bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Forum related how to's?  Post your questions to the membership.


.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: A question of NT emphasis  (Read 12361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2007, 04:32:52 AM »

Kat,

I hear what you are saying, and I must admit, after many of the articles written by Ray and others on the seriousness of the fiery judgments that those rejecting Christ will experience, it has registered deeply within me.  I realize that no one here teaches any kind of a mushy "Jesus is just too good to chastise anybody," sort of nonsense.  I know you all believe in a very serious and intense time of punishment and judgment for sin.  Perhaps, in the end, I will settle that this resolves what I see in the apostles' teachings on the seriousness of the final judgments. 

I'll be honest with one more story.  As I was moving solidly towards UR, I shared openly, perhaps too openly, with some of those we regularly related to and ministered with.  Oh my gosh, the firestorm it touched off was unbelievable.  Out of nowhere, brothers I had walked with for 5 years turned on me, sent out a letter labeling me a full heretic, and warned all they knew to stay very clear of me.  I was no longer safe...something had turned my heart away from the Lord, was all they could conclude.  It was horrible.

It caused me to back peddle, and do some rethinking.  In that process, either I gave up to quickly on the truth God had shown me, or I was slowed by the Lord, until I could come to full conviction of the things He was showing me.  I don't really know which.  Maybe a combination of both.  All I know is that I backed up, studied again, and came to a place of realizing I hadn't adequately resolved some issues I needed to resolve before I struck down the road to hereticville.

I think I'm ok with being considered a heretic now.  That experience ended that five year relationship, like as if someone fell a tree in the woods.  Boom, over...at least for now.  I have forgiven them, as they "somewhat" apologized for their approach, but the wound was so incredibly deep, and they have never truly sought to mend that wound, that they have gone their way, and I have gone mine.  The group we fellowship with in our home was saddened that I turned away from UR, partially due to the conflict that arose.  They had had no real trouble with it.  They fully trust my heart.  They were embracing it, though cautiously, because they too had been raised in the same traditional Church environment that I had.  To this very day we have all agreed to table the matter, neither rejecting it nor accepting it.  It is a matter of prayer for all of us.  We are comfortable with His timing for resolution, and believe we had been a bit premature about accepting it as fully as we had, without resolving some concerns we still have.

Any way Kat, I know you are right.  Even if UR proves to be accurate, the judgments of God are not going to be anybody's picnic.  I hope I will escape those fires, but if it means all that is in error within me once and for all gets burned away, then I suppose I should welcome the judgments of God unto righteousness.  That's a tough one to embrace though...

Thank you for taking the time you have to share your insights.  I'm listening.  Honestly I am.


Blessings!
Tom
Logged

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2007, 08:55:40 AM »

Tom,

I see from your post that you are struggling with UR.  You think that is battle cry that we lead with here?  Though it may seem so, it should not be. 

The truth of scriptures as Ray teaches are for us to come through the fire, for us to die to our old selfs, to reveal the man of perdition and allow Christ to live in us and through us.  As you stated, many things are preached from the pulpit that are not there or not emphasized.  Perhaps in God's view UR is not the most important thing?

UR is there, make no mistake, but is only the milk or the word, and most make a habit of trying to live on the milk only, or become a connoisseur of the flavors of the milk.  I pray that we do not do that here, and if that is your impression I am sorry.  Again, UR is not emphasized because it is not the most important thing.

Craig
Logged

Chris R

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2007, 09:43:24 AM »

Hi Craig,

I agree whole heartedly, The Salvation of All is a part of the gospel, And is written in detail, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.[1Cor 3:15]"

God is sovereign. God is all wise and all knowing. He is all powerful and almighty. And God is LOVE. He has a plan, a purpose, a will. He is carrying out that plan. He has set man against His own will while He carries out His intentions which absolutely no one can withstand. To know good, one must have an experience of evil. God created evil (Isa. 45:7). It is only temporary. He has given an experience of evil to mankind to humble him thereby (Ecc. 3:10). It will be completely successful. God has called a privileged few to understand His plan now. He will call and enlighten everyone else later. Death cannot separate God from His love for them. There is coming a resurrection of the dead. All of the dead. They will be taught the truths of God and God will be their saviour. Ray Smith, Letter to Hagee

While the Gospel is written concerning those called and those chosen, the struggle defines us here and now, He that has a ear, hear what the spirit says This knowledge is given, we cannot "reason it out". We apply what is given to us, daily.

