Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhadsen

De Maria,

Let's look at that text again:

in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days
of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight
persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Peter 3:19,20 NASB)

Claiming that those who Christ made proclamation to in prison were actually
in God's grace and friendship goes against the very clear reason why God
brought the flood. God tells us why he did it in Genesis:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and
that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in
His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the
face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the
sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." (Genesis 6:5-7 NASB)

It's clear from 1 Peter 3:19-20 that the folks that Christ made proclamation to "in prison" were connected to the account of Noah and the Ark. It's also clear why God sent the flood and destroyed those not in the Ark. Therefore to say that those that Christ was making proclamation to in prison were in God's grace and friendship is clearly mistaken.

Rob

---

Two things.

1. You are being overly literal on the account of the flood. We know by reason that even in the time of Noah, there were children. And children could not be accused of heinous sin.

2. Lets go over the account by Peter and see what he says about those in prison:

19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe,...

So, their sin was INCREDULITY. But none the less, they were waiting for God's patience to wear out with the people's actions.

Incredulity means, in my opinion, that they didn't believe Noah. But otherwise, they seem to have been awaiting God's salvation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Two things.

1. You are being overly literal on the account of the flood. We know by reason that even in the time of Noah, there were children. And children could not be accused of heinous sin.

2. Lets go over the account by Peter and see what he says about those in prison:

19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, .....

So, their sin was INCREDULITY. But none the less, they were waiting for God's patience to wear out with the people's actions.

Incredulity means, in my opinion, that they didn't believe Noah. But otherwise, they seem to have been awaiting God's salvation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

De Maria,

Okay, let me make sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

1) Are you arguing then, that it's the children who died during the flood who are being held in the prison mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19?

2) It seems to me that you are saying that those who died in the flood were merely guilty of not believing Noah. Is that accurate?

Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria [QUOTE

children could not be accused of heinous sin.

---

Although it seems to us that children are innocent, their parents are responsible for teaching them to love God and his standards and there are numerous occasions recorded in the bible where children have lost their lives due to their parents bad decisions.

Does the bible not tell us that ALL have sinned and far short of the glory of God

TJ3, what about the story of Saul and Samuel at 1Sam 28: 4--18. Did Samuel actually come back from the dead or was that just a demon or the witchcraft tricking Saul?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildandblue

TJ3, what about the story of Saul and Samuel at 1Sam 28: 4--18. Did Samuel actually come back from the dead or was that just a demon or the witchcraft tricking Saul?

---

It appears from what I read that it was Samuel, permitted to speak to Saul to pronounce God's judgment on him in part for calling up the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildandblue [QUOTE

Did Samuel actually come back from the dead or was that just a demon or the witchcraft tricking Saul?

---

Considering that divination is despised by God, and elsewhere in the bible it gives us evidence that the dead are not conscious, the obvious conclusion is that this was in fact Satanic trickery. Remember that Saul had fallen out of God's favor, so he was more prone to Satan's snares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

Considering that divination is despised by God, and elsewhere in the bible it gives us evidence that the dead are not conscious, the obvious conclusion is that this was in fact Satanic trickery. Remember that Saul had fallen out of God's favor, so he was more prone to Satan's snares.

---

Good points. What makes me think that this was an exception was that "Samuel" did pronounce a condemnation on Saul for his wrongful activities, and that pronouncement came to pass. This would be unlikely for Satan.

In either case, this incident provided no comfort for those who think that it is acceptable to pray to the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3[QUOTE

"Samuel" did pronounce a condemnation on Saul for his wrongful activities, and that pronouncement came to pass. This would be unlikely for Satan.

---

When Samuel was alive he refused to have anything to do with Saul after God rejected him, and also refused to have anything to do with spirit mediums, so I'm sure no condemned spirit medium could force him to do after his death what he'd refused to do while still alive.

The so called prediction of Saul's future proves that spirits know when one is no longer in God's favor especially when turning to something as condemned as spiritism. So this particular spirit quite reasonably saw an unfavorable future for Saul and his sons. One of the most important things to remember from this passage is that Satan and his demons are liars and frauds.

For the OP's sake, I am Christian and do not pray to or through Mary or find any evidence in the bible of a literal hell/purgatory. God is far too loving to create something so heinous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3
[QUOTE

ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong

---

Shouldn't the leadership be following God's Word though? So shouldn't this mean that they should be cut off from the fellowship for disagreeing with God to avoid any further "poisoning" within the congregation?
This was most certainly practiced and encouraged by Paul and his fellow christians in the first century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

When Samuel was alive he refused to have anything to do with Saul after God rejected him, and also refused to have anything to do with spirit mediums, so I'm sure no condemned spirit medium could force him to do after his death what he'd refused to do while still alive.

The so called prediction of Saul's future proves that spirits know when one is no longer in God's favor especially when turning to something as condemned as spiritism. So this particular spirit quite reasonably saw an unfavorable future for Saul and his sons. One of the most important things to remember from this passage is that Satan and his demons are liars and frauds.

---

Well clearly we see this passage differently, but nonetheless I think that we agree on the underlying principle and that is that it is an abomination to God to communicate or pray to gthe dead.

