Shameless Promotion Day

Shameless Promotion Day

Today is Shameless Promotion Day on Frank Viola’s blog, Beyond Evangelical.  Viola writes, “I want to highlight these two posts because they promote the work of others that I deem valuable.”  In order to participate in Shameless Promotion Day, I have been instructed to post the following:


N.T. Wright Interview: “Simply Jesus” & Wright Responds to Critics

Click this link to read the unedited interview:


Scot McKnight Interview: “The King Jesus Gospel” & McKnight Responds to Critics

Click this link to read the unedited interview:


At the moment, I do not have the time to read or write commentary on the interviews.  I am not familiar with either Wright or McKnight or their critics.  I am, however, familiar with Frank Viola after reading his excellent book, Pagan Christianity, during my two-year trek through church history a few years ago, which culminated in the Amazing Hope that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Savior of the world.  The traditional teaching is that He is the Savior only of those who believe before they experience physical death, but scriptures say otherwise – “He is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.”  I think it is fair that I point out that to my knowledge, Frank Viola does not share or endorse some (a lot?) of the views expressed in this blog.  Viola has a good head on his shoulders, and much of what he says is relevant and true.  Yes, we disagree on some things, but that is the nature of the very diverse body of Christ, unified in LOVE.  I hope you enjoy reading the interviews, and let me know what you think of them.  I’ll respond to the interviews in the near future.

To see the shameless promotion of and other blogs, view the comment section of Beyond Evangelical.

  • Ma February 29, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Thanks, I’ll be checking these out. I don’t know much about Frank Viola but have heard really good things about Pagan Christianity I really should get that one read.

    • admin March 1, 2012 at 10:56 pm

      It’s definitely an eye-opener!

  • Jonathan Stone February 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    I found you through Viola’s promotion. Glad to connect. Blessings.

    • admin March 1, 2012 at 10:55 pm

      That’s very clever, what Viola is doing, isn’t it? Nice to “meet” you, Jonathan.

  • Lanny A. Eichert February 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Judas Iscariot is “lost” {perished} according to Jesus and the Lake of Fire has no revealled exit, therefore your Amazing Hope is as much a fraud as your mythical Jesus that you poor gullible people have emotionally accepted in place of believing the Biblical Jesus and His Holy Bible. You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel in all your efforts to prove your errors and what does it get you? Wiggley chewing maggots (worms), biting flies, lots of sweat, and eternal torment.

    Why will you die? The word is near you. {Ezekiel 33: 11 and Romans 10: 8}

    • Stephen Helbig March 1, 2012 at 11:23 am

      The following came from Frank Viola, in his advice to bloggers, point #13 states:

      “13. Allow Engagement, But Moderate Comments. I realize that not everyone is able to allow comments due to time constraints. Fortunately, I’ve been able to allow them up to this point. Allowing engagement is great for several reasons. However, if you receive a lot of comments, you would be wise to moderate them. The Internet is the Wild Wild West. People can anonymously trash someone if they want. This makes blog moderation a necessity.

      Unfortunately, I’ve watched some bloggers allow anyone to post anything they like without any kind of moderation. The result: Some Christians get smeared. This is plain wrong. It violates what our Lord taught, “Treat others the same way you want to be treated.” You wouldn’t want a blogger to allow a comment that attacks your character on their blog.

      Your blog should be a platform for edifying conversation, not a venue for promoting the sins of evil communication (Eph. 4:29). All readers should feel safe there. Most bloggers I know responsibly moderate their comments, and some have explicit rules for moderation. You can take a look at mine here (I don’t moderate the comments myself). Some bloggers I know don’t even allow comments because of this problem.”

      Do I stephen agree wholeheartily? Irrelevant, but it does make me ponder some of the comments allowed, as to their motive in Christ

    • Lanny A. Eichert March 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm

      Moderation, Stephen? The return of Christ is imminent and six thousand years of human history has already expired: that is, the sixth dispensation of the seven is about to conclude with the 1 Thessalonians 4: 16 & 17 “Rapture” or snatching away of the Bride of Christ, the Church, to His Father’s house in heaven; and you all are not saved and will be “left behind” to face the 70th week of Daniel 9 in strong delusion assuring your lost estate and eternal condemnation before the thousand year Messianic reign of Christ on earth. The human race is on the verge of the Day of the LORD and you want me to be moderate? Is the “watchman” supposed to be moderate? No, aggressiveness is now especially necessary as I see the Day approaching. I have little time to be “nice” and, any way, Jesus was not nice to those religious fools of His day. Any moment my Jesus may come and snatch me away to heaven and you all will remain “lost” perished.