Peace

Chris R

Logged

rj

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2007, 11:20:45 AM »

Hey Tom

Welcome to the forum...I can't add anything to the great responses you have already gotten, but i do have a question.

 You say.....Which of these two are the correct understanding I'm uncertain.  I know they could have been much clearer on the UR position, if they had wanted to, or been allowed to, so I'm mystified as to why they didn't, if they see it as you do.  Such truths are by no means hidden in Ray's teachings.  He couldn't be clearer, more direct, or more dogmatic, in his writings.  No one wonders where bro Ray stands on these matters.  Such is not the case with Paul's, Peter's, Jude's, and the other writers of the NT.  Even Jesus is waaaay less clear on these things than Ray is

I was just wondering if you had e-mailed Ray, and ask him how he could be so clear on this subject, when Jesus wasn't.

Ron
Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2007, 12:53:38 PM »

Hi Craig,

A very interesting reply!  A good one!

Certainly, even if UR stands as a true doctrine, it is only one amongst many.  I would like to think of it as just one shelf in the warehouse that is Jesus.  If we keep our eyes fastened on Him, allowing the cross He appoints to each of us to reveal more and more of Him, then ultimately all doctrinal issues will be resolved in a yet greater revelation of Him.

When I survey my past in Christ, I find that everything significant that I have come to know, I have come to know it through not so much receiving a doctrinal revelation, as I have a revelation of the person of Christ.  He is the alpha and the omega.  He is the king of kings, not doctrine.  He alone will be the centerpiece and all encompassing focus of the ages to come.

I'm truly and peacefully confident that if I keep my spiritual eyes on Him I will come to know even as I am known, all that I need to know.  No man can obtain revelation just because He wants it.  All such revelation is hidden within God, and only through apokaluptsis (an opening up of the hidden things/revelation) can they/He be known.

My job is to study, seek, pray, and wait on God.  I have seen much of the doctrine discussed here, and have no argument with it.  When He is ready for me to see the rest in Him I'm sure I will.  Until then I want Him to be my primary pursuit, not the doctrine of UR.

I hope this makes sense.  I'm not saying I disdain this doctrine, nor your passions here to declare it.  I know you value it, first and foremost, because it is a wonderful means of declaring the wonders of the person of Christ.  I don't sense a need to be "right" on this forum, as much as I sense a jealousy for the truth as it is "in Christ."  I've been blessed here, in the few short days I've participated.


Thank you!
Tom
Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2007, 01:24:15 PM »

Hi Chris R,

I too am drawn to 1 Cor. 3:15.  I think it is one of the most fascinating verses in the entire bible, as relates to the theme of UR.

1Co 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.

In verse 11, Paul's "no man" sounds as though it's only logical connection is to "a believing man."
In verse 12, Paul's "any man" sounds once again to be connected with a believer only.
In verse 13, Paul's "every man" begins to make me wonder, if it is limited just to the believers.  It begins to sound far broader.
In verse 14, Paul's "any man" sounds once again to be referencing the work of the believer.
In verse 15, Paul's "any man" in connection with the work he refers to in verse 14, leads me to connect to a believer only.
But it is verse 16, that particularly seems to nail down who Paul has been referring to "Ye are the temple of God."  This can only refer to believers.

However, I note the intensely fascinating theme of the "fire" of God.  That which purges, and refines, as Ray so well points out.  The moment he pointed out that verse, and connected it with the UR theme, something powerful resonated within me.  Even those who so vehemently oppose the UR doctrine, have to come face to face with the great prophet Paul, and recognize he is looking far off into the prophetic distance, and seeing a fiery refining work of God.  Though it seems to be singly applied to the believer in this passage, I find myself wondering why those who oppose UR are so certain that the lake of fire doesn't partake of "ANY" of this refining potential.  If any one verse keeps bringing me back to UR to rethink it, it is this one.  If God can pass a believer through fire, and he comes forth improved, then why can such an experience not be useful to the unbeliever?  I have never read one single solid rebuttal of this logic by any scholar who opposes UR.

