[Moparbyfar]

[QUOTE=classyT;1345295]

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.

Thankfully we know that from Rev 20:14 that eventually "death will be thrown into the lake of fire." As death can't literally be tormented it makes sense that the lake of fire and sulphur is symbolic. The thing I am scared of, well no, wary of, is falling out of God's favor and missing out on the wonderful reward of life forever on paradise earth.
The fact too that Satan is to be thrown into the lake of fire also tells us that it can't be literal because he being a spirit creature cannot be harmed by such elements as fire.

[Tj3]

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?

Why do you say that she is protestant? Perhaps you should ask rather than judge. I am not protestant. I also think that you need to be careful to be fair in dealing with her comments. Did you notice what she said here?

"And by the way, PLEASE do not take offense by any of this..i am just asking. I'm not putting catholicism down"

Take her at her word, rather than accusing her of doing what she said that she was not doing.

How does your answer, which says to tell the church leaders, work if the person in your example is complaining about the Church leaders?

How does what work? Where doers scripture say to obey church leaders, right or wrong?

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.

First, what if it is a church leader who is in rebellion against the word of God?

Second, if the Bible does not teach this approach (as I showed from the Bible), then by what authority should man put such an approach in place?

There are ways to deal with a person who is poisoning a congregation, but that was not the question at hand. What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".

[Tj3]

Thankfully we know that from Rev 20:14 that eventually "death will be thrown into the lake of fire." As death can't literally be tormented it makes sense that the lake of fire and sulphur is symbolic.

The conclusion is unwarranted. What that means is that there will be no more death. Death came into the world through Satan and his demons. Once Satan and His demons are literally thrown into the lake of fire, their rebellion will be over and there will be no more death.

[classyT]

Once again I agree with you Tj3!

Moparbyfar,

Why do you think that a spirit can't be harmed by elements such as fire. If you read the story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man, the rich man was in torment. He was dead and therefore a spirit. He surely was in agony he SAID so.

[Moparbyfar]

The conclusion is unwarranted. What that means is that there will be no more death. Death came into the world through Satan and his demons. Once Satan and His demons are literally thrown into the lake of fire, their rebellion will be over and there will be no more death.

Exactly! If death is to become no more by being thrown into the lake of fire, then the same goes for humans and Satan. They are simply no more. They cease to exist. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Moparbyfar]

If you read the story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man, the rich man was in torment. He was dead and therefore a spirit. He surely was in agony he SAID so.

Thought you may have already seen my post to InSorrow who also mentioned the illustration of Lazarus and the rich man (how is it then that we see ghosts and spirits?) I'll not go over it all again for the sake of the OP but I did explain the meaning of this parable there.
At the end of the day, we disagree I know that much :p but I will never consider God to be so hateful that he would allow humans to be tortured (who live comparatively short lives on earth) literally for the rest of eternity! That just doesn't fit God's personality.
1 John 4:8 says "God is love." For example Deut 25:4 shows this in his command "You must not muzzle a bull while it is threshing." What care and concern he showed even for the animals!
Jeremiah 7:31 speaks of the horrific practice many were involved in of burning their children as sacrifices in the Valley of Hinnom a thing that God had not commanded and had not come up into his heart. If this kind of thing wasn't in his heart, do you think something on a larger scale like hell would be?

[Tj3]

Exactly! If death is to become no more by being thrown into the lake of fire, then the same goes for humans and Satan. They are simply no more. They cease to exist. Thanks for clearing that up.

They do not cease to exist. Quite the contrary!

Rev 14:11
1 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

Rev 20:9-10
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
NKJV

[Moparbyfar]

They do not cease to exist. Quite the contrary!