      You all have accepted a deadly deception in this Amazing Hope fraud. Judas Iscariot is “lost” {perished} according to Jesus and the Lake of Fire has no revealled exit. God cannot lie. That’s proof positive you all got heresy. Why will you die? Only wiggley chewing maggots (worms), biting flies, lots of sweat, and eternal torment await you all except you repent and believe the truth. {Ezekiel 33: 11 and Romans 10: 8}

      God made seven days in a week as a teaching tool so that we might discern we are at the brink of the seventh day Sabboth rest of the Messianic Millenium that must occur before the eighth day of a “new beginning” which is the New Heavens and the New Earth.

      Chronology, Mary, it all works together so beautifully and easily in the literal approach to the Holy Bible, because it is all there for the eyes of those who do believe in God’s way rather than the devil’s. All the rest of you readers, don’t let Alice and Mary deceive you with the devil’s lies: believe a literal, perfect, and complete Holy Bible. Your soul depends upon it.

      • Stephen Helbig March 7, 2012 at 1:36 am

        Lanny says; “You all have accepted a deadly deception in this Amazing Hope fraud. Judas Iscariot is “lost” {perished} according to Jesus and the Lake of Fire has no revealled exit. God cannot lie.”

        stephen says; Lanny we agree on this, GOD CANNOT LIE,

        see John chapter 6… here Jesus states, John 6:39 (NKJV) “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”

        And we know that the Father had given “All to Jesus” for it says in John 3:35 (NKJV) “The Father loves the Son, and HAS GIVEN ALL THINGS into His hand.” And better yet, the word “things” is not actually in the manuscript but was added by the translators. So the passage says “The Father has given ALL into his hand” Then later Jesus says of this “all the Father had given him he would LOSE NOTHING”

        One must let scripture interpret scripture. If verse seems to conflict in comparing scripture to scripture it is only a lack of truly seeing God for who He is. God is not a man that he should lie. So the confusion resides in the man that cannot recocile all of the LOGOS found in our faulty semantics of the written word of God in todays translations, and in the many traditions of man that make the word of God of no effect.

        • Lanny A. Eichert March 7, 2012 at 1:45 am

          If you let scripture interpret scripture, then when Jesus prayed John 17: 12 the all means all the twelve but one. All the elect are give by the Father to the Son and He looses none of His elect. All the non-elect perish as planned.

          • Stephen Helbig March 7, 2012 at 3:13 am

            Really, all the twelve but one?

            Young’s Literal Translation of John 6:70
            “Jesus answered them, ‘Did not I choose you — the twelve? and of you — one is a devil.

            Have not I chosen you twelve? – There is much emphasis in these words. Have not I – I, the Saviour, the Messiah, chosen you in mercy and in love,

            and one of you is a devil? or like to one, is a deceiver, a liar, and a murderer, as the devil is from the beginning; all which Judas was, and appeared to be, in the betraying of his master. The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, “is Satan”; which name, given to Peter, as it once was on a certain occasion, Matthew 16:23, … so Lanny maybe it’s all but two by your reasoning (Peter and Judas)?, LOL

            “The Father has given ALL into his hand” Is this ALL also minus one?
            “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of ALL HE HAS GIVEN Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”

          • Lanny A. Eichert March 7, 2012 at 4:14 am

            The Father gave into Jesus’ hand to loose Judas Iscariot. 6: 70 proves He knew it. Jesus declared him lost, perished, in 17: 12. Either you believe he is eternally lost or you make Jesus a Liar like yourself.

    • Lanny A. Eichert March 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm

      Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. {Philippians 4: 5} The context involves conduct between saints. You’re not a saint, so it doesn’t apply between you and me. We, you and me, are involved in agressive warfare over your soul. You also means Alice and Mary, Stephen, and all the others that believe this Amazing Hope heresy.

      Listen all of you: you can’t believe in God and say He will reconcile Judas Iscariot whom Jesus said was “lost” which means perished. To say what you say is to call God a Liar as I said three times, once for each member of the Trinity. Calling God Liars is not exactly believing God. Not exactly believing God results in eternal torment. Simple, isn’t it?