Quote:

---

For the OP's sake, I am Christian and do not pray to or through Mary or find any evidence in the bible of a literal hell/purgatory. God is far too loving to create something so heinous.

---

Purgatory we agree upon because it is not found in scripture, but hell is clearly taught in scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

Shouldn't the leadership be following God's Word though? So shouldn't this mean that they should be cut off from the fellowship for disagreeing with God to avoid any further "poisoning" within the congregation?
This was most certainly practiced and encouraged by Paul and his fellow christians in the first century.

---

What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".

I'd like to make two points about this:

1) Disagreeing with the leadership does not mean that the person is in any way in conflict with the word of God. The leadership should be following the word of God, but just because a person is in a leadership position in a church does not mean that they are. Nowhere in scripture will you find the leadership of a church exempt from the challenge of rebuke and correction spoken of in 2 Tim 3:16.

2) How should you treat a person who is in the wrong?

Matt 18:17
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
NKJV

How do you treat a heathen or tax collector according to scripture? With love and a desire to bring them into a right relationship with God.

Gal 6:1-4
6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
NKJV

This is not typical of excommunication or disfellowshipping.

Just read "The Great Controversy." That ought to answer a lot of questions you have on Catholicism and Christianity (as well as their origins). Remember, the whole reason the protestants split from the Catholic church is because they persecuted them and [esp.] the Bible. Tyranny best marks them and their fascist Jesuits.
Traditions of men are nothing if they aren't supported by the Word of God (most accurate=KJV), NOT "church fathers."

Hope that helps. And yes, I agree- they are VERY different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7Arwen

Just read "The Great Controversy." That ought to answer a lot of questions you have on Catholicism and Christianity (as well as their origins). Remember, the whole reason the protestants split from the Catholic church is because they persecuted them and [esp.] the Bible. Tyranny best marks them and their fascist Jesuits.
Traditions of men are nothing if they aren't supported by the Word of God (most accurate=KJV), NOT "church fathers."

Hope that helps. and yes, i agree- they are VERY different.

---

I would not recommend this book, but if anyone chooses to read the book, I would recommend learning a bit about the author:

Ellen White: Gnostic False Prophetess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3[QUOTE

hell is clearly taught in scripture.

---

Not a LITERAL hell. Only a symbolic one.

There has to be some discipline! Remember Korah opposed Moses, and the earth opened up and swallowed him? But that's been done, guys, anyway if it happened all the time there wouldn't be too many of us left. Jesus chose the Apostles and wanted them to carry on after his death on the cross. You have to have respect for the holy spirit poured out on the leaders. Back when the Levite priests stood up with the Urim and Thumin, the decision was final, you couldn't yell "best out of three" for example.
Maybe if the Bible had been translated earlier like some wanted the people would have had more time to remove or paraphrase the passages they didn't agree with? Since it survived intact for so long in a form maybe not the easiest read, the original intentions can still be gleaned. I mean have you read some of those later versions out there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".

I'd like to make two points about this:

1) Disagreeing with the leadership does not mean that the person is in any way in conflict with the word of God. the leadership should be following the word of God, but just because a person is in a leadership position in a church does not mean that they are. Nowhere in scripture will you find the leadership of a church exempt from the challenge of rebuke and correction spoken of in 2 Tim 3:16.

2) How should you treat a person who is in the wrong?

Matt 18:17
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
NKJV

How do you treat a heathen or tax collector according to scripture? With love and a desire to bring them into a right relationship with God.

Gal 6:1-4
6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
NKJV

This is not typical of excommunication or disfellowshipping.

---

Absolutely agree there! Yes there are certain steps to take to get members/leaders back on track and in one accord and only when they persistently rebel should they be disfellowshipped.

[QUOTE=Moparbyfar;1345137][QUOTE=Tj3
Not a LITERAL hell. Only a symbolic one.[/QUOTE]

Not a literal hell? Hmmm... I believe in Revelation it says.. that all that were not found written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. It is LITERAL... scary too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Not a literal hell? Hmmm... I believe in Revelation it says..that all that were not found written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. It is LITERAL...scary too.

---

Quote right. Indeed scripture goes farther:

Rev 14:10-11
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
NKJV

That torment is literal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".



1) Disagreeing with the leadership does not mean that the person is in any way in conflict with the word of God. the leadership should be following the word of God, but just because a person is in a leadership position in a church does not mean that they are.
Matt 18:17
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
NKJV
Gal 6:1-4
6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
This is not typical of excommunication or disfellowshipping.

---

TJ3, the whole point of this question is the OP, quite obviously Protestant is asking where did those Catholics get all their heretical ideas, anyhow, why are they like that?
How does your answer, which says to tell the church leaders, work if the person in your example is complaining about the Church leaders? That seems to be a circular argument. If a person is confirmed in their rebellion, sort of like a prodigal son, he is disfellowshipped lest he damage the faith of other people and lead them astray.
But those people are mostly dead and it's not for us to judge them.
Where does that leave a person today, they were born into a Protestant denomination, their parents were, they themselves didn't leave any church, it happened generations ago? Should they take Paul's advice to serve God in whatever circumstance they found themselves when they first accepted Christ, slave, freeman, married, single etc?