I have a book on my shelves by Dr. Wilbur M. Smith titled Therefore Stand. The subtitle is: “A Plea for a Vigorous Apologetic in This Critical Hour of the Christian Faith.”
Chapter 3 is titled “Some Reasons for the Unbelief of Men and Their Antagonism to God.”
Dr. Wilbur Smith published this book in 1945. Most readers today might find his writing long-winded. I will therefore give only some of the chapter subheadings here, and perhaps a sentence from the text for a very few of them.
But, in my own words, I find that the most significant reason for unbelief is that those who disbelieve the Bible know almost nothing about the Bible and what it says. Unbelievers disbelieve a caricature of the Bible and Christianity, not the Bible itself.
Unbelievers have received what little knowledge of the Bible they think they have from sources that have “poisoned the well.”
The cure for unbelief is a level-headed and careful study of the Bible itself. Read the Bible independently for yourself. I suggest you start with the New Testament book called the Gospel of John. If you have never read it repeatedly for yourself, it would help you to do so.
Among the causes of unbelief Dr. Wilbur Smith discusses are:
(1) Man fallen away from God has a bias against God.
(2) The darkness of the mind of natural man.
(3) The pride of man.
(4) The determination to live without God.
(5) Early manifestations of hatred to God.
(6) Educational influences that by their character must create an attitude of skepticism.
(7) The increasing supremacy of the material means the subordination of the spiritual.
(8) The exaltation of science.
There is a positiveness, definiteness, and promise about mathematical equations, physical laws, and chemical formulae, which make men feel that here their feet are on solid rock, that their minds are grappling with realities. But science is no synonym for spirituality, and the life of men is made up of more things than can be measured with test tubes and balances. Yet, man is so absorbed in the pursuit of nature’s secrets that he is increasingly ignorant of his inner spiritual life, and this is one of the tragedies of our day. Men engaged in science are themselves partly to blame for this. They devote days and nights, months, sometimes years, to the discovery of some one scientific fact, but they will not give twenty minutes a day to pondering the Word of God, nor five minutes a day to the exercise of their soul in prayer to God.
(9) “Ye shall be as Gods.”
(10) The relation of sin to unbelief.
(11) “The connection between infidelity and sensuality.”
…the whole history of free thought supports me in the statement, namely, that socialism, free-thinking, communism, skepticism, have generally been accompanied by what is definitely known today as infidelity or immorality.
(12) Ignorance of the Word of God and of true Christianity a major cause of unbelief.
One of the three greatest causes for men not accepting Jesus Christ as their Saviour is that they do not know who Christ is, what He said, what He has done; they know nothing of His glory and love, His grace, and power, and Godhead. If they do not know, they cannot believe.
(13) Unbeief begets unbelief.
(14) The will not to believe.
(15) Demonic influences.
hello jerry i like to the book therefore stand by wilbur m.smith. i am thankful for my salvation in jesus christ. my favorite vs on salvation john 5/24verily, verily i say unto you,he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me,hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life
A lot of unbelief is cause by learned people exposing false doctrines. Even honest men can be deluded and teach false doctrine.
I was reading a book about the Bible Societies of the early 1800’s. Several comments caught my attention right in the first chapter.
In another book I read,
Another:
One much of course, READ it for themselves, and not believe what others say.
“my hope is built on nothing less than jesus’blood and righteousness; i dare not turst the sweetest frame,but wholly lean on jesus’name. these words have been an encouragement to me many a times i am thankful to the lord for edward mote for writing this great hymn”the solid rock”. i have been blessed by some scriptures that have been real encouraging to me this week. rom 4/25″who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification”. rom 5/8 but god demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, christ died for us. mt 20/28 even as the son of man came not to be ministered unto,but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. act 2/24 whom god hath raised up,having loosed the pains of death:because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. i pe 1/21 who by him do believe in god, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory: that your faith and hope might be in god. what a solid foundation we have in the lords death burial and resurrection!
Dear A. Way,
I suspect you are getting closer to the truth, but may not be there yet.
You are correct to point out that a central issue of great concern is our understanding of the character of God.
That character is revealed in the Bible alone.
It is generally best to study the Bible independently. Independent study allows the Bible to speak fully for itself.
The most important truths of the Bible are there for all to read. They can often be understood even by a child.
There are some religious groups, denominations, organizations, and even individuals who are not satisfied to take the Bible literally for what it says. They disagree with the picture of our eternal destiny should we not avail ourselves by the grace of God of the truth of God revealed in the Bible. Some would, for example, sugarcoat the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment.