Rev 14:11
1 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

Rev 20:9-10
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
NKJV

By looking back to the time of Isaiah, the nation of Edom was condemned by God, (Isa 34:9,10) and we can get an idea of what being "tormented forever and ever" really means. Rather than the whole nation being pitched into some mythical lake of fire, Edom was completely wiped out and disappeared from the world scene as if consumed by fire and sulphur. The final result was not literal eternal torture but emptiness, nothingness. (Isa 34:11,12)
Think of a house which has burnt to the ground. Smoke still ascends from the ashes for some time after the flames have died down, giving evidence to onlookers that fire has destroyed something.
Today, people still remember the lesson learned from Edom's destruction and in this way the 'smoke of her burning' is still ascending in a symbolic way.
Those who have the mark of the beast will also be destroyed as if by fire. How will they be tormented? By way of the truth which exposes them and their deeds, and warns them of God's coming judgment.
Once they have been totally destroyed by God, "the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever" - in other words, their final judgement serving as a reminder, just as Edom's fate does for us, to those observing.

[Tj3]

By looking back to the time of Isaiah, the nation of Edom was condemned by God, (Isa 34:9,10) and we can get an idea of what being "tormented forever and ever" really means. Rather than the whole nation being pitched into some mythical lake of fire, Edom was completely wiped out and disappeared from the world scene as if consumed by fire and sulphur. The final result was not literal eternal torture but emptiness, nothingness. (Isa 34:11,12)

This passage does not speak of eternal torment.

Isa 34:11-1
11 But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it,
Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it.
And He shall stretch out over it
The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.
12 They shall call its nobles to the kingdom,
But none shall be there, and all its princes shall be nothing.
NKJV

Therefore is not a comparable situation.

[Moparbyfar]

This passage does not speak of eternal torment.

Isa 34:11-1
11 But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it,
Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it.
And He shall stretch out over it
The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.
12 They shall call its nobles to the kingdom,
But none shall be there, and all its princes shall be nothing.
NKJV

Therefore is not a comparable situation.

Certainly in Isa 34:9,10 it tells of Edom's land becoming like burning pitch and night and day it would not be extinguished, that to time indefinite it's smoke would keep ascending. Many believe that Rev 14:9-11 proves that hellfire is literal but in actual fact there is no mention of these ones being tormented forever, but rather the smoke that ascends forever and ever. By comparing Isa 34:9,10 we get a clue as to what this smoke symbolizes - evidence that the fire and sulphur has done it's work of complete and total destruction. That is basically what I was trying to get across.
... and yes I know you'll be waving Rev 20:10 at me but the 'wild beast' and 'the false prophet' and death and Hades are not literal persons so therefore cannot experience conscious torment. G. B. Caird wrote in A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, “the lake of fire” means “extinction and total oblivion.” This conclusion is easily reached when reading Rev 20:14 "This means the second death, the lake of fire."
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here :p;) but I do find great interest in reading your posts.

[Tj3]

Certainly in Isa 34:9,10 it tells of Edom's land becoming like burning pitch and night and day it would not be extinguished, that to time indefinite it's smoke would keep ascending.

Isa 34:9-10
9 Its streams shall be turned into pitch,
And its dust into brimstone;
Its land shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.
NKJV

Note the timeframe in which this occurs:

Isa 34:1-2
Come near, you nations, to hear;
And heed, you people!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
The world and all things that come forth from it.
2 For the indignation of the LORD is against all nations,
And His fury against all their armies;
He has utterly destroyed them,
He has given them over to the slaughter.
NKJV

This is God's judgment against the world. A future event.

[wildandblue]

I think we all need to worried about our own salvation rather than what will befall those who refuse to enter God's kingdom, their fate is really up to God, not us.
TJ3 could you possibly answer my question,
{ I didn't realize I needed to be politically correct here, What is wrong with those Catholics anyway but I don't mean to offend anyone} there how's that. Classyt has a fully functional keyboard so I don't think you need to jump in and accuse me of judging her, she can speak for herself I'm sure. As far as I know anyone who isn't a Catholic Is a protestant, and anyone who asks this Q and states that they disagree with a priest over whether what those Catholics are doing is scriptural, is obviously not Catholic. But your reply seems to indicate that she should somehow be bringing the Catholics before her own church leaders and deciding whether to disfellowship them? That is what I don't follow. How can someone who has already been excommunicated now say that the Catholics should be kicked out of Their church? They are already separated. Anyway my question had to do with, we know these divisions exist. How do you propose we fix them? That is what I was curious to have your view on.