      • admin March 5, 2012 at 12:38 am

        Look up every occurrence of “lost” (koine Greek = apollymi) in the Greek scriptures. Insert the word “perish” or “destroy” there, or the other way around, insert “lost” where you find “destroy” or “perish”. You will be surprised at what you find! Stuff like this, “go to the destroyed sheep” and “the Son of Man did not come to lose men’s lives” and “I have found my sheep which was perished” and “this son of mine was dead, and he has come to life again; he was destroyed and has been found”. Also consider those instances where people/things are “destroyed”, yet they show up again a few chapters later. Your idea of perished, as in beyond redemption, as in so-far-lost that even the Good Shepherd can’t find them, as in never reconciled ever, does not take into account the scriptures in which “lost” is applied only to the age or time period. As for me, I believe that there is no sin or death imposed effect or outcome that God is not able to undo.

      • Lanny A. Eichert March 5, 2012 at 3:08 am

        ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας the son of perdition do you see another reference to lost, perished in ἀπωλείας , ἀπώλεια apōleia {from the verb ἀπόλλυμι apollymi}?

        Jesus made it clear in His prayer that Judas was ἀπόλλυμι apollymi lost, perished, and that he was ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας the son of perdition, in other words in double trouble.

        God is not able to do anything. Some things He cannot do such as violate His own character meaning He cannot tell a falsehood.

        You on the other hand can twist words until you make that falsehood. Your proposed idea of using the same word as a translation of a particular English word doesn’t make any more sense in English then it doesn’t in the Greek, so stop violating the contexts. You have a white black contrast in John 17: 12 as simple as kept verses lost, preserved verses perished. (That’s why your “all” and “forever” agruments aren’t any good either as you’ve been told previously by another.)

        Why do you think it is written “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world” in the Revelation 17: 8, especially that part “from the foundation of the world” as if God never planned to have their names there? Judas Iscariot is one such person whose name was planned by God to be absent from that book forever. He planned that from the foundation of the world, Alice. In fact He planned for the “many” to be absent from His book and He told you that in Matthew 7: 13.

        Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? God, willing to shew wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. {Romans 9: 21 & 22}

        Eternal destruction (torment) is a necessity of God making known His power so that you might fear exceedingly, Alice and all the rest of you all. Be wise and be afraid because you all of your belief are going to burn in brimstone with wiggling maggots and flies and much sweat unless you repent of this falsehood and receive the knowledge of the truth.

        • Stephen Helbig March 7, 2012 at 10:07 am

          Lanny, here is A SHORT WORD STUDY ON “TORMENT”, please take a look- see. It is translated from the Greek word BASANIZŌ. In the Strong’s Greek dictionary it is number 928. When we begin our study of this word one can quickly become quite confused as to the actual meaning of the Greek. Here is the confusion: in four references we have conflicting meanings. Plese read whole article before responding.

          I’ll enclose two other sriptures in postscripts below just for you, GRACE Be unto you

          p.s. Philippians 2:11~~ and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
          p.s.s. 1 cor 12:3 …. and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

          • Lanny A. Eichert March 8, 2012 at 8:03 pm

            Leading to purification is a “no go” because in 1 Corinthians 3 the flamable ministries are burn away into ruination. Look at Revelation 9: 5; 14: 11; 18: 7; 18: 10; 18: 15 and see if purification works. Does a scorpion purify a man with its sting? Does no rest day and night purify a person? Does sorrow purify a city, or the fear and tears of merchants? Use you brains, Stephen, the appeal is to your emotions by these people who don’t know that testing by torture doesn’t produce purity. It only produces the answer that is EXPECTED, not the truth.

  • Mary Vanderplas February 29, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    I like what they say. The ideas that “the stuff in the middle is hugely important” and that the gospel is Story which involves salvation aren’t new to me, though. (I don’t come out of a background that reduces the gospel to only the atoning death of Jesus to the exclusion of his life and ministry inaugurating and embodying the rule of God on earth.) Still, I appreciate what they say, and agree that an emphasis on the full story is a needed corrective to much that passes for the Christian gospel today.

    I really like N.T. Wright’s comments on the imperative of the gospel to help the poor and feed the hungry. For me, the example and teaching of Jesus, who came bringing good news to the poor, make the issue beyond question. His point about poverty being depressing especially struck me, and is, I think, a good caution against making judgments about the motivation of those who are poor and/or not working. I like his point, too, about not using the dangers that come with helping the poor as an excuse for not helping. And I agree that what is called for is changing sinful systems, not just aiding the victims of these systems.

    I like what he says about a “New Perspective on Paul,” though here, too, I don’t know how new it is to Christians outside of traditions that reduce Paul’s gospel to individual salvation narrowly defined.