I wish Paul had gone beyond his clear reference to believers in this passage.  It is possible he has, in the sense that if he thinks of this fire as being the same as the lake of fire of the Revelation, which John references, and if there is in fact just one age to come fire, as there appears to be just one age to come judgment seat, then perhaps this resolves the question.  I for one have come to think that when Paul refers to the judgment seat of Christ, in 2 Cor. 5:10, he is seeing the exact same thing as John, who refers to it as the Great White throne judgment, of Rev. 20:11.  It seems unlikely to me that we are looking at two separate throne experiences.  All mankind passes through the judgment of that one throne.  Paul focuses the judgment seat of Christ on believers, whereas John makes a heavier focus on unbelievers, but they both appear to be one and the same throne, just given an emphasis on two different sets of people.

If this be so, then "could" the "no man, every man, any man's" of Paul's 1 Cor 3, just be his way of focusing on what all mankind will experience, with a special reference to the believer?  It seems at least possible.  I'm unable to be conclusive on this point, but I must admit it pushes me solidly towards the UR position, far more than it pushes me towards the traditional doctrine of eternal Hell.

If God can pass a believer through some form of spiritual fire, and we recognize that spiritual fire to be a part of the coming ages, and it has a positive benefit to the believer, then why can't the same fire, perhaps taking a longer period of time for refining, have the same positive effect upon all mankind?  At the very least this challenges solidly the notion that the lake of fire can only be an experience of tortuous misery.  It certainly won't be for us, so why would it "have" to be for them.  Uncomfortable for us...surely, but obviously not an endless discomfort.

Perhaps, as you say, God will continue to open my inner ear to these things, and confirm the truth of this position.  At the very least this verse has waaay opened my heart to the possibility that positive outcomes could come forth from such fires.

Thanks for your patience and instruction.  I'm receiving it!

Tom

Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2007, 01:32:15 PM »

Hi Rj,

That is a reasonable question.

In the past...perhaps a year ago, I emailed a couple of times to Ray, and he very graciously responded to me, and invited me to come out and visit him some time.  I would love to do so.

I guess I have shied away from passing by him every question that comes to my mind, as it is obvious he is extremely challenged by all the email that already comes to him, plus his studies and writing.  I suppose out of mercy for his busy schedule I've not written him again.  Plus, I know it is my job to read his writings, do my own study, pray, and wait on God.  I tend to believe in general that seeking counsel or insight from other men should be something the Spirit leads, so that we learn to turn to Him first rather than men.  Therefore, I only turn to men when I sense a distinct leading to do so.

In the case of my addressing some questions to this forum, I'd have to say I have felt led to do so.  And, the responses here have only confirmed that leading.  I'm blown away by the gracious reception my questions have received.

Thanks for the suggestion though.  I'll pray about it.  With someone of his stature in the kingdom I give great pause to consuming any of his personal time.  God will lead me...

Blessings
Tom
Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2007, 02:21:21 PM »


Hi Tom,

Quote
If this be so, then "could" the "no man, every man, any man's" of Paul's 1 Cor 3, just be his way of focusing on what all mankind will experience, with a special reference to the believer?  It seems at least possible.  I'm unable to be conclusive on this point, but I must admit it pushes me solidly towards the UR position, far more than it pushes me towards the traditional doctrine of eternal Hell.

I do agree with your understanding of 1 Cor. 3.  But if I way point out, Paul is mainly speaking of the believer here, but in verse 13 "each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it..."  'the Day' would that be the same 'day' for believers and unbelievers?  'That day' is referred to by Jesus as when many will call on Him, but will be turned away.

Mat 7:22  On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'...  'I never knew you; depart from me..."

But 'that day' is also for the believers.

2Th 1:10  "when He comes on that day to be glorified in His saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed."

And another point is the scripture in 1 Tim. that referrs to Christ as "the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe." 

1Tim 4:10  For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.

This verse includes all, both believers and unbelievers.
Just a few points I thought to bring out.

mercy, peace, and love
Kat


Logged

musicman

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2007, 02:50:30 PM »

The kingdom of heaven (Christ and His elect) is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid three measures of  meal, till the whole was leavened.
Cor. 5:6
No ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

Hey Tom, how bout some OT:

The Wave Sheaf (Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover) (includes Passover)-This represents Christ (the First of the firstfruits)

The Feast of Weeks is when the first fruits of the land is harvested.  This represents the elect who will be in the first resurrection.

Guess the rest are off to hell. . . unless:

The end of the year Feast of Ingathering (Feast of Tabernacles):
Thou shall observe The Feast of Tabernacles seven days after you have gathered in your corn and your wine.  And you shall rejoice in your feast, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger and the widow that are within your gates.