Some want to take the love of God to the exclusion of His other attributes. We must abide by the total picture of God given in the Bible, and not pick and choose the attributes of God we like to the exclusion of those the Bible reveals just as clearly and emphatically that we do not like.
Jerry – let me quote for you from a person you hate.
Why do people have unbelief?
It is a marvel that Satan has succeeded so well in making men believe that the words of God, “The soul that sinneth it shall die,” mean that the soul that sinneth it shall not die, but live eternally in misery. Life is life, whether it is in pain or happiness. Death is without pain, without joy, without hatred.
I’ll take the picture of God I see in the Bible. He is not a tyrant as many (most) Christians make Him out to be.
Dear A. Way,
I’ll take the picture of God I read in the Bible undiminished by any spirit of rationalism, or by any attempt on my part to re-write the script of the Bible to suit my own preferences.
We have gone over this thoroughly before. I even presented and applied 23 Rules of Interpretation to serve as a proper and necessary guide to avoid the common mistakes so many are guilty of making when they try to force-fit the truth of the Bible to support their own philosophy, or their own religion. You will find the 23 Rules of Interpretation in the October 2010 Archives on this site.
I believe your central mistake in this regard is that you are clinging to what others have told or taught you that the Bible says, rather than going to the Bible itself to discern what God has written for our learning.
But I invite you to attempt to engage in Real Bible Study.
I believe I fully demonstrated here directly from Scripture that you are the one (or your sources, or your chosen denomination) who denies what God said to Adam and Eve when God said in Genesis, “Thou shalt surely die.” I explained the figure of speech involved (Polyptoton), which is very emphatic. It requires the meaning that the very day, literal day, in which they sinned that they would die.
Now it is most obvious to any reader that Adam and Eve did not die physically that day. They lived physically for many years after that.
Apparently, what I affirm, and what you deny, is that Adam and Eve died spiritually. It is very clear in context that their once comfortable relationship with God Himself was shattered by their sin. They no longer sought such a relationship, but on the contrary attempted to hide from God. Surely this, among other things in the context, demonstrates the immediate change in relationship that surely marks their spiritual death.
They were both brought back into fellowship with God when He provided skins for their covering. Those skins for a covering represent animal sacrifice made by God for their sin of disobedience. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. But they lost their place in the Garden of Eden.
Christ suffered on the cross and bore our sin when he shed His blood for us. When we place our faith in Him and believe His Word as written in the Bible, He gives us a new life–spiritual life, eternal life, and through Him our sins are forgiven. But until we receive the free gift God offers to us of salvation through faith in the death of His only begotten Son on the cross for us, we remain spiritually dead.
Most people who are very much alive physically are yet dead in their sins. Thus, they are spiritually dead, and if they remain in that condition, they will not experience everlasting life with Christ, but will unfortunately experience the wrath of God for not believing on Him (John 3:36). That wrath is a continuing wrath that abides on the children of wrath, the children of disobedience. Those who choose not to believe in Christ are “condemned already.” The wrath of God is carried out eternally without end in the Lake of Fire, and is conscious torment, of which even the demon spirits who addressed Jesus were very much afraid. Hell was created for the devil and his angels, but some willfully disbelieve God’s Word, and fail to believe on Christ, and will suffer the just punishment for their sin of unbelief, with a punishment proportional in intensity of torment, not differing in duration, as the Scripture most plainly declares.
God is not running a popularity contest. He has both set and declared the standard, and He has declared what He will do.
None of us have the right to rewrite the script, or to diminish His warnings, or question his mercy, holiness, justice, or fairness. Even Abraham declared, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25)
You are right, we have gone over this before. I take what the Bible says. A most plain statement is found right at the end of the Bible:
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Yet it is you that denies this simple, plain, statement of fact. Is there any doubt how this causes so much unbelief? None whatsoever.
Dear A. Way,
You said on April 6, 2012,
From just whose eyes is it that God is wiping away all tears?
It is among those, and no others, that God declares there shall be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain.
This text does NOT teach that all death, sorrow, crying, or pain are eliminated for the entire universe.
Eternal torment continues forever in the Lake of Fire for those who have chosen to disbelieve the record that God has given of His Son.
Perhaps it would do you well to carefully study the 23 Rules of Interpretation in the October 2010 archives here on this site. Your interpretation violates several of them. You have failed, for example, to take into account the context. You are deriving your view of what the Bible says from sources other than, and actually hostile to, the Bible itself.
When the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, unbelief thrives, because those who claim to believe the Bible teach directly contrary to what it plainly states. Suppressing Bible truth to appease the thinking and opinions of the “natural man” (who Scripture says cannot understand the Bible) furthers unbelief, and fits right into the deceptive tactics of Satan, who sponsors all false doctrine. The doctrines of demons are sponsored by the Angel of Light, whom the Bible clearly identifies as Satan himself.
