Heb 8:7-13

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:29 pm

my belief is that all have heard the Gospel in one way or another. All men are given the choice to accept or reject. The Book of Romans tells us this.

“Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” – Romans 2:15

I see Romans 1 & 2 talking about the existence of God and knowing the difference between right and wrong and i do agree that we have a conscience that condemns us when we sin.
But i don't see anywhere here that this tells us that the gospel is preached to everyone in this life.
When you say all have heard the gospel in one way or the other IMHO you are reading more in scripture then is there. Paul in 1st Tim did say that Christ will be preached to every man "in due time." I just don't see where or why "due time" must be limited to this life.
"Once to die and the the judgement" does not mean "once to die and then the conviction" as the greek word "krisis" means "crisis" not conviction.

Anyway i'm not gonna change your mind and your not gonna change my mind unless there is scripture i'm unaware of so i think it's time to agree to disagree.

Post by **_loaves** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:13 pm

STEVE7150 wrote:But i don't see anywhere here that this tells us that the gospel is preached to everyone in this life.

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” – Romans 10:17-18

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:38 pm

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” – Romans 10:17-18

Good response Loaves but the context of Paul's discourse is about Israel hearing the gospel and having no excuse. It's a reference to Psalms 19.4 using the same reasoning to Israel having no excuse for rejecting the gospel. It's hyperbole not a literal announcement that the gospel has now arrived in Siberia and in China and in North and South America which was'nt even discovered for another 1400 years.

Post by **_loaves** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:47 pm

STEVE7150 wrote:Good response Loaves but the context of Paul's discourse is about Israel hearing the gospel and having no excuse. It's a reference to Psalms 19.4 using the same reasoning to Israel having no excuse for rejecting the gospel. It's hyperbole not a literal announcement that the gospel has now arrived in Siberia and in China and in North and South America which was'nt even discovered for another 1400 years.

Hyperbole?? Possible. Very possible. Possibly not, to.

Had the “gospel” in the purest sense of the word arrived in Siberia 50 years after Jesus died? Well, no, the missionaries hadn’t gone parading into the villages at that point like they do now. But the Holy Spirit was working in their hearts. And the law that was once written in stone was now written on their hearts. Their conscience convicted them when they did wrong. And some day on this earth, I believe, God gave them an opportunity to turn from their wicked ways, and come to Him. They either did, or they didn’t. God spoke to them somehow, someway. This is very evident from the scholarly work of Don Richardson:

A good book to get is “Eternity in Their Hearts” by Don Richardson.

http://homefirespub.com/eternity_in_the ... rdson.html

In this book, Richardson discusses how some ancient civilizations (like the Incas) had a “religion” extremely similar to 1st century Christianity (although this Inca “Christianity” was corrupted down through the years.). An Inca ruler wrote hymns to God. And contained in these hymns are vague remnants of a person like Jesus, who came in the form a man to deliver us from our wicked ways. This ruler speaks of God, Noah’s ark (I think), the lost "book" that would tell them how to be reconciled with their creator, and various other facets strikingly similar to Christianity.

Now, missionaries hadn’t reached South America (that we know of) until after A.D. 1000. How could this Inca ruler know all of this stuff?

Just get the book!!!!!!

Yours in Jesus,

Post by **_Homer** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:57 pm

I must say there have been enough mistakes, speculations, and assumptions in this thread to furnish material for a book.

Example:

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” – Rev. 22:14

Have you ever told a lie?

Rev. 22:15, NASB: "....and everyone who loves and practices lying."

Loves and practices are in the present tense in the Greek indicating an ongoing practice as the NASB indicates. Whether one has ever told a lie is irrevelant.

Example:

As we've said countless times , you can't pay for your sins to earn salvation only as part of restitution and repentence.

Is this the sacrament of penance you are advocating here? It is certainly true we must make restitution if we have taken something that belongs to someone else. Otherwise we are still stealing it. But what if I covet? How do I make restitution for that?

I would suggest a careful meditation on the parable of the unmerciful slave in Matthew 18. It has been claimed by some that Jesus never taught grace. On the contrary, I believe he taught it more clearly than Paul. (After all, isn't Jesus the master teacher?) Notice in the parable that the King suffered the consequences of the debt (sin) he forgave. He could have made the slave pay him back as much as he was able but the King was merciful (merciful = act on behalf of another) and required no payment at all.