Ver. 23-24
Yet each in his own class:  the Firstfruit (Christ) thereupon those who are Christ's in His presensence: thereafter the consumation (end). . .
Ex. 23:16
. . . and the Feast of Ingathering of the Fall Harvest, which is in the end.

John 7:37-38
In the last day, that great day of the Feast (Tabernacles), Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink.  He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of Living Water.

I got all these things from Ray in one of his early Lake of Fire papers.




Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #49 on: June 26, 2007, 02:55:59 PM »

Kat,

I think you are right.  My wife and were just sitting at our breakfast table, discussing the things we are writing of here (parenthetically, I am so blessed with a mighty woman of God, and one equally committed to a biblical understanding of God's truth, as well as a profound love for Christ), and I think there is but one "Day," and it is a day, a judgment seat day, in which all mankind will face the truth as it is in Christ, and the outcomes will be varied, depending on the degree of reception of the truth in Christ.

It does not seem as if there are "Days," but one "Day."  A day of judgment.  It will be a day that is preceded by the fires of God, per 1 Cor 3, that purges the carnal works of the believer, and it is a day that is followed by the unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire.  Presumably their being cast there will have the same effect in their lives, as it had in the fire the believers went through, I.e. purging, purifying, and restoration.  I don't understand why traditional theology has so adamantly demanded it is of necessity endless in torture.  What could be the purpose of that?  How would that please and resolve anything in the Father?  I assume their conclusion, that it will be endless, is their linguistic analysis of eonian (Greek, aionios).  I think it is possible eonian could be understood idiomatically as endless, but I also think it could just as easily be stretching its meaning beyond what is logically necessary.  It feels to me like an eisogetical interpretation rather than an exegetical one.  I don't know why the greater part of christendom feels it must read into eonian an endless torment.  It mystifies me.  It's as if they have an emotional need to see it this way.  Much like men who can't stand the thought of women teaching them anything in Christ.  They read Paul's words through chauvinistic eyes, and see red when a woman of God tries to teach them anything.  Nonsense!

Yet, and I say this cautiously, but I don't want to interpret the lake of fire through emotional eyes either.  I don't want to find it so emotionally detestable to think that God could endlessly torture the lost, that my interpretation is based on my emotion of discomfort.  I can believe He could help me with this emotion in the ages to come.  I think it is preposterous to think He'd ever cause me to rejoice at the tortuous condition of the lost, but I can slightly imagine He could grant a grace I cannot now fathom, to handle the sorrow I would feel for the endless sufferings.  Do I think this will be the case?  I really don't know, and really do doubt it.  I think He has something else prepared, that He says very little of.

I'm less inclined to think of things as being an endless torture, and more inclined to think that annihilation will take place or redemption.  It seems biblically inconsistent to imagine an endless hell, no matter what anyone does with the word eonian.

Finally, I agree with you regarding 1 Tim 4:10.  I know the traditional interpretation is that Jesus is the savior of all mankind, even of those who reject His work at the cross, but who will never receive His savioral benefits, but this seems such a strained interpretation of this verse.  It is a strange verse indeed.  It does appear to me that Paul wants us to see that now He is the savior of those who believe, and later He will be the savior of those who do not now believe, but oh how I wish he had been just a little bit clearer on this point.  How I would love to be able to ask him if this is what he meant.  It would clear up so much.  There are so many places where just such an explanation would tip the scale towards UR and settle so much, but it is at just these points where silence prevails.

Thanks again!  Such edifying things!!!

Tom

Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #50 on: June 26, 2007, 02:59:38 PM »

Hi musican,

Yes, I have carefully studied Ray's teaching on the Feast of Tabernacles, and I too think it has great merit.  It may well resolve everything.

I'm continuing to pray and ponder his teaching.  I can't, at this point, see how he could be wrong.  This is one of the reasons I have a profound respect for Ray, even though I can't say I'm settled in the ultimate conclusions he has come to.  His reasoning is good, and his words are powerful. 

Thanks
Tom
Logged

skydreamers

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #51 on: June 26, 2007, 03:01:33 PM »

Hi Tom,

It's me again!  I hope you don't mind me responding to you yet again.  I am just so moved by your story.  And I can sense your appreciation of our great desire to see you set free from uncertainty.  The torment of not knowing for sure, one way or the other, is something I'm sure at least some of us here went through for a time.  I remember crying out to God in near anger asking, "Why can't you just make it clear??"  I was confused for a time and that was long before I found this forum.  But the Lord was faithful to clear things up for me, and we know He will do this for you too.