Satan has demonstrated for all time that he does not know how to correctly interpret the Bible, for in his use of Scripture he misapplied the verse of Scripture he quoted in response to our Lord Jesus Christ during the temptation of Christ. Satan failed to account for all the rest of the evidence and teaching in the Bible that runs counter to what he attempted to assert.
That is the same mistake you have made.
THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT
BY
THOMAS B. THAYER
Read the Biblical arguments. The Bible does not teach a conscious eternal punishment. And such a concept has turns many against God.
From the preface:
This little work is written for the purpose of furnishing a sketch of the argument by which it is shown that the doctrine of Endless Punishment is not of divine origin, but traceable directly to a heathen source.
Dear A. Way,
Thank you for naming a suggested resource for further study.
From Google, just now, note the following:
I highly suspect that anything from Boston’s “Universalist Publishing House” will hardly be expected to furnish a legitimate biblical argument. But I do intend to take a look.
As to whether the Bible itself teaches the doctrine of “a conscious eternal punishment,” I have already shown here that the Bible does so teach this doctrine very plainly. Jesus warned of it. And you must already know that well from what I have already posted here.
Here is a paragraph from near the beginning of the book by Thomas B. Thayer (to demonstrate that I have indeed secured copies of the book since I last posted, despite being now very busily engaged on my expansion of cross references for Luke, chapter 5):
At least in this paragraph, Thayer seems to support what I said of the Genesis 2:17 passage, namely, that death was threatened for disobedience, and in the very day of disobedience, it is clear that spiritual death took place immediately, with the result that physical death would follow imminently.
But as I have asserted at length before, physical death was not the punishment for the sin of Adam, but the consequence.
Thayer’s reasoning is not from a proper examination of the Bible passages involved, at least not on his opening pages. Instead, he reasons that if God had intended that man should suffer eternal punishment for sin, then God ought to have made this more clear from the beginning of the Bible.
Of course, this is one more attempt to “re-write the script,” which is an invalid approach to what the Bible actually teaches.
One MUST do genuine, independent, Real Bible Study, carefully heeding the 23 Rules of Interpretation I have posted in the October 2010 Archives here, to arrive at the truth of what the Bible itself teaches.
But thank you, Mr. A. Way, for calling my attention to an accessible resource for study.
Quote:”As to whether the Bible itself teaches the doctrine of “a conscious eternal punishment,” I have already shown here that the Bible does so teach this doctrine very plainly. Jesus warned of it. And you must already know that well from what I have already posted here”.
Funny – I don’t see that in the Bible. It is not a Biblical teaching. Can you show it to me from the Books of the Law? Nope. The prophets? Nope. The NT? No. Not even in twisting of a parable. The final end of sinners is death – – eternal non-existence. (Obadiah 16). The doctrine of hell has indeed caused many to have unbelief.
Dear A. Way,
One of the significant causes of unbelief is false teaching from false cultists or religionists who claim to have and know the truth in a fashion that makes everybody else wrong. But their true colors are shown when they are given the opportunity to face what the Bible actually says when it is interpreted correctly (by following the 23 Rules of Interpretation, naturally).
Many years ago when I attended Military Avenue United Presbyterian Church where I was an Elder and the Sunday School Superintendent, I visited the home of one of our Sunday school teachers who had been unexpectedly absent.
The pastor and I learned that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had begun a study at her home with her husband. When the husband discovered that the Jehovah Witness teaching did not square with the teaching of the Bible as we presented it to him, he forbid his wife from attending church. He did not want to be involved in any disagreements about the Bible or religion. Thus, this false cult in my experience short-circuited the work of God and the Bible in that family, and to some degree, in that neighborhood.
You have presented a most interesting proof text, namely, Obadiah 16, for eternal non-existence.
Now may I politely ask you, based on Obadiah 16, if it speaks of eternal non-existence, as you suggest, to what is this non-existence applied in context?