[Moparbyfar]

[QUOTE=Tj3;

Note the timeframe in which this occurs:

Isa 34:1-2
Come near, you nations, to hear;
And heed, you people!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
The world and all things that come forth from it.
2 For the indignation of the LORD is against all nations,
And His fury against all their armies;
He has utterly destroyed them,
He has given them over to the slaughter.
NKJV

This is God judgment against the world. A future event.[/QUOTE]

Note vs 5 of Isa 34 which says "For in the heavens my sword will certainly be drenched. Look! Upon E′dom it will descend, and upon the people devoted by me to destruction in justice. 6 YHWH has a sword; it must be filled with blood; it must be made greasy with the fat, with the blood of young rams and he-goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For YHWH has a sacrifice in Boz′rah, and a great slaughtering in the land of E′dom."

The whole earth is to hear and take note of Edom's fate (vs 1,2). I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by "timeframe."

[Tj3]

Note vs 5 of Isa 34 which says "For in the heavens my sword will certainly be drenched. Look! Upon E′dom it will descend, and upon the people devoted by me to destruction in justice. 6 YHWH has a sword; it must be filled with blood; it must be made greasy with the fat, with the blood of young rams and he-goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For YHWH has a sacrifice in Boz′rah, and a great slaughtering in the land of E′dom."

The whole earth is to hear and take note of Edom's fate (vs 1,2). I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by "timeframe."

Your comments above change nothing. I explained what "timeframe" means. I said, and I repeat:

"This is God's judgment against the world. A future event."

BTW, a sidenote - I don't know what you are doing when you quote, but you need that closing square bracket after the "quote=Tj3" or whoever's comment that you are copying to cause it to create the quote box. Anytime that there is a starting square bracket, that "quote" tag must be closed with a second closing square bracket.

[Tj3]

I think we all need to worried about our own salvation rather than what will befall those who refuse to enter God's kingdom, their fate is really up to God, not us.

I think that we need to make sure that they hear the gospel.

Ezek 33:12-16
12 "Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of your people: 'The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day that he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins.' 13 "When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. 14 Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
NKJV

Classyt has a fully functional keyboard so I don't think you need to jump in and accuse me of judging her, she can speak for herself I'm sure.

I am a person who has a strong sense of fairness, and I do not like to see anyone treated like that. If more people would take a stand when they see such behaviour, I expect that people would be less quick to make such inappropriate and unfair comments. I would defend you if you were treated likewise, as I have defended others who were have various denominations, religions, cults and even one person who was virulently anti-Christian. It has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness (if you know me, you will know that you clearly have the wrong number there), but everything to do with taking a stand for what is right and for demonstrating one's profession of faith in Christ affects how to interact with the world.

As far as I know anyone who isn't a Catholic Is a protestant,

That is where you are wrong. I don't intend to get into great detail on this, but I will give one example. Look up the history of Anabaptists. They were attacked (literally) by both protestants and Catholics because they were neither.

I am also neither protestant or Catholic. Though I accept that there can be believers in both, all who profess the name of Christ are required to submit themselves to the word of God. I do not condemn denominations, but when the denomination is no longer the servant but the master, and when a denomination claims that you must obey it, then they have gone beyond what scripture permits - and I don't care if denomination is Catholic or Protestant.

and anyone who asks this Q and states that they disagree with a priest over whether what those Catholics are doing is scriptural, is obviously not Catholic.

And if you have seen me in other discussions and seen that i question catholic teachings and Protestant teachings, then by your own logic, I am not catholic and I am not protestant. What do you do then? Why must you label everybody? The only label that I accept is that I am a Christian.

But your reply seems to indicate that she should somehow be bringing the Catholics before her own church leaders and deciding whether to disfellowship them?

I cannot even comprehend how you manipulated what i said to come to that conclusion. What I said, and I will repeat, was:

"There are ways to deal with a person who is poisoning a congregation, but that was not the question at hand. What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong"."

