Works instead of grace.

It's consistent....

Those who believe a person can lose salvation don't believe in salvation by grace - they just usually aren't as direct as this poster is.

And there is a difference between having one's name blotted out of the book of life - because everyone starts there - and losing salvation because only those trust God's grace are saved.

I'm not discounting grace at all.

Heard of these; Faith without works is dead? Be ye doers not just hearers? If you love me obey my commandments? Do my fathers commandments?

Rich man asks; Great master, what shall I DO to inherit eternal life? Christ didn't correct him and say "nah son, just believe", he refered to the rules he wanted the rich man to obey/follow.

Grace is a free undeserved gift from God. Its our job to not give it up by disobeying, being rebellious and unrepentant (ie not doing). Satan is the perfect example of disobedience and we know his fate. I honestly dont understand what your argument is.

Well, Yeah. Holy rollers. Dogma chasers. Whatever. They're those lazy sunday church goers that perpetuate lies about the word. For instance: people who lap up the idea that God is a sadist by touting the everlasting torture a person will suffer eternally in a fire, when revelations clearly states that the lake of fire is the SECOND DEATH. Man is appointed to die once, but this is a second death, mentioned 4 times in rev.  Not forever living eternally in a fire, but being thrown into a fire that burns eternally and the result is DEATH. Burned up, gone, never to exist again, final, erased, DEAD. Still though they hold on to laz and the rich man, but it was simply a parable because the dead know or feel nothing per ecc 9:5.

These lies and misinformation/misinterpretations aid in turning people from God because they don't make sense. And telling people all they have to do is just believe and nothing else, no doing, no works on repentance, just sit on your but and believe, is dangerous and leads people to sin.

Sometimes, I think God allowed the scriptures to be just a little confusing so we would have to search the scriptures (all of them to build precept upon precept) to find the truth and find Him. ymmv

The Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ when He gave the keys to Peter. All those Protestant religions are new.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Sorry, not buying it. Go read the four seperate instances in the same book that call the lake of fire the second death, who is cast into it and why, then get back to me.

ETA: the above says the "smoke" of their torment will rise forever, not their existance (alive) in a fire forever. Smoke is the remnants of an act of destruction. Burn a pile of leaves and that smoke goes up forever into atmosphere (eventaully settles sure), but those leaves are destroyed. No rest day or night while they exist, until they are destroyed by the sulfur and fire.

Protestantism may be relatively new compared to the Catholic Church but you shouldn't be dismissive of them.  There are some very good reasons they split off.  The leadership of the Catholic Church at the time was very troubled and permissive of many shameful practices.  This period is not one that any Catholics that I know of are especially proud of.

The Greek word was eon. From what I'm learning, the words forever, eternal etc. were actually eon before the translation. That means a non specific period of time. Everybody according to their works fits right in with eon but not forever.

Interesting, will have to research that, thanks.

Of course you are discounting grace.

Your words quoted:


Your statement =/= salvation by grace.

Your statement = works, not grace.

You also said: ...  but you have been disobedient... rebellious... and you haven't obeyed all that God told you to do.

So you even oppose yourself.  You can't live up to the standard you say is required.

And no one else can either, and that is why the salvation of souls is totally by God's GRACE.

Wrong.

"Their worm dieth not "- Mat 9:44,46 & 48.  The body is not destroyed.  It is in torment for all eternity.

And BTW, the smoke stops when the fire goes out.  And the fire continues as long as their is fuel to burn.

There is a reason that the smoke rises FOREVER.

Never said it wasn't. Even though there's grace, it's still up to us to turn from sin, repent, stop being rebellious and obey and not reject God. Teaching people you have to do nothing because of Gods grace leads the weak astray to wilfully sin.

Wrong. All three of those instances say the worms and the fire do not die. The worms keep turning and the fire keeps burning, that's all it says. It doesn't anything about PEOPLE never dying.


Also I believe you mean MARK, not Matt.

Death is death, a ceasing to exist. The greek word used from Matt to Rev is used in the same meaning. How is it any different in Rev? It isn't, it means the same thing. If the second death is spiritual as you say then we have no argument. You're saying what I'm saying, that the lake of fire kills whats thrown in it completely. That second death would be a wiping from existence of the entire soul not just the body.


Torment is an emotion. Can you burn an emotion? No. That verse is figuratively told.


This statement can follow anyone's pitch. It caries no weight. The old Dante's inferno myth/lie of people burning forever in fire and never burning up, screaming in agony and writhing in torturous pain is complete bullshit and perpetuated by satan to make the merciful God look like a sadist.

It's hard to reason and/or converse with someone who continually contradicts himself.

Out of one side of your mouth you acknowledge grace, and out of the other side of your mouth you say works are needed.

You say men must turn from sin.  But you still sin, as does everyone else.