Here is the verse:
Oba 1:16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
Here is my latest edition of my cross references for this passage from the project I am working on to greatly expand cross references and notes for Bible study:
Obadiah 1:16. For. Note: This address is to the Jews. As they had drunk the cup of God’s indignation even on mount Zion, so the heathen in their respective countries should continually and abundantly drink of the same cup, until they were utterly destroyed.—God’s judgments are frequently represented under the image of a cup of intoxicating liquors.—See the Parallel Passages. Zc 12:1. as ye. +**Ge 6:13. Ps 75:8, 9. Is 47:6. 49:25, 26. 51:22, 23. Je 25:15, 16, 27-29. 49:12. Jl 3:17. Mt 5:38. 7:1. Ga 6:7. *1 P 4:17. mountain. +Is 11:9. Ezk 20:40. so shall. Pr 17:5. Je 25:29. *Je 30:16. Ezk 25:12-14. *Mt 7:2. *James 2:13. swallow down. or, sup up. Jb 6:3. +Is 42:14mg. Hab 1:9. and they shall be. ver. Obadiah 1:18. Is 8:9, 10. 26:14. 29:7, 8. La 4:21, 22. Ezk 35:14, 15. as though they had not been. A favorite text of Annihilationists, this passage and statement pertains not to the eternal fate of individuals, but to nations which opposed Israel. *Jb 10:19. +**Mt 10:28n. 26:24. 1 Cor 15:36. 2 Cor 5:1, 4, 8. 2 P 1:14, 15.
You stated:
It could well be that you don’t see some of these things in the Bible. It may very well be because you do not want to see them. But they are clearly there, and I have absolutely proved these matters in prior posts here.
Your interpretation of Obadiah 16, for example, makes the same mistake that Calvinists make in their interpretation of Romans 9. Calvinists apply the reference to Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:13) as if God absolutely predestined individuals either to heaven or hell before they were born. That is NOT what Paul is speaking of in Romans 9. The reference Paul makes to Jacob and Esau is a citation from Malachi, as I recall, written long after they were dead and gone (Malachi 1:2, 3). The reference, therefore, is to their posterity as nations. So, the reference in Obadiah is to the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom. I seem to recall commenting in a post here recently that we haven’t seen any Edomites around lately, have we? Proof that God fulfills His word in the Bible precisely. He declared in Obadiah that the Edomites would one day “be as though they had never been.” But that has no bearing upon the eternal destiny of individuals, and provides no support for the doctrine of annihilation. Thus there is a difference. Careful attention to the Rules of Interpretation would help both the Seventh-day Adventists and the Calvinists interpret the Bible more accurately. As it stands, they both have their Bible doctrines very wrong.
Thank you for bringing my attention to Obadiah 16.
Quote:”A favorite text of Annihilationists, this passage and statement pertains not to the eternal fate of individuals, but to nations which opposed Israel.”
What makes up nations??? People. “they shall be as though not existing.” This denotes total destruction. Nations that oppose God will cease to exist. “body and soul” will be destroyed in hell, Matthew 10:28). This is the “second death” Revelation 20:13-15. The Bible give no reason to believe the doctrine of an ever-burning hell in which the lost will suffer punishment without end. Immortality, promised to man on condition of obedience, had been forfeited by transgression. 1 Timothy 6:15-16 … the King of kings, and Lord of lords; (16) Who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach to; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.
Who only has immortality? God. So if His created beings are immortal as Jerry teaches, then God has to keep them alive, making Him a sadistic monster. And there is no doubt that this has cause probably millions to have unbelief. One commenter wrote, “How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live.”
The theory of eternal torment is one of the false doctrines that constitute the wine of the abomination of Babylon, of which she makes all nations drink. It is pagan in origin, instigated by Satan, and propagated today in many Christian churches following the lead of the Papal system. In fact, it is interesting how many of your doctrines line up with the Papal sytem. Are you a Romanist?
Dear A. Way,
Good to hear from you again!
It helps, when arriving at the correct interpretation of Scripture, to understand and apply the rules of grammar. It likewise helps to heed all 23 Rules of Interpretation. Your position violates both. Your position is therefore flat-out wrong, and heresy of the worst kind. By violating these rules you deceitfully handle Scripture, rather than taking it for what it really says.
Very often in Scripture what is said of the group is not applicable every individual, for example.
But in the case of the verse you lifted out of context from Obadiah 16, Obadiah is definitely speaking of nations, not individuals. He is speaking of the nation of Israel, which shall as a nation continue, and the nation of Edom, which was predicted by God to cease existence. Today, that prediction has been clearly fulfilled. You haven’t seen any Edomites running around lately, have you? Nor are they in the news. That nation is gone. They are as a nation now as if they had never been, as far as their existence as a nation is concerned.
The reference is absolutely NOT a reference to individual persons, for they are not addressed in Obadiah verse 16, “and they shall be as though they had not been.” You apparently forgot to read verse 1, “The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord God concerning Edom.” In case you forgot, Edom was a nation.
Immortality, if applied to humans, does not have reference to either the soul or spirit. Immortality has reference to resurrected bodies which will be imperishable, thus immortal, having life that will never end. Souls and spirits do not die physically, but they do die, or are yet dead, spiritually. Therefore, to suggest only God has immortality is misapplied on your part, for there is a similar Scripture that speaks of God as alone possessing wisdom.