Perhaps you can tell me how you arrived at your conclusion from that statement.

Further, if you read the rest of what i said on this topic, you will see that I also said:

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.

Where exactly do you see me supporting disfellowshipping or excommunication?

[Moparbyfar]

I explained what "timeframe" means. I said, and I repeat:
"This is God's judgment against the world. A future event."

Umm yes a future event that happened to Edom. This is pretty obvious in this chapter, but maybe not to some...
Hehe, thanks for the sidenote too - I guess that's imperfection for you! I had intended to insert quote tags but forgot. :o

[wildandblue]

Look up the history of Anabaptists? If you knew me, you would know that my family at one time WERE Anabaptists. These later divisions can call themselves anything they want to, it does not change the fact that they basically want to go off in their own direction rather than follow an established church. Just the fact that there are so many divisions now tells us that fracturing the body of Christ seems to be the in thing to do rather than working together for the good of all.

[Tj3]

Look up the history of Anabaptists? If you knew me, you would know that my family at one time WERE Anabaptists.

Then I am surprised that you are not aware of the history.

These later divisions can call themselves anything they want to, it does not change the fact that they basically want to go off in their own direction rather than follow an established church.

There were Christians who were not members of what you call the "established church" throughout history from the first century onward. So what is your point? What would you call Christians from the time of Christ's death and resurrection on the cross until the creation of the first denomination (Roman Catholicism) in 325AD?

Why do you think that only Constantine had the right to create a denomination?

Just the fact that there are so many divisions now tells us that fracturing the body of Christ seems to be the in thing to do rather than working together for the good of all.

How can the body of Christ be fractured by those who refuse to go alone with non-Biblical doctrines and practices within one or another denomination? The body of Christ is not a denomination, but the body of all believers in Christ. If we took that approach, then you would saying that there was no body of Christ until Constantine created it.

[wildandblue]

Well if those people could somehow trace their ancestry back to the time of Christ, then we'd have something. But most of us have no idea about our family line back beyond a few generations. And a church that split off from a church that broke away from another church ad nauseum doesn't need to be telling everyone else what true worship is. So maybe you and I agree after all. Cool!

[Tj3]

well if those people could somehow trace their ancestry back to the time of Christ, then we'd have something.

Why does genealogy matter? Very few people can trace their family tree back that far, and I suspect that would include you.

Titus 3:9
9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
NKJV

Why do you think that to trace your genealogy back to the 1st century means anything?

But most of us have no idea about our family line back beyond a few generations.

And scripture says to argue about that is foolish.

And a church that split off from a church that broke away from another church ad nauseum doesn't need to be telling everyone else what true worship is.

What is your point? Are you saying that when Constantine started the first denomination, that the Roman Catholic church was not legit because it broke away from any churches which chose not to go along with the Roman Emperor?

Let's look at what scripture says about division:

Paul divided with others for the sake of truth:

Gal 4:15-17
15 What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
NKJV

Who then is it who is divisive when divisions occur? Those who are in apologetics or polemics ministries are often called “divisive”. Are those who divide from a church or organization which is teaching wrong doctrine in the wrong? What does Paul says about this type of division?

1 Cor 11:18-20
18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
NKJV

Divisions are not desirable, but divisions are necessary in the physical church between those who are in Christ and those who are not. We find this elsewhere in scripture. What message does this verse give in the original Greek languagge? The word which ios translated in English as "factions" is "hairesis" in Greek, which means:

Hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is); from NT:138; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion: KJV - heresy [which is the Greek word itself], sect.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Which is where our word "heresies" comes from. Therefore this verse could rightly be translated as:

1 Cor 11:19
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Thus it is not division which is wrong, but is the false teaching which is wrong. We must therefore examine doctrine, and yes, examine the doctrine of church organizations and when they have strayed too far from sound doctrine, we must divide from them.

Keep in mind that Paul commended the Bereans for getting into God's word to test to see if what he said was true, therefore no church, or church leader today should claim exemption from that same examination being brought to their teachings by members of the body of Christ.