was "the sum of his ongoing behaviour?"  How did you discern "the
   ambiguity of his response to Jacob's approach?"

   Again, are you saying Esau "met with disfavour from God" based on his
   nature/character?

| Esau goes down in the record as one who found no place of repentance
| (Hebrews 12:17). Because of the context, I take that to mean more than just
| the single outward event.  He is cited as an example, not just of someone
| who slipped, but of someone who was of nature 'Godless' or profane; whose
| mind was dim and closed to God's grace and mercy.  The emphasis is that the
| act sprang from the nature - the last reminder we have of him - rather than
| just a symptom of a state from which he later repented.

** Esau "found no place of repentance" from what?  What is the context?

   From what nature sprang the acts listed in 1Co.6:9-11?

| However, this does not mean that such sins are of no account, as clinging
| to them, rather than to the LORD _is_ a symptom of an unregenerate heart;
| this is why it is so wonderful that people can be saved from this state as 
| to merit its special mention in 1 Corinthians 6:11.

** Amen!  Clinging to sin rather than the Lord is indeed evidence of an
   unregenerate heart.

   Do you see explicit evidence of Esau himself having clung to sin outside
   He.12:17?

   By the way, have you carefully examined the original language from which
   the translation "place of repentance" was rendered?

|                                             However, I hope this clarifies
| a little bit, Wayne; if not to convince, at least to show how I arrive at
| this position!

** I understand how you've arrived at your position.  Thanks.

In Christ our Lord,

/Wayne

Hi Wayne,

� ** What do you make of Joseph regarding Israel's blessing of his sons, 
�    Ephraim and Manasseh, as evil?  (see Ge.48)  Israel, who had himself 
�    obtained the birthright by deception, knowingly continued to set the 
�    younger before the elder.

I think that to say Joseph regarded this as 'evil' puts it rather strongly.
The KJV says 'it displeased him', presumably at a human level, and as a
first reaction, that Jacob gave his second son precedence over his first
son.  Note that Joseph makes no complaint once Jacob explains that this is
his intent and not mere carelessness. 

I order to get this into perspective, we have to consider something of the
nature of the patriarchal blessing.  While to the youth it may seem a
personal and biased pronouncement, the reality should carry the weight of
inspired prophecy, when spoken by someone who, through the length of his 
life, has learned to walk with the LORD.

Hence, Jacob's deceit in disguising himself as Esau should have been 
unnecessary, because the LORD would give Isaac the words appropriate to 
each anyway.  [ The related occurrence in 1 Kings 14:1-19 always amuses me, 
because Jeroboam makes sure his wife disguises herself, before calling on 
Abijah, as prophet of the LORD.  The whole principle - wanting an answer 
from the LORD, while pretending to be someone else - is utterly ludicrous.  
And in this case, Abijah was blind in his old age, so only knew that his 
visitor was disguised because the LORD told him so!!! ]

The patriarchal blessing spoken on Ephraim and Manasseh was by divine
revelation.  Jacob, by then, was partially blind [ from verse 10, and he
had to ask who was there (verse 8) ].  When Joseph tries to move his
father's right hand onto Manasseh's head, Jacob's response does not concern
what he hopes or plans for them, or even what he thinks of them, but what
_will_ happen (verse 19).  In this instance, there was no need for deceit -
Jacob followed God's revelation, maybe prepared by what he realised would
have been relevant to his own situation. 

If you doubt the inspiration of the patriarchal blessing, in chapter 49,
Jacob performs the formal blessing for all his sons.  When he calls them 
together, it is presumably again by divine revelation that he knows the 
word of prophecy is burning ready for him to pronounce, because the basis 
for the summons is "that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the 
last days".  And that chapter has some very interesting blends of how Jacob 
knew his sons, and how this would work out.  A fascinating instance of God 
taking a man (Jacob), and using his natural expression and understanding to
bloom into inspired scripture, in ways beyond what the mere words could
contain. 

Enough for one reply.  I'll continue to answer yours later.

					God bless
							Andrew

Hi, Andrew.

| I think that to say Joseph regarded this as 'evil' puts it rather strongly.
| The KJV says 'it displeased him', presumably at a human level, and as a
| first reaction, that Jacob gave his second son precedence over his first
| son.  Note that Joseph makes no complaint once Jacob explains that this is
| his intent and not mere carelessness. 

** Check the original.  A literal translation is "was evil in his eyes."

   You speak as one having full understanding.  So be it.

| I order to get this into perspective, we have to consider something of the
| nature of the patriarchal blessing.  While to the youth it may seem a
| personal and biased pronouncement, the reality should carry the weight of
| inspired prophecy, when spoken by someone who, through the length of his 
| life, has learned to walk with the LORD.

** Actually, Joseph was "displeased."  How did you ascertain that Israel's
   blessing seemed personal and biased to the youth?

| If you doubt the inspiration of the patriarchal blessing, in chapter 49,
| Jacob performs the formal blessing for all his sons.

** Where have I ever doubted "inspiration of the patriarchal blessing?"

   Obviously, God works in the affairs of man far beyond man's intent.  That's
   why Election is not based on human merit (or lack thereof).

