Sinners in the hands of an angry God (moral, gospel)

[sojourner]

Hmmm.....and yet it wasn't the knowledgeable Pharisees, with all their theological training, that "got" the teachings of Jesus. It was the poor, uneducated fishermen! Your arrogant, self-satisfied attitude is the very thing that might be blinding you, just as such an attitude blinded the Pharisees. My intelligence is in no way inferior to yours simply because I have not had your sophisticated education. I did not post the definitions of exegesis and eisegesis for my own benefit, but to expose your apparent misapplication of them in your arguments. So laugh away. I'm still quite confident in my intellectual capabilities.

I didn't say that your intelligence is inferior to mine. I merely pointed out that I didn't need your help with either the definitions or the applications of eisegesis and exegesis. You exposed nothing but your own misconceptions. I know nothing of your intellectual capablilites, but I'm quite sure I don't need help with mine.

BTW, the Pharisees' lack of vision had nothing to do with their education. it only had to do with their unwillingness to open their eyes...

there are many Scriptures that plainly speak of eternal hell.

Plainly? What did the writers intend to say about it? Do you know? Would you care to find out? Or are you going to engage in assumption and call it "faith?"

I do not believe the Scriptures merely because "God said to."

I didn't say that you did. I said, "a 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it' approach..." There's a difference.

Your basis of criticism against my approach to Scripture is already on very shaky ground. You see, I do not believe in hell because I wish it to be true.

Your basis of criticism against my criticism of your approach to scripture is on very shaky ground, because I did not say that you "believe in hell because you wish it to be true." I said that an eisegetical approach reads into scripture what the reader believes it to say.

If this were the case, then you would have grounds for accusing me of eisegesis.

Eisegesis is not predicated soley upon the wishes of the reader. That's your working definition...not mine.

it's still plainly taught in Scripture, and I can't make it go away.

How do you know? What makes you say that it's "plainly taught?" What about it is "plainly taught?" The writers' basis of understanding might not be the same as yours. If we discover that it is "plainly taught," what implication does that have for us now? Just because the ancients may have believed in some sort of place of eternal torment, does it follow that I have to believe in it? The ancients thought that the earth was flat, with a hard dome of sky. I don't believe that, though. That's exegesis: The process of coming to the conclusion that, even though the Bible says it, it may not be factual. Exegesis works to point us to theological truth in the face of such factual inconsistency.

Therefore, yes, my approach is objective, and therefore exegesis.

Just because you wish it weren't there, and you find it there is not a case for either objectivity or exegesis. It's a case of probable bad scholarship. The objectivity or subjectivity of your approach is not at issue. The process of reading into the scripture what you think is there, and reading out of it what is really there is what is at issue.

I think you have more to prove than I do. You have clearly shown your negative emotional response to hell, and to the wrath of God, and I would suggest it is your emotions that are coloring your judgements. Therefore, you are using eisegesis. You are assuming God is a god of the kind of love that would never send someone to hell. But Scripture contradicts this. So it's up to you to explain how you come to the conclusion that all those references to hell don't really mean what they appear to mean. I feel no such burden.

This has nothing to do with my supposed "emotional response." You say that I "assume" God is a God of the kind of love that would never send someone to hell. That is not an assumption. The scriptures bear that out, in spite of its passages about condemnation. You're projecting. It won't work.

There are many scriptures that point to the universal and unconditional love of God for us. I have posted them many more times than I care to remember. Some would rather believe the greater veracity of God's petulency and impatience. Why I have no idea. Well, I do, but I'm not going to assume anything in your case.

Simplifying something has nothing at all to do with not questioning something. I'm not sure where you're getting this line of reasoning.

Because to simply say, "It's right there on the page" is an oversimplification of the process of coming to understand the message that may be there. It's a sign of someone not being willing to question for whatever reason. What if the message were not so simple? What if your reading and understanding were taking things out of context?

I wonder what particular seminary you attended.

It's a great school...fully accredited and all, with a long and successful history and several prominent graduates and professors. Why do you ask? Would you like to go there?

You are not the only seminary-trained individual out there. There are many scholars beside yourself who've done just as much research but haven't come up with the same conclusions you have.

This is precisely why good exegesis is important. There are many people coming up with many diverse conclusions. That's good. It shows that God is greater than us and that we do not have all the answers. This is precisely why seminary training in an accredited school is important.

"Because the Bible says so" is not only not a good reason, it's just plain bad scholarship. it causes precisely the kind of twisted theology that we find in the title of this thread. The sermon may have been a "good sell," but good theology is not often a "good sell." And the Church is not out to save souls based on a sales technique.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by joeboonda

No I am saying that God gave us His written Word that we may be completely furnished for all He would have us know and do and that we can understand it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. People are in the same condition today as they were back then, hopelessly lost sinners, and people get saved today the same way they did back then, by believing in Jesus Christ. When the Bible says some will go to everlasting punishment and some to everlasting life, and repeats it several times and warns us repeatedly of it, and tells how God provided at great cost the way to avoid it, and we ignore the parts we don't like, it is at our own peril.

How is understanding context "ignoring what we don;t like"?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by joeboonda

My father is wonderful thanks. Apparently we read different Bibles. Before we become God's children by believing in Jesus, the Bible says we are children of darkness, children of disobedience, and children of wrath. Only when we become children of God do we enter into a father/son relationship with Him, and all who come to Him He will in no wise cast out.

God reconciled us to God's self when God became incarnate. Therefore, your point is moot.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by joeboonda

Baloney, the Bible is pretty clear, but go ahead and ignore 2/3rds of it, its your right.

12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Clear? In what way? To whom? In what way have I "ignored" 2/3 of the Bible? I've always attempted to give it a fair an honest analysis. I don't see what your citations have to do with the issue at hand, or how they support your stance.

[sojourner]

No I am saying that God gave us His written Word that we may be completely furnished for all He would have us know and do and that we can understand it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But God also intended for us to use the brains with which God endowed us. Being "guided by the Spirit" includes using your intellect, not hanging it up at the church door.

[doppelgänger]

I find it strange to hear you say God is love and not warn people of His justice.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

That's one Holey Sock Puppet!

Love isn't jealous. 1 Cor. 13. Your "God" is jealous (as you note). Therefore, your "God" isn't love.

QED

[UnTheist]

In Mark 9.48, there is torment, but not everlasting torment. It is the worm that never dies, not the people who are being punished.

In Rev. 14.10, the ones who are judged are tormented - the smoke goes up forever, but not their actual punishment.

I found these quotes in the one on one debate forum with evangellous debating against himself. (lol)

Do these indicate non-eternal punishment?

[Hope]