I could go on but I think at this point we should consider the original question that started this thread: what time period is Hebrews 8:7-13 referring to?

V.12 indicates that people will still be sinning during the New Covenant. How can we believe this to be in Heaven (New earth if you prefer)?

V 13, obsolete(NASB) is in the perfect tense meaning it has been done and the results continue. Becoming obsolete and growing old are in the present tense, indicting the process is ongoing. The New Covenent has come and the old is fading away. ( See 2 Cor. 3 where Paul says essentially the same thing.

Look at Hebrews 10:13-18 where part of the passage in chapter 8 is quoted again and you will see clearly that both passages are referring to the sanctified ones, the ekklesia.

Enuf for now; I type too slowly.

Post by **_Sean** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:01 am

STEVE7150 wrote:So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” – Romans 10:17-18

Good response Loaves but the context of Paul's discourse is about Israel hearing the gospel and having no excuse. It's a reference to Psalms 19.4 using the same reasoning to Israel having no excuse for rejecting the gospel. It's hyperbole not a literal announcement that the gospel has now arrived in Siberia and in China and in North and South America which was'nt even discovered for another 1400 years.

If you agree this is making the point that Israel has no excuse, then how can someone who grew up in the "corrupt" catholic church claim that is an excuse? In other words, how could Paul use this example knowing full well that what was taught in the synagogues was "corrupt".

Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

So how is it that they (Jews) got the gospel and are without excuse? How is this any better or worse than the Catholic church corruption?

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:33 am

If you agree this is making the point that Israel has no excuse, then how can someone who grew up in the "corrupt" catholic church claim that is an excuse? In other words, how could Paul use this example knowing full well that what was taught in the synagogues was "corrupt".

Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

Because when Jesus uses the word "HYPOCRITES" He is not referring to the masses but to the people who sit in the seat of Moses which were the Pharisees just as the RCC leaders knew or should have known the bible yet mislead the populace to increase their own power.
As we know God holds religious teachers to a higher standard. I'm not advocating that people claim excuses , i'm just trying to point out the gigantic discrepiency of opportunity between someone growing up in a bible believing family and most of the rest of the world. Romans 1 is about having no excuse about God's existance it's not about saving faith in Christ. And since people knowing right from wrong continue sinning they are storing up God's wrath and IMHO this price will have to be paid one day , again not for salvation but for justice.
Matt 5.26 "Truly i say to you , you will not come out of there (prison) until you have paid THE LAST CENT." IMO Jesus is alluding to God's standard of justice which does'nt preclude forgiveness.

According to Loaves the Holy Spirit sends out the gospel of Christ to everyone in the world but i don't see that said in scripture , i think Loaves you are reading more into it then is there. In the great commisssion did Jesus say to his disciples "And stay here in Israel to teach the jews while i send the Holy Spirit out to the rest of the world?"

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:17 am

Has everyone throughout the history of the world had a chance to respond to the Gospel? I must say that I agree with STEVE7150 on this point. I believe there are literally millions of people in every generation throughout the world that never have a chance to respond to the Gospel in their lifetime. Has God made any provision for them? Are they without hope? What about those who lived in outer Mongolia 2000 years before Christ? Is there no hope for them? Mass communication didn't exist until just a few decades ago.

The whole point is this; How do you get from point 'A' to point 'B'? And what is point 'B'? Namely this......

Romans 14:11
for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God." RSV

Rev 5:13
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." RSV

Is 45:23-24
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.' "
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.

Eph 1:9-10
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Acts 3:20-21
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

1 Cor 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

There is no doubt that all our understanding is limited on both sides of this issue. But, to me, the scriptures are plain that "point B" has everyone throughout the history of mankind singing praises to Christ from the heart in full subjection to him - all things will be brought together in Christ, which is according to the mystery of God's will.

Todd

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:01 pm

I believe that it is entirely possible that we make this whole issue much more complicated than it actually is. What is the Lake of Fire anyway? What does it involve? The only description we have of it is in Revelation which is written in pictures and symbols. It could be that the whole issue regarding hell is in death itself - not some LOF that happens only after Christ returns. Consider these verses........