    I like what Scot McKnight says about Jesus having nothing to do with a reduction of the gospel to a plan for personal salvation and about the gospel being about the King and the Kingdom. I like, too, his emphasis on discipleship over against an overemphasis on conversion. Again, I think what he says is an important corrective to much that goes on in the name of service to Christ, underscoring our calling as Christ-followers to be agents of God’s liberating and reconciling work in the world.

  • Lanny A. Eichert March 4, 2012 at 4:54 am

    One of the things I’ve learned on this site is that in their view the Lake of Fire is supposed to be a remedial punishment to bring sinners to repentance and salvation. They base that on brimstone being used to refine metal. Now I wonder if they have thought that refining metals is a labor intensive endeavor: metals don’t purify themselves, right? So who are the laborers in this refining and restorative process they proclaim? Jesus said to pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers. God having provided His Salvation in the person of Jesus Christ declared though the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. The preaching means of saving those who believe is ordained not in the hands of angels by which the law of condemnation came, but men who have themselves been saved by Christ’s preaching brought down to our day by a continual line of seemingly insignificant faithful preaching persons who had pity and mercy on the lost sinners of this world.

    Who will go to the Lake of Fire and preach the cross of Christ? How can they go unless they’ve been sent? {Romans 10: 13 – 17} Where are those who will have pity and mercy on the lost sinners of the Lake of Fire? Dear reader, there are none who are sent to preach the gospel to those cast into the Lake of Fire. Can they save themselves? They on this site know that is impossible. So where are the laborers? Where is their commission to serve sinners in that awful place? Where are the laborers?

    • Stephen Helbig March 5, 2012 at 10:52 am

      Then said I, Here am I; send me.

      • Lanny A. Eichert March 5, 2012 at 2:58 pm

        “There is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence,” Jesus said and you’d make Him a Liar on account of your emotions?

  • Lanny A. Eichert March 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    Alice, “There is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence,” Jesus said to teach you that none can change their eternal residence after death. Whether or not it be a myth, in His teaching moment He still made that teaching point as a clearly pointed element of that of the story.

    Jesus proves {Luke 16: 26} your heretical Amazing Hope doctrine a lie from the pit of hell. No one leaves.

    Let the dead bury their dead {Matthew 8: 22 & Luke 9: 60} where one definition does not fit all. Judas Iscariot is eternally lost, perished. Jesus isn’t prophesying a falsehood in His John 17: 12 prayer, Alice, except you make Him a Liar. So which is it, Alice, is your God a Liar or is Alice a liar? You’re either on drugs or you’re off drugs. You’re either a liar or your God is a Liar. Which is it, Alice.

    • admin March 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm

      That’s right. There is a great gulf fixed between the law (Abraham) and grace (Christ). Claiming salvation because of being a descendent of Abraham will never allow anyone to cross the gulf. It is only through Christ that the captives are set free. Not only is He able to cross whatever divides us from God, but He holds the keys to death. Death cannot hold anyone forever, if Christ, Whose mission is to seek and save the lost/perished/destroyed is successful in His mission. You may believe that Christ’s “success” is to save a select few and reject all others who were doomed before they were ever created, or you may believe that Christ is exactly Who He says He is, and that He can do what He what He has purposed to do.

  • Lanny A. Eichert March 5, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    Sorry, Alice, Abraham doesn’t at all pre-figure Law. That you have totally wrong. Abraham figures faith in the promises of God. He is the father of the faithful. I thought you knew that. Salvation was never by the Law, not even during the Old Testament historical period. Even then it was by grace through faith. God’s believers have Abraham for their father and are the children of Abraham. I am so totally shocked by what you try to twist around so horribly. “Your” picture is nowhere near correct Bible doctrine, Alice. Haven’t you read Galatians?

    Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. {Galatians 3: 6 & 7}

    The impassible gap exists between hell and heaven. There can no saints cross over into hell or the Lake of Fire to preach the gospel to those condemned in hell or the Lake of Fire. That is the true meaning you must accept in Jesus’ use of this story of the rich man and Lazarus before you will be accepted for heaven, or you will burn by yourself in darkness with maggots munching your insides while flies bore through your flesh in your eyes, ears, nose, mouth, under your armpits, between your legs, and buttocks to deposit more eggs to make more maggots to feast on your guts while you sweat in the heat over your missed opportunity to have believed the truth presented to you.