You say men must not be rebellious.  Yet, see the above.

You say men must obey God.  Yet, see the above.

So, you don't do what you say men must do.

Mark not Matthew, right.

The worm is the body.  It is never consumed.

Mark 9
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Evidently you don't subscribe to cross references either.

Job 25:6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

Ps 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

Isa 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

The Mark passage definitely speaks about individuals who end up in hell, and their torment is eternal.  A person does not cease to exist when he dies the first time, and he doesn't cease to exist when he dies the second time.  The soul is eternal.

Here is how the word of God describes BELIEVERS...

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?



Gonna be pretty tough impossible to keep yourself saved and not lose it.

Better trust the Lord Jesus Christ instead.

Their Worm Dieth Not ...
The Bible says that hell-fire will not be quenched and that “their worm dieth not.” (See Mark 9:43-48 and Isaiah 66:24).  Doesn’t this prove the immortality of the soul?

their worm dieth not Even if we should agree that unquenched means endlessly burning, we would not find it necessary to accept the doctrine that at death an immortal soul is freed from man and lives apart from the body.  These texts do not speak of disembodied souls, or spirits, burning.  The Bible paints a picture of literal, wicked men at the judgment day being “cast into the lake of fire.”  (See Revelation 20.)  

Christ speaks of the “whole body” being “cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30.)  If it be replied that the body would be destroyed by the flames, and therefore only the spirit would be left, we ask for the Bible proof that spirits, or souls, are impervious to fire.  Christ declared we should “fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28.  If “destroy” means consume as regards the “body”, we demand very clear proof if we are expected to believe that “destroy” means to leave unconsumed as regards the “soul.”  A failure to produce such proof really takes the whole point out of the objection based on Mark 9 and Isaiah 66.

In Mark 9:43-48 Christ quite evidently refers to the same judgment fires as those described in Isaiah 66:24, where we read:  “They [the righteous] shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses [“dead bodies,” A.R.V.] of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.”  We are told in so many words that the agencies of “worm” and “fire” are working, not upon disembodied spirits, but upon bodies, dead bodies.

The word “hell” used in Mark 9:43-48 is from the Greek word Gehenna.  This term, as we have learned, is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Hinnom, the name of a valley near Jerusalem, “used as a place to cast carcasses of animals and malefactors, which were consumed by fire constantly kept up.” (See Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon.)

Christ here uses this valley of Hinnom to teach His hearers the fate that awaits the wicked.  Certainly the Jews who heard His words could not possibly have obtained any idea of wicked, disembodied souls endlessly suffering.  They saw in Hinnom dead bodies being devoured by flames, or if the flames did not reach them, then by worms, those ever-present agents of destruction and disintegration.  The fact that the fires of Gehenna were ever kept burning, were “not quenched,” was the surest proof that whatever was cast into them would be entirely consumed.  To declare that if a fire keeps ever burning, then whatever is cast into it keeps ever living, is to go contrary both to the evidence of our senses and to the testimony of Scripture.

blazing fire The question may now be asked:  If whatever is cast into this fire is completely consumed, why will the fire always be kept burning?  The answer is, it will not.  A city-wide conflagration once enveloped Chicago.  If we should describe that fire by saying that the flames could not be quenched, would you conclude that Chicago was still burning?  No, you would simply understand that the fire raged until it had devoured everything within reach.  Common knowledge makes unnecessary the additional statement that the fire itself then died down.

It is this natural sense of the word “quench” that we find used in the Bible.  The Lord through Jeremiah declared to the ancient Jews, “If you will not hearken unto me, … then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof [of Jerusalem], and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”  Jeremiah 17:27.  (In the Septuagint the very same Greek root is here used for “quenched” as in Mark 9.)  In 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 we read of the literal fulfillment of this prophecy when the Babylonians put the torch to the city.  Is that fire still burning?  Are those Jewish “palaces” ever consuming, but never quite consumed?  How preposterous, you say.  Then why should anyone wish to take Christ’s statement in Mark 9 and force from it the conclusion that the judgment fire will never end; and then build upon this conclusion that the wicked will ever be consuming, but never quite consumed; and then finally rear upon this the conclusion that therefore the wicked have immortal souls?

Each and every one of these conclusions is unwarranted by logic and contrary to Scripture.  The Bible nowhere says that souls are immortal, but declares that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Ezekiel 18:4.  The Bible nowhere says that the wicked will ever be consuming; instead it declares that they will become “ashes.”  Malachi 4:3.  The Bible does not say that the judgment fires will burn endlessly, for we read that these fires are due to God’s setting ablaze this wicked earth, and that following this conflagration He creates “a new earth.”  (See 2 Peter 3:7-13 and Revelation 20 and 21.)  There must therefore be an end to the fire, else this earth could not be re-created.  In other words, the very promise of God to give us a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness is contingent upon there being an end to the judgment

When your author states that the soul and the spirit are the same, he immediately  shows he doesn't know what he is talking about.