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

James 1:13-15
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

These verses say that the penalty for sin is death - not eternal torment. Death abides upon all, for all have sinned.

Now, through faith in Christ, we have the opportunity to have eternal life - when physical death happens to the believer his soul can live on with Christ. This is not the case for the unbeliever who perishes.

Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

These are simple verses with a simple message; namely, that there is life after death for those who believe and are faithful. Those who do not believe are condemned already (because death abides on all).

John 3:17-21
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

So do I believe in Hell? Yes, but I have a different view of what it is than most Christians. One thing that we know for sure is that "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:26).

Todd

Post by **_loaves** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:55 pm

The following article looked interesting. Let me know your thoughts. I don’t know who this guy is. His conclusion is this, I think:

Forever and ever means that it never comes to an end, but a thing that continues to get older and older still has an age. It never gets infinitely old. Even though punishment in Hell is forever and ever, it can never become eternal because no matter how far one lives into the future, he always has a quantifiable age.

Gregory Koukl wrote: No Eternal Punishment

By Gregory Koukl

Is Hell eternal or everlasting? We have to be careful how we define the words.

I don't believe in eternal punishment. Nor do I believe in eternal Heaven. No one goes to Heaven for an eternity. Now, I know I've got many of you sitting up saying, "Okay, Koukl has finally gone off the deep end. Sounds like heresy to me. Something is rotten in Denmark." Well, I say there is no eternal punishment and no eternal Heaven because I am choosing my words very carefully. I know this raises some eyebrows because I think many of you might suspect what I am talking about is temporary Hell. I don't think Hell is temporary, nor is Heaven temporary, but I don't think it is eternal either. How could that be? It's very simple.

I was recently asked on the air about the nature of Hell and punishment, and if there are different degrees of punishment in Hell. My answer was, yes, there are different degrees of punishment in Hell and this can be shown Scripturally. There are actually two aspects of this punishment: duration and intensity. We know the duration is the same for everyone in Hell because Scripture says it's "forever and ever." Hell is everlasting, not eternal, as we will see in a moment. In other words, it goes on forever and ever. Those judged by God will be banished from His presence forever. We read in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, "These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." Note that the word destruction doesn't mean, and can't mean, annihilation because it wouldn't make any sense to say they are annihilated from the presence of the Lord eternally. If a thing is annihilated, it doesn't exist at all.

Even though the duration is the same for everybody, the intensity is different for each person. I think this is a function of justice. Those with the greater crimes before God receive the greater intensity of punishment. It is clear that some experience more intense judgment than others. In Matthew 10:15, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Matthew 11:22 says, "It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you." Jesus said to Pilate, "The one who has handed me over to you has the greater sin." There are going to be different degrees of judgment, which makes sense and seems to comport with the notion of justice.

According to the dictates of lex talionis , which actually comes from the Old Testament, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," the punishment must fit the crime and not be incommensurate with the crime. You don't cut off somebody's arm for stealing a loaf of bread. You give a punishment equal to the crime. Jesus says there are crimes that are more heinous than others and, therefore, it stands to reason that the punishment will be greater for those crimes that are more heinous. It can't be greater in terms of duration because the duration is the same for everyone. It must be greater in terms of intensity which is supported by Jesus' words and practical reason.

I say "yes" to degrees of punishment, "no" to eternal punishment, and "no" to anyone living any place for an eternity. Having made that clear to the caller, I then received a letter in response from a listener who happened to catch that broadcast. I'll read you the whole thing because it is nicely written. Some of the details of what he said are important for our discussion.

Dear Greg,
Too bad. You blew it Saturday in the discussion of degrees of punishment in everlasting Hell. Since the time is infinite, the amount of punishment is infinite. Your analogy is faulty. Two times infinite is infinite. For example, the set of all positive numbers is infinite and so is the set of all even numbers, even though it would seem reasonable that the set of all positive numbers should be twice as large since it includes all the odd numbers as well. Anything that is infinite is not made larger by adding or multiplying it. That is implicit in the definition of infinite. Your error may stem from thinking of the term infinite quantity which is a misnomer. It is perhaps more accurate to think of infinite as meaning expanding without limits rather than as an extremely large number. You might look at some texts on calculus, particularly the section on theorems on limits as well as infinities.