The time has come for me to disengage.

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of
Jesus Christ.

/Wayne

      I love how you disengage Wayne!!
    
    						Tony

    Who disengaged Wayne?!

      I probably could have used a comma, huh?
    
    					Tony

Hi Wayne,

But you know the significance of "was evil in his eyes..." - can be a way
of indicating that it was just his personal reaction.

�   You speak as one having full understanding.  So be it.

I'm sorry if my manner of presentation comes over disagreeably - it's not 
meant to be offensive.

� ** Actually, Joseph was "displeased."  How did you ascertain that Israel's
�    blessing seemed personal and biased to the youth?

All I was referring to here was Jacob's apparent point of view in his own
youth, that he could change the course of events by subterfuge.  It implies 
that he thought of the blessing as coming from his father's mind, and 
weighted (naturally) towards his elder brother, rather than from the LORD's 
will and eternal purpose.  While you have not expressed doubt that the 
patriarchal blessing was inspired, I wanted to establish its basis clearly,
as you had just introduced it as pertaining to this discussion, and I 
didn't know your personal perspective on this point.

I find it interesting to consider what would have happened had Jacob
refused to follow Rebekah's plan here.  Certainly, God's plan would not
have been frustrated, and the resultant verbal inspiration of Isaac's
blessing to Jacob - and Esau - could have been rather illuminating.... 

� The time has come for me to disengage.
You've said something to that effect before, but returned.  Are you weary
of this discussion, or find it unprofitable? - as I stated at the
beginning, the point of difference we are discussing isn't a great one, and
doesn't touch doctrine!  There's a previous reply of yours I haven't
addressed in detail yet too...   ;-)

Got to go - we're having a power down any minute now!

				May God bless you, bro
							Andrew

Hey, bro.

| But you know the significance of "was evil in his eyes..." - can be a way
| of indicating that it was just his personal reaction.

** Yep.  Except that the same wording is found in Ge.38:10 to describe Onan's
   disobedience as "evil in the eyes of the LORD."  The literal translation
   characterizes Israel's action in setting Ephraim before Manasseh as "evil
   in <Joseph's> eyes."

   But, as you say, that indicates Joseph's heart, not God's.

| All I was referring to here was Jacob's apparent point of view in his own
| youth, that he could change the course of events by subterfuge.  It implies 
| that he thought of the blessing as coming from his father's mind, and 
| weighted (naturally) towards his elder brother, rather than from the LORD's 
| will and eternal purpose.  While you have not expressed doubt that the 
| patriarchal blessing was inspired, I wanted to establish its basis clearly,
| as you had just introduced it as pertaining to this discussion, and I 
| didn't know your personal perspective on this point.

** And in Joseph's case, his brothers hated him because they "saw that their
   father loved him more than" them.  What was really in Jacob's heart?  In
   loving Joseph did Jacob hate "all his brethren?"  When Jacob presumed
   Joseph dead, he loved Benjamin, the second son borne by Rachel whom he loved
   more than Leah, as the "child of his old age."

   But I digress! :-)

| I find it interesting to consider what would have happened had Jacob
| refused to follow Rebekah's plan here.  Certainly, God's plan would not
| have been frustrated, and the resultant verbal inspiration of Isaac's
| blessing to Jacob - and Esau - could have been rather illuminating.... 

** But we must assume that all in fact happened according to God's plan.  I
   find interesting that God's love for Jacob was manifest through Rebekah,
   whereas Isaac loved Esau.

| You've said something to that effect before, but returned.  Are you weary
| of this discussion, or find it unprofitable? - as I stated at the
| beginning, the point of difference we are discussing isn't a great one, and
| doesn't touch doctrine!  There's a previous reply of yours I haven't
| addressed in detail yet too...   ;-)

** Actually, I said "I'm impelled to debate no more."  We interpret Scripture
   differently, and I regret being unable to help you appreciate the difficul-
   ties I find in your (classic) position.  My sense is that further discussion
   most likely would be unprofitable for us at this time.

   I do think our point of difference might touch doctrine, so you could per-
   haps ease my mind with a simple yes or no answer:

      Does God's saying "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" mean
      that Jacob and Esau were predestined for salvation and damnation,
      respectively?

Regardless, about the following we agree wholeheartedly:  If Esau hated Jacob
for the rest of his life on earth, trodding under foot the Spirit of grace, then
he and all in Edom who take up his offense are lost.

/Wayne

Hi Wayne,

I see where you're coming from - no problem there - but felt that it misses
some of the nuances.  I was just trying to clarify my perception there in
response to your queries.  Although I have not had time to go through some
of your replies, I too don't really see further discussion as of much
benefit at this point.

However, I'll just try to respond to your:

�   I do think our point of difference might touch doctrine, so you could per-
�   haps ease my mind with a simple yes or no answer:

�      Does God's saying "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" mean
�      that Jacob and Esau were predestined for salvation and damnation,
�      respectively?

Out of context, not conclusively.