Quote
I'm truly and peacefully confident that if I keep my spiritual eyes on Him I will come to know even as I am known, all that I need to know.  No man can obtain revelation just because He wants it.  All such revelation is hidden within God, and only through apokaluptsis (an opening up of the hidden things/revelation) can they/He be known.

My job is to study, seek, pray, and wait on God.

A big amen to that!

Yes, when we focus on seeking to understand who our great God is, and what the nature of His heart is, than all other things will fall into place, I believe. 

It is beautifully apparent the great unconditional love you had for your son, despite his mistakes and trouble.  And God showed you  that your son will be safe, because in essence, it is impossible that you could love your son MORE than God loves him.  He is God's son first because God created him in the womb:

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things...

Tom, you said of your son:

Quote
...and I didn't want to spend eternity without him near me.

Dear Tom, the heart of our Father is greater than yours or mine, His love is more pure and more powerful than anything we can express.  Yet here you have spoken the heart of the Father....He surely does not want to spend eternity without ANY of His children....He will have ALL of them and not allow even one of them to go astray forever...

Luke 15:4
What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture, and go after the one which is lost, UNTIL he finds it?

Is God limited by space, time or even death in fulfilling His own will and desire?  Does Jesus have the keys to life and death but is unable or unwilling to use them?  Is there anything that can separate you from the love of God, and throw you either into a pit of fiery hell, or into the darkness of non-existence?

Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God will not have his children, all of them whom he fashioned in the womb, to be separated from Him forever.  It is not possible for His heart to live without them.  Because God is Love, and Love NEVER fails.

The love you have for your son and the grief you now feel, God feels it a hundred times more.  It grieves Him to have to conform children into His image in this way, but since God is all-knowing, we know there just simply is no other way. 

Lamentations 3:31-33
For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.

In fact, the methods God is using to create His family are the best way and one way or another, we WILL be a part of God's intimate family, intelligent and fully developed beings with Godly characters, just as He is. 

That's the whole purpose for why we are here and why we are going through all of this!  When God said, it is not good for man to be alone, He was expressing something about himself.  And one child just wasn't enough for Him!  He wants a family...

And he will yet fashion in all of us a heart that is like His, so that we can love Him and others with everything in us.

Jeremiah 24:7
I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.

Jeremiah 31:33-34
...I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
....for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


We can believe that God can do this with everyone because nothing is too hard for him.

Jeremiah 32:17
'Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who has made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.


God loves us with a love that is bigger than we can comprehend, but you need only look into your own heart, and see a glimmer of God's love in the love you have for your son and your wife.

1 John 4:9-10
By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.


2 Peter 3:9,15
The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

15 ...And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation


Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

God expects us to love our enemies because that's what he does!

The love of God burns up the dross in us, and what does fire leave behind but ashes...

Isaiah 61:1-3
The Spirit of the Lord God is on Me.... to comfort all who mourn...to give to them beauty for ashes...that He might be glorified

Peace,
Diana






 


 
Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #52 on: June 26, 2007, 03:28:42 PM »

Dear Diana,

Such an awesome array of scriptures, undoubtedly strung together by the heart of God.  Whew...

I quote three sections from your comments:

Quote
It is not possible for His heart to live without them.

I'm not sure why, but this phrase rings so deeply true within me.  I want to believe this is exactly how it is with the Father.  It is just such statements and scriptures that make me think I'm more wrestling with a skewed image of God, than with actual issues of theology.  I had a father that never had time or interest in me, as a child.  I know he loved me, but he never had time for me.  As a result, I've wrestled throughout my life with a clear sense of "worth" in the eyes of the father, and a clear comprehension of His love for me.

Quote
Jeremiah 24:7
I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.


The thing that strikes me about so many of these OT passages, is that when Jeremiah wrote this, he was referring far into the future, and applying it to a generation that all would die in Babylon.  The element of returning, which seems can only be understood in terms of those who are dead returning, leaves a clear impression of yet another day of processing before God...a day in which the workings of Messiah will have their intended effect...the restoration of their souls.  What else could Jeremiah have been referring to if not this???

Quote
Jeremiah 31:33-34
...I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
....for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more

Once again...the same thing.  If this isn't referring to those who have died in unbelief, and then a restoration, what does it mean???