May I kindly suggest that you go back, or rather, for the first time go, to Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, and learn to read and study the Bible independently for yourself, apart from all denominational and cult commentary. You may likely never learn the truth of what the Bible teaches until you do. And that would be an everlasting tragedy. I truly do not want that to befall you!
Yeah – I’ve been busy. I found your Michigan rant interesting. BTW – what did Christ do to counter the evils of the political powers of the day? I do know that in the last days, the religious powers will use the state to enforce their decrees, just as the Pope did for over 1000 years in Europe.
Robinson – – – – Obadiah is only one of many verses. It is a type of what will happen to the wicked. You did not deny your link to Romanism. What that an oversight or an acknowledgement?
Dear A. Way,
You ask, What did Christ do to counter the evils of the political powers of His day?
Answer: He instructed them to “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39). He challenged them with the question, “Have ye never read…?” (Matthew 12:3).
More to the point, What does the Scripture teach us elsewhere on the subject? Start with 1 Timothy 2:1, 2–
Recall in particular that the recorded ministry of John the Baptist clearly demonstrates that he dealt with political issues. Of course, he got his head chopped off. But he stood up for the truth, and for justice, on a variety of issues as you no doubt have read in the Bible yourself.
You make the following assertion:
Whatever those alleged “religious powers” may ultimately be, they will not be Bible believing Christian powers, you may be very sure.
And they will never make decrees pertaining to what day one must worship! That may be Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, but it is not Bible doctrine, for the Bible nowhere teaches that.
Obadiah may be just “one of many verses.” You brought up that verse, and I refuted the interpretation you gave of it by following the 23 Rules of Interpretation I’ve outlined in the October 2010 Archives on this site.
Want to try another verse? I’ll take another verse and refute it, if you will give me one verse at a time to tackle.
You observe, then ask:
I figured the answer to that one is so obvious that I did not answer it. But, since it is not a matter clear to you, you may recall upon my reminding you that somewhere on this site I have suggested that Romanism is a false cult. I consider it to be a cult because it adds something to the Bible, namely Tradition, as of equal authority to the Bible, instead of going by the Bible alone.
In discussing this matter with Roman Catholics on the Internet, I have compared Tradition with a mysterious black box, and its contents, in the words of the well-known nursery rhyme, “…nothing in it, nothing in it, but the binding ’round it.” No Roman Catholic has ever met my challenge to produce so much as one authenticated sentence spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ that the Roman Catholic Church possesses which I do not already possess in the primary source documents we all share in the 27 books of the New Testament.
You will never discover any link to Romanism on my part. I go by the Bible alone and in its entirety, they do not.
The Roman Catholic Church CANNOT be the “one true church,” because they do not at all teach what our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles taught in the New Testament regarding the Kingdom of God, the Millennium, and related prophetic themes, for they consider the doctrine of Chiliasm taught for the first three and one half centuries by all Christian writers in agreement with the New Testament itself to be heresy.
I do not “push” any church or denomination here. I emphasize learning to do Real Bible Study, study that is independent of any religious group or organization or denomination or cult. I believe that everyone should read and study the Bible for themselves, and then believe what they read in the Bible.
So how you would come up with the notion that I would be affiliated in any way with Romanism I’ll have to let you explain.
You think that since some doctrines I hold are also held by the Church of Rome is no argument. Romanism affirms the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romanism believes in the doctrine of the Trinity. Romanism believes in the personality of the Holy Spirit. Romanism believes in eternal punishment. Romanism believes in consciousness after the death of the body. Those doctrines are all found in the Bible, and very clearly so, and are believed by all who are genuine Bible believing Christians. But Romanism denies the right of each individual to read and believe the Bible for what it says. Romanism believes doctrines that even they will admit are not from the Bible itself, such as belief in Purgatory, and many beliefs and practices pertaining to their reverence for Mary the mother of Jesus. The Church of Rome thinks it is the One True Church and officially teaches that no one who is outside their fold can be saved. They are clearly mistaken about that. Our Lord Jesus Christ DID NOT authorize any hierarchical form for His Church, but sternly taught against it (Matthew 20:20-27).
Nevertheless, I encourage Roman Catholics to read what is on this site. I always encourage Roman Catholics to read the New Testament in a plain text Bible repeatedly for themselves. I have often over many years loaned copies of the Ronald Knox translation of the Bible, a Roman Catholic version devoid of doctrinal footnotes. The first person to whom I loaned a copy remarked with tears in his eyes that reading and rereading the Gospel of John opened his eyes to the truth of the Gospel. He asked me, “Why