Yours truly, Robert Lewis, La Mesa, California.

I thought that was kind of a nice touch at the end suggesting that I read some books on calculus to get straight on this issue. But I haven't made any mistakes; Mr. Lewis has.

First of all, Mr. Lewis' definition of an infinite is wrong. He says, "It is perhaps more accurate to think of infinite as meaning expanding without limits rather than as an extremely large number." My response to that is, infinites cannot expand by their very nature. Nothing that expands can be an infinite because, if it is expanding, then it is increasing its size. If it has a size, it can't be infinite. It is finite. Further, nothing that expands without limits could ever become an infinite because nothing ever attains an infinite size by simply getting bigger and bigger through expansion. So this definition isn't going to work. Expanding without limits is not an infinite, it's a finite size that gets bigger. It can never become an infinite because getting bigger and bigger doesn't eventually qualify it for an infinity.

Let me illustrate that last point. Think of a balloon that expands twice its size every day. When will it be infinitely large? It never will. It will get really big, but it will never cross over into an infinitely large thing. Things that get larger and larger still have a quantifiable size. In this case, the balloon becomes twice the size that it was the day before. If it has a size, then guess what? It's not infinitely large, is it? Anything that starts out finite can get larger and larger without end, but it still never gets infinitely large because a finite thing can never grow into an infinite thing.

Mr. Lewis is right, by the way, regarding the phrase "infinite quantity" being an oxymoron. No amount can be infinite. Amounts by their nature are finite amounts. Lewis' definition of an infinite as something expanding without limit, however, falls prey to the very error that he warns me of.

This misunderstanding causes his critique of my view of suffering in Hell to go belly up. Lewis' objection presumes that someone who suffers forever in Hell will eventually live for an eternity and, therefore, accomplish an infinite amount of suffering.

We both agree all infinites are the same size, but he argues from that point that there is no difference of suffering in Hell. Lewis says this, "Since the time is infinite, the amount of punishment is infinite." This is the key error. Time in the afterlife is not an infinite for any of us. It is merely everlasting and there is a difference. The future goes on and on without end, but like our expanding balloon, it never will become infinitely long. So forever and ever means that it never comes to an end, but a thing that continues to get older and older still has an age. It never gets infinitely old. Even though one lives forever and ever, one never lives for an actual eternity, which is an infinite amount of time, because no matter how old you get, you always have an age.

The confusion is understandable because time, like numbers, is potentially infinite, but the actual expansion into this limitless arena of possibility has an edge to it. It has a size. There are no limits to the possible size of numbers, but any particular number has a quantity. My point was, in Hell some people suffer more than others. The duration of this difference is everlasting, but it never attains to an infinite.

Suppose you and I count together. I count every number and you count every tenth number. For the entire time that we count, your number will always be ten times larger than mine even though we count forever and ever. Though the numbers may be potentially infinite, you and I are always working with finite numbers, not infinite ones. Our amounts are never equal because, no matter how much time we have, neither of us can count to infinity. Every time we add one, we are still dealing with a finite number. We will never be able to get an actual infinite by adding one number after another.

The duration of our future is much like counting, with the numbers representing successive moments of our existence. There may be no limits to the possible age of a being who lives forever, like you and me, but any particular created being always has an age. It gets larger and larger with every moment, but it still has an age. If it has an age, then the duration of its existence is finite and not infinite. Every created being had a beginning so it can never live for an actual eternity. It is temporal, not eternal.

The simple truth is, even though punishment in Hell is forever and ever, it can never become eternal because no matter how far one lives into the future, he always has a quantifiable age. No one will ever endure an infinity of suffering because no one lives that long. Even though they live forever and ever and ever and never die, no one suffers in Hell for an infinite amount of time, and no one enjoys Heaven for an infinite amount of time.

Supposed liabilities to my point of view about variable suffering in Hell based on the nature of infinity simply don't apply because there is a difference between living forever and ever and living for an eternity.

Sourcehttp://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5470

©1996 Gregory Koukl