Thank you very much for putting this string of verses together, and for your continued compassion towards my struggles.

I find myself wanting to get together with each of you, and just weep with appreciation for your compassion.  I have no doubt of your sincerity and profound love.


Peace in Him
Tom
Logged

lilitalienboi16

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #53 on: June 26, 2007, 03:56:05 PM »

Tom,

I see from your post that you are struggling with UR.  You think that is battle cry that we lead with here?  Though it may seem so, it should not be. 

The truth of scriptures as Ray teaches are for us to come through the fire, for us to die to our old selfs, to reveal the man of perdition and allow Christ to live in us and through us.  As you stated, many things are preached from the pulpit that are not there or not emphasized.  Perhaps in God's view UR is not the most important thing?

UR is there, make no mistake, but is only the milk or the word, and most make a habit of trying to live on the milk only, or become a connoisseur of the flavors of the milk.  I pray that we do not do that here, and if that is your impression I am sorry.  Again, UR is not emphasized because it is not the most important thing.

Craig

Hey Craig, great post and i agree!

It's but the milk, and though i'm not fully able to eat all the meat, atleast i can taste some of it ^^

God bless,

Alex

P.S. Hello tom, great to have you here, i pray God opens your eyes and ears to His wonderful truths =], Love to you brother!

Logged

lilitalienboi16

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #54 on: June 26, 2007, 04:08:20 PM »

Hi musican,

Yes, I have carefully studied Ray's teaching on the Feast of Tabernacles, and I too think it has great merit.  It may well resolve everything.

I'm continuing to pray and ponder his teaching.  I can't, at this point, see how he could be wrong.  This is one of the reasons I have a profound respect for Ray, even though I can't say I'm settled in the ultimate conclusions he has come to.  His reasoning is good, and his words are powerful. 

Thanks
Tom

Someone told me in another thread that we sit in the likes of Timothy and Jeremiah! How amazing is that?

Made me aw-struck, hehe, to truly realize God is alive, and does speak! He moves, He lives! He is at work here!

What a wonderful Father we have =]

Love and more love!!

Alex
Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #55 on: June 26, 2007, 06:14:24 PM »

Here's a thought to throw into the "emphasis" mix...

When we read the OT, and consider OT kingdom theology, most everyone recognizes that traditional Jewish Kingdom Theology clearly believed that ALL Jews would one day be resurrected from the dead and brought into the heavenly kingdom of God. 

In Jesus' day, the only exception to this belief was among the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection.  But obviously Jesus wasn't aligned with their theology.

Just by Jesus' aligning with the Pharisees, who did believe in a universal resurrection and inclusion in the kingdom of God, at least for all Jews, it seems we see something very significant.

Over and over again, throughout the prophets, they prophesy about a restored Israel, in a kingdom age of unparalleled glory. Because of their confused bias, at seeing this either completely as a Jewish kingdom, or at the very least a primarily Jewish kingdom, their emphasis was towards the Jews, but we now recognize God had something far broader than just the Jewish nation in mind, for His kingdom.

As the prophets prophesy, they continually see things for the nation that seem to make no sense at all if the entire Jewish ancestry is not raised from the dead and given an opportunity, afresh and anew, to know the Messiah.  Even those who are led to Babylon and Assyria in captivity, are prophesied to in ways that were designed to encourage repentance and hope for a time after their death, FOR THE ENTIRE NATION.  How else to understand their prophecies, if they were only meant for the very last generation of Jews to whom the gospel would finally make sense to, and who would repent in this life and get saved?  The result would be little more than a small handful of Jews saved, from their inception as a nation.  This hardly aligns with the magnitude of hope for Israel, that the Jewish prophets prophecied of.

A general flaw of Jewish Messianism, and the Kingdom Age, was their belief that simply because they were Jews they would receive the Kingdom, but certainly we know that the repentance component can not be removed from this hope, even if they missed understanding this requirement.  Surely we would have to anticipate Messiah wouldn't just gloss over their sins and former rejection of Messiah.  We would have to anticipate there being some form of conviction, confrontation of unbelief, and repentance.  Yet, interestingly, there is very little said of this in typical traditional Church theology.  I've always found this omission strange.

This prophetic theme has nagged at my heart for a long time, and over the last year, of pondering UR, its nagging has only increased.  What does Hosea mean, if His promises don't speak of this hope?