He wants Biblical proof that souls are impervious to fire?  He needs to read Luke 16.

I'm not sure why the author was using spirit and soul interchangeably other than because most people use them that way and he was making a point.

A soul is the body (physical) and the spirit which is the breath of life that God breathed into Adam's nostrils. I've read that the word 'spirit" in the Greek translation is pneuma which goes back to breath of life.  Upon death, the pneuma (spirit) goes back to God who gave it to us and the body rots.  Ones breath (spirit) doesn't have a thinking brain or consciousness.

I can't address Luke 16 but have heard others who have explained it better than I could and it doesn't mean what you think it means. One can't pick out a text and create a whole theology around it when the rest of the evidence in the Bible says otherwise. ymmv

And that's how doctrine, traditions of men and the pulpit spoon feeding garbage for truth works. The immortality of the soul idea doesn't jive with what's clearly stated consistently throughout the bible, yet they'll argue and lead you down rabbit trails of vague verses and convoluted discussions to justify their churches doctrine. All the while you're pointing at your bible yelling "BUT ITS RIGHT HERE! CANT YOU SEE?!"  They're lazy with Gods word and don't have a love for the truth, and instead believe a lie;  2 Thess  2:9-12 explains that well. They're happy with their churchianity and will blindly defend it to the bitter end and argue what the definition of the word "is" is if they have to.

I don't even know why I engaged in an argument here, I knew what the outcome would be. You're on the right track to question the immortality of the soul. The Bible does not contradict itself, man does, and when you see a part of the word that stands out in opposition to their reasoning, hold on to that and read read read and pray for wisdom.

In my studies I've discovered that the soul - body/spirit - is like a computer. Your body is the hardware and the spirit (your mind, who you are, your psyche) is the hard drive. The computer cant operate without the hard drive and vice versa. When you die your "HDD" goes dormant, unknowing the passage of time or anything else (ecc 9:5 & 10) till God resurrects you to judgement. You will have to be resurrected in a flesh or spiritual type angelic body in order to be conscience for it, my guess is it will be a flesh body. If judged to be unrepentant and evil to the core that soul (body and spirit/HDD) will be tossed into the lake of fire to be wiped from existence, destroyed as said in Matt 10:28. That verse alone proves immortality of the soul doctrine is garbage.

Any questions or just want to chat feel free to IM or email me.  I'm getting out of this thread, arguing here is a waist of time.

ETA: look into the "trinity" and the "grace is all you need" stuff too.

I googled a portion of your previous post and found the webpage you cited.

He asks, "Will hell burn forever?"  Well, hell is a temporary place -  liken it to jail where people who are charged are held while they await trial.  The lake of fire is permanent, and it is where those who reject the grace of God end up after standing trial.  

The author used soul and spirit interchangeably because he thinks they are interchangeable. When a person doesn't think they are different, he flat out doesn't know what he is talking about.  And it gets far worse than that.  According to him Jesus had no idea what he was talking about. Jesus said the rich man was tormented in the flames.  Your author said that couldn't be so - judgment doesn't occur until the end of the world...  Jesus said the rich man talked with Abraham.  Your author said that couldn't happen because those in heaven can't talk to those in hell, proving that he doesn't understand the difference between Abraham's bosom and heaven.

I certainly don't trust your author to tell me what Luke 16 means.  Your author called it a parable, but Jesus didn't.  Find a parable where Jesus mentions a person by name.  Your author says Jesus taught that salvation is available to the rich and poor and that salvation didn't belong to the Jews by birthright- and that was the point of Luke 16 - so he got about 5-10% of what Jesus taught in the passage.  Jesus could have taught that salvation wasn't limited to the rich without mentioning the man being tormented in hell.  Jesus could have taught that Jews didn't automatically have salvation without mentioning the rich man conversing with Abraham.  Your author simply doesn't like the fact that an eternal God created men with eternal souls, and those men who humble themselves before God will enjoy eternal life with God, and those who reject Him will be in torment for eternity.  Your author doesn't like that, so he offers weak arguments against it.

Your author also says that eternal punishment misrepresents God's character ...  as if God would be wrong to punish sinners who reject Him for all eternity.  He thinks that God would be wrong to do that, because that's how HE FEELS about it, and so he argues against it.

He is a carnal thinker.  He mis-reasons that, because physical objects are consumed in a physical flame, that judgmental fire is only temporary and will eventually end because the objects that supposedly fuel the flames will be consumed.  I guess he just plain forgot about that burning bush that Moses saw - which burned but was not consumed.  The fires that God lights can burn eternally without consuming the object it engulfs.