Sorry I couldn't limit it to the binary option, but I tried my best ;-)

The significant message for any age is that we are naturally fallen and
outside of Christ, deserving judgement.  However, we have a God of mercy
and love, who has made a way of deliverance, and even provided a day of
grace, in which we can move from a position away from God, to a position
where we are [being] restored to the design image.  Each 'today' is a gift
from God, to take opportunity of becoming conformed to His image... 

						God bless
								Andrew

Hi Tony,

.247 � at least one thing is clear.  You believe that it is clear to me that
.247 � my own interpretation of a passage of scripture is KNOWN BY ME to be
.247 � out of context and also that I have consciously chosen to hide behind
.247 � the word.

As we've examined this with you thoroughly on a previous date, from exactly
the same passage, I thought you must be very well aware of what I was
repeating.  However, from your paraphrase (apart from the Americanisms! ;-),
I'm not quite sure that you understand what we were saying. 

						God bless
								Andrew

      Hi Andrew,
    
        Do you understand the differences between your replies and 
        the replies I posted?  
    
        					Tony

Hi, Andrew.

As Jacob and Esau exit I wanted to establish what I see as our key points of
difference.

| I see where you're coming from - no problem there - but felt that it misses
| some of the nuances.

** And I feel you've read nuances into Scripture that are not there and missed
   some of what is there.  Here I feel you've deduced interpretation from pre-
   supposition rather than induced conclusion from careful interpretation of
   particulars.

   Again, your position has merit and is not without the support of better
   scholars than I.  You've shared the wisdom from above in the past, and I
   hereby stipulate that you're at least as studied as I.  If your position is
   true, then what I now think is of no consequence, and the Holy Spirit will
   commend your words as truth to other hearts.

   Some in this conference deem me "misguided" from time to time.  I have
   much to learn.  By God's grace I study to show myself approved unto God,
   and desire to only share the Word and the Spirit by/through whom I gain
   any insight at all.

| However, I'll just try to respond to your:

|�   I do think our point of difference might touch doctrine, so you could per-
|�   haps ease my mind with a simple yes or no answer:

|�      Does God's saying "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" mean
|�      that Jacob and Esau were predestined for salvation and damnation,
|�      respectively?

| Out of context, not conclusively.

** Okay, since you qualified your answer "not conclusively" with "out of
   context," I assume you could answer conclusively in context.  Or are you
   saying you really don't know? :-)

   Again, I'm not asking whether you think Esau was lost or not--you've
   clearly stated that Esau was lost.  And I agree that Esau might have
   been lost.  We disagree on whether or not Esau might have evidenced
   repentance.  And I agree that if Esau never turned from his sin, then
   he is lost.

   So, what I'm seeking to clarify is your basis for concluding Esau lost.
   Do you think Esau was foreordained to be lost?  Yes or no?

Thanks.  And I would appreciate your answering other questions I've asked for
clarification.  I do respect your studied opinion.

/Wayne

Hi Wayne, 

�   Some in this conference deem me "misguided" from time to time.  I have
�   much to learn.  

We all have much to learn, but "we know that, when he shall appear, we
shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."    1 John 3:2b 

Don't be concerned about the opinions of men, but only concern yourself
with God's favour - as you do.  There are always people around to oppose
the LORD in us, and we 'need' them there to make us bold for Him, and not
to get lazy.  Not that I'm asking for more, of course ;-)

While there may be discussion amongst brethren as they seek out the world 
together, it [should!] enhance our mutual love and respect rather than 
the converse.  Only those who are in rebellion against the LORD will find 
the savour of life in you offensive.  I value you as an earnest and sincere 
brother in the LORD, and very much appreciate your gift of expounding the 
Word.  Don't think that because we find a detail to discuss different 
sides of, that it in any way affects my respect for you. 

Now ... I read your reply again, and I think you want to continue discussion.
Is this correct?  ['yes' or 'no' ;-]

							Andrew

Yo, Andrew.

| Now ... I read your reply again, and I think you want to continue discussion.
| Is this correct?  ['yes' or 'no' ;-]

** No, I do not want to continue discussion in terms of opposing your view and
   defending my own.  Rather, I would like to examine your responses to my
   other replies in the quietness of my own heart, and, in particular, see your
   conclusive statement of the basis for Esau's being lost, i.e., was Esau lost
   from the beginning, having done neither good nor evil?

/Wayne

re: last 100+

Man o man. Leave you guys alone for a few weeks and you go hog wild!

Of course, being in the storage group I appreciate the business. 8*)

Ace

    :-) :-) :-)  Welcome back Ace.

At the moment Ace is plane-hopping round the barbarian wastes of Europe.
Yesterday I was able to take some time to meet him here in Reading, England.
Today he flits off to mainland Europe again...

But meanwhile we had a precious hour of fellowship together.

He asked me to post a note to you all, saying he's missing you!

							Andrew

    
    
    	And yesterday he caught up with me in Ayr, Scotland on his
    	Storage Fellowship tour. 
    	
    	I believe he is in Zurich today - what a life :)
    
    	Peace,
    
    		Tom

    Yeah what a life!  And he comes to California in my neck of the woods
    and doesn't even say hello! Harumph!  I'm bitter, I tell you just
    bitter.
    
    :-)