I don't remember Ray specifically teaching on this element of Jewish theology.  Does he have an article that specifically deals with Jewish prophetic kingdom theology, and its application to the whole world?

Thanks again!
Tom
Logged

Chris R

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2007, 09:41:12 PM »

Hello Tom,

Ray often quotes Isaiah 26:9 "When thy judgements are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness" I find this verse to encompass the ideal that all men "inhabitants of the world" will learn righteousness, and if ALL men learn what is right, of what value is it to them?

Second witness;

"For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." [Hab 2:14] Again, of what value is this knowledge if not to redeem those learning?

The cause of judgment is to set things right, "The Reckoning", And if the two verses above are worth the paper their written on, there can be no other explanation as to the meaning.

If you examine the OT text, you will ultimately find nothing that supports the idea of a eternal torture chamber, were non believers are burned in torment forever, the concept is nowere to be found in the scriptures.

Eternal torment has absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever, it is an enigma, it cannot possibly bring about any GOOD...so to what use is it?  Even the brightest best theological minds in the world argue over such a simple statement, What GOOD comes from eternal punishment?

That being said, as has been stated, this is not the overwhelming principle taught on bibletruths.com It is merely milk to those who have looked beyond the ridiculous doctrine of eternal torment/annihilation.



Peace

Chris R
Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #57 on: June 26, 2007, 09:59:23 PM »

Hi Tom,

My reading of Hosea, shows that Israel is a example or type, that foreshadows the great harlot of Rev 19:2  "For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her."
Just as all Israel had gone astray, so have all the generations up to this present day.  And there is a lot of talk in Hosea, of the severe judgments which will be upon them in the day of judgment.  But the last chapter of Hosea show that they will return to the Lord.

The chosen are now the Jews not by birth, but by a circumcised heart.

Rom 2:28  For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
v. 29  but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Now these chosen to be Jews, will also judge the Jewish nation.

Rom 2:27  And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?

I'm not sure this is exactly what you were talking about, but I thought I would share what I see in Hosea.

mercy, peace, and love
Kat


Logged

GODSown1

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #58 on: June 26, 2007, 10:21:25 PM »

Hey TOM,
           I feel 4 U ma brother in CHRIST, I know u r so right der r no wordz d@ could discribe how U feel thru wot happened wit ur son, Tears jus rolled down ma cheeks 4 da sadness U mustve felt & probably still do, but Joy also came withn as wen I read d@ my mind went right 2 JESUS!, & our FATHER! who gav us His son so d@ We will know! da TRUTH!!!!. GODBLESS! U Tom & may HE Comfort & bring Peace withn in which I can already hear in ur writings HES workin in U Hardowt!!, Blessngz 2 u & ur wife Tom, keep up da GOOD work n CHRIST JESUS Amen!.
            much muchLOVE!! Pera

ps. & U r so rite id so LOVE! 2 meet n b around all of da pple in dis forum (literally) & pple of likeminds 2, PEACE!! bro
Logged

Tom

  • Guest
Re: A question of NT emphasis
« Reply #59 on: June 26, 2007, 10:29:23 PM »

Chris R,

So many verses in the OT make little sense without a UR understanding.

I agree, as regards the lack of discussion of anything that looks like a doctrine of endless Hell in the OT.  When I find someone I think I can trust to not pounce on me as a heretic, for even thinking about the UR doctrine, I will often ask them the following question: "If you only had the OT to teach of an endless and tormentous Hell, where would take me to see that approach?"  It leaves them stumped.  There are a couple of verses in Isaiah that look somewhat inclined in that direction, but given Isaiah is just one book, and does not represent early theological understandings in the earth, if the majority of OT peoples are destined to an eternal Hell, without ever being warned of its excrutiating nature, how would that be just?  It is, to my way of thinking, a compelling argument.

I know my wus approach to not wanting to be considered a heretic could be considered pretty sick, but to my way of thinking, until I'm settled in my understanding of this issue, I'm not going to blow the emotions and hearts of those I relate closely to, prematurely.  I did it one time before, in my early studies of UR, and you would have thought I had come right out and told them I considered Jesus to be the devil.  I'll take the heat when I'm clear and confirmed in it, but for now I'm pretty careful about who I talk about these things to.

Thanks again for the perspective.

I know there are many deeper issues in our walk with Christ, than just UR, but for now it is one area I'm seeking light and settling in.  Thanks for indulging my hunger for truth.

Tom

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.107 seconds with 26 queries.