He has a pet doctrine - that judgment is not eternal.  He doesn't focus on preaching the gospel to the lost ... His focus is his pet doctrine - that contradicts scripture.

Like I said, I'm not an authority on Luke 16. I do not believe people burn forever. They receive their punishment according to their works. Since the new earth is here there cannot be a lake of fire at the same time. There is no sin in the new earth so there cannot be live sinners burning down the street somewhere.  You can believe whatever you want and I'll continue to search for information from multiple sources. I like google as it has many different takes on the same subject. I pick the ones that make the most sense to me whether it is from the Catholics, Mormons, SDA's JW's, etc. Everybody has some of it right and sincerely believe it. There are certain doctrines that I think almost everybody has wrong. ymmv.

edit to add. I have no idea who the author is. He or she made sense to me.

That's what your author believed, BEFORE he went to the Bible.  Then he tried to force that belief into the scriptures - and that is why he waves off Jesus' teaching in Luke 16.  If his position requires him to say that Jesus didn't really mean what He said, that's a pretty good indication that he has it wrong.

Having preconceived beliefs is one thing - not letting the Bible correct those preconceived beliefs is something else.

It's not written using precise language. That's half the problem. If it was, there'd be far less division among adherents. Not NO disagreement, just a lot less.

Baptists have good potlucks.

But that is not how it works.

1 Cor 2
6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It takes a new birth to understand the Bible.

There are plenty of people who lean upon their own understandings...  who are religious but lost...  who call themselves Christians but trust in their own goodness to have a relationship with God....

And they cannot understand the Bible.

And then there are saved people, who do have a new birth and have received the Holy Spirit, who want to "correct" the Bible instead of believe what's written.  And they can't understand it either.

Just like this guy that NRA2 quotes.  Jesus plainly states that the rich man in Luke 16 died and went to hell.  The guy says, "Well, this is just a parable, because people aren't judged until the end of the world, so he really isn't in hell ... and he really didn't talk to Abraham...." as if Jesus would have to speak false things to teach truth.  That's sheer nonsense.

He "corrects" Luke 16 to make it fit his preconceived belief.  He understands his preconceived belief - he conceived it himself.  But it sure doesn't match what Jesus said - and thus he does not understand what he reads.  He isn't going to understand the word of God if he chooses to "correct" it instead of believe it.

It's written very precisely.  Men want to be their own final authorities.

I'm sure there are other places in the Bible that support the fact that Jesus was speaking in a parable. It's not like Jesus never did that.
One only has to read Paul's writings and John's in Revelation to see what happens and the order of things to come. MY beliefs from the Bible in a nutshell are: Our fate is set at death. We know nothing until Jesus comes again. The dead in Christ and those in Christ that are alive in that day and hour nobody knows, are caught up to heaven.  A thousand years later, God moves heaven to this earth but the first thing that happens is the dead who are lost get resurrected and find out why they didn't go with the first groups. (white throne judgement) Satan thinks he and those billions of people can take the city and that is when God brings down fire and brimstone and burns them up according to their works and burns up the earth at the same time. (see Sodom/Gomorrah) New earth, New Jerusalem ymmv but that is what my Bible palinly says.

ah yes, the views of John Calvin.  

Talk about a way to justify the status quo for the political and financial elites.  It doesn't matter.  Don't better yourself.  Just stay poor.  Don't give away your wealth to the poor.  This was all predetermined by God.  You're already saved (or not).  This is part of his plan.  

That may be a blessing in disguise. Sometimes the best way to find the truth is to do it yourself by reading the Bible and asking God to help you understand it.  Jesus is our example not other Christians or churches. There is NO perfect church. Find one that most closely follows what Jesus said.........

Well that's awfully convenient for those churches, isn't it?  

It's truly arrogant for them to tell you they know, for certain, where you're going.

So here's my attempt to type out this TL;DR post on my phone. Disclaimer this is my personal expirence and that's all. I was never very religious, but in senior year of high school of all places I started to become religious. Another disclaimer, I went to Catholic school my whole life until college. What really attracted me to the Catholic faith was that it had a logical consistency that I've never seen in any other faith. For example, we believe that there can only be one truth; there may be many different churches, but only one can be right. Also, we believe that people who are not in the church can be saved on the condition that they have never been told the truth. For example, if one lived in China and never heard of the true Catholic Church, how could he or she be faulted for that. We as a church also believe that faith and good works are the key to salvation, not one or the other, but both. Once you enter the church you can still certainly do wrong. That's why we have reconciliation. We affirm this at every mass when we say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." This is an absolution of any venial sins that you may have committed before you receive the Eucharist. That's my 2 cents.

My views are a little messed up because I have experience with only a few born again Christians.


I edited my original post to reflect that.

So...





are ya'll saved yet?

So if you get a bad meal in a restauraunt do you quit eating out?