    • admin March 6, 2012 at 8:19 am

      Of course I’ve read Galatians. And yes, you are correct in associating Abraham as a figure of faith in the promises of God. But remember that Jesus addressed the Pharisees in this parable, saying they were “the ones who justify [themselves] in the eyes of others, but God knows [their] hearts.” The rich man was symbolically clothed in purple (spiritual “royalty”) and linen (prescribed attire of priests) and “fared sumptuously every day” (enjoyed God’s spiritual blessings only available to Jews in that age).

      Notice the rich man appeals to his position as a descendent of Abraham in the hope of bridging the gulf, instead of recognizing what Moses and the prophets testify concerning Jesus Christ. In his lifetime, he had despised the Gentiles instead of being a blessing to them as part of God’s chosen people – chosen to be a “royal priesthood” to the nations. His brothers were making the same mistake.

      Jesus’s point is not to promote a doctrine of eternal torment; it is a clear rebuke of Jewish leaders, who “hear not Moses and the prophets” concerning their Messiah. Jesus’s story is also prophetic, because His main character says, “neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” And they weren’t. Who won’t be persuaded? The five brothers. Who are the five brothers? Do you know, or are you so caught up in your own interpretation (eternal torment, darkness, maggots, sweat, heat, etc) that you don’t want to know?

    • Lanny A. Eichert March 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm

      Alice, you acknowledge Abraham’s children are those of faith but you haven’t applied it to your interpretation, in other words, the formerly rich man cannot be identified as having Abraham as his father. Jesus disqualifies those Pharisees as children of Abraham and called them the devil’s children. Your interpretation falls apart. Jesus isn’t going to give them an inch to claim a relationship to Abraham. They are void of faith.

      Since Abraham and faith go together you cannot connect the rich man to the Law through Abraham either because the Law came 430 years after Abraham. Abraham has absolutely no connection to the Law at all. Jesus ruined their false hope in Abraham when He tied Abraham to faith in God’s promises apart from works of Law which hadn’t even been given until long after Abraham was dead.

      Also, Alice, you don’t have to be a King to wear purple and you don’t have to be a priest to wear fine linen and you don’t need to be enjoying spiritual blessings to eat well daily: all you need is to be rich and you may be a pagan as well, even a religious pagan if you wish. There is no necessity to have your interpretation other than to discredit the plain teaching of what happens to people who die.

      Look, you make your God a Liar at John 17: 12 by saying God will reconcile Judas Iscariot to fellowship with Himself, so why should I give you any credit? Besides Jesus does get done everything He came to do including committing sinners to eternal torment because He told you few find the strait way leading to eternal life. How are you going to get the many saved without preachers anyway, Alice? Who is going to evangelize those sinners in the Lake of Fire? Remember that time will be the time of the New Heaven and the New Earth and the Lake of Fire is not part of the New Creation. Sinners are isolated in solitary confinement, so how are you going to circumvent their isolation? They will be wallowing in their own misery and wanting no company or conversation. How do you get past that? That’s what they wanted by their refusal to believe and that’s what God gives them: no God and nobody else either. Are you going to violate the will of God for the sinner?

      • admin March 9, 2012 at 12:00 am

        So, if I understand you correctly, Jesus just happened to give the parable fine details like the purple and linen, the fact that the Rich man calls Abraham “father” and Abraham calls him “son”, the fact that the rich man has five brothers, and the like. Are we to pay no attention to these things, and assume that Jesus was just randomly elaborating? I could see your point if Jesus were using a particular, identifiable language-style (poetic, apocalyptic, prophetic, etc.), but He speaks this parable as He does any other: symbolic imagery packaged in plain, conversational language to make a point. You would have me to dismiss Jesus’s specificity as unintentional? As coincidence? If these things “discredit the plain teaching of what happens to people who die”, then Jesus Himself is the One doing the discrediting, not me. I certainly didn’t write it. And if Jesus’s point is that people who die burn in hell forever, then why does he bother with all the unnecessary detail?

        Study some first century non-biblical materials to find out what purple meant at the time. For example, in modernity, a rainbow is, in popular culture, associated with gay pride. If a man wears a rainbow shirt, people think he must be gay or pro-gay or whatever. If you were to give a speech to a crowd of people, and within this speech you gave an illustration about a man who wore a rainbow shirt, the crowd would likely associate the character’s attire with homosexuality. This is one example among many in this parable that points to a totally different meaning than the one you give it. On what basis do you dismiss the word-choices of Jesus Christ? Do you also dismiss the fact that the prodigal son, the younger son was equal heir to his father’s wealth, even though the norm for first century listeners was that the older son was financially favored over the younger one? Do you also argue as dogmatically against this symbolism? No, you don’t. Do you know why? Because it doesn’t make the doctrine of eternal torment look like an imposed idea. (Actually it does, but that is another conversation for another day…)

        To answer your questions:

        …why should I give you any credit? – Don’t. Give Jesus credit.

        How are you going to get the many saved without preachers anyway, Alice? Jesus “went and preached to the spirits in prison”. It is not my responsibility to “get the many saved”, nor is it yours, the responsibility of salvation rests squarely on the shoulders of the “author” and “finisher” of faith, Jesus Christ.

        Who is going to evangelize those sinners in the Lake of Fire? Jesus holds the keys to death and Hades for a reason. I don’t pretend to know the details. Perhaps as a minister of reconciliation, I will be privileged to partner with Him to evangelize beyond this lifetime. The scriptures aren’t specific enough about post-mortem stuff.

        Sinners are isolated in solitary confinement, so how are you going to circumvent their isolation? Again, salvation does not belong to me, it belongs to Jesus Christ. Perhaps if you were to ask Jesus that same question, He might reply, “It is finished.” or “Behold, I make all things new.”

        They will be wallowing in their own misery and wanting no company or conversation. How do you get past that? Let’s suppose you are right about the rich man and Lazarus, for a moment. It is a literal story. Eternal torment in Hell is being described in the story. So, where do you get this idea that the tormented one is “wanting no company or conversation”? Didn’t the rich man want to send a message to his five brothers? Doesn’t your question contradict your interpretation of the parable? And to answer your question, I don’t need to get past that. Because “that” is a construct of your imagination. It reminds me of a documentary I saw in which a toddler, barely old enough to walk, is encouraged by his mother to cross over a glass floor. By appearance only, the situation looked dangerous, yet the toddler crossed with the encouragement of his mother. In contrast, when the mother acted panicked or fearful, the toddler would not cross the glass floor, for fear of falling through what appeared to be a drop-off. Anti-spiritual perception can create roadblocks where there are none. It is not me who needs to get past that, it is you.

        Are you going to violate the will of God for the sinner? If it is the will of God for the sinner to repent, then I’m not violating God’s will by standing in agreement with Him.

      • Lanny A. Eichert March 9, 2012 at 5:23 am

        I’ve been wearing all week long a worn purple shirt with a couple holes in it and I will wear a rainbow one if I choose without advertising what I am not. Not every detail in Jesus stories holds meanings. The story of the woman having lost a piece of silver in Luke 15: 8 – 10 has details without significance to the specific point of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus was “randomly elaborating” a factual situation of two literal men He knew. Even non-Catholics call Catholic clergy Father and they call people “son” even as some older men address younger men as “son.” Jesus is using an accepted Jewish convention which He argues to the contrary and the fact is the rich man is NOT where Lazarus is as proof he is no son of Abraham. So though in accordance with your words of “randomly elaborating” those details give us literal information of life after death. Again, Alice, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. What is the significance of the tip of Lazarus’ finger, Alice? Why just the tip and not the whole or even the cupped hand or even bring a pail? Have you discovered a meaning for every detail that fits the point you believe? Don’t you see that you pick and choose what details to use and what details you ignore? You have no evangelists but Jesus to save those in the Lake of Fire even though the Scriptures say that God chose through preachers preaching to save believers. Your idea of 1 Peter 3: 19 is nowhere certain and as I offered it refers to Christ’s spirit in Noah while he was building the ark. You have actually no way of getting the Gospel to the residents of the Lake of Fire. You have none because there is none. Their fate is sealed and permanent. Eternal torment is reality and you are a liar of that eternal consequence.

  • Lanny A. Eichert March 5, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. {Galatians 3: 17}

    Abraham is 430 years BEFORE the Law given at Sinai.

    Tell me, Alice, that you don’t know these things? How can I possibly excuse you? This has been what I long ago meant when I said you know nothing as you aught. You are a novice at Biblical interpretation. The same applies to Mary. The reason why is that you haven’t been converted to Christ and are lost as lost can be while thinking you know the Bible. Face it that you are trying to figure this Bible stuff but you don’t have the understanding to do it. I used to be there too before I was born again and found out how truly plain God’s words are and simple to believe. You all make it so complex that it is almost unbelievably insane and that’s why you make God a Liar every way you turn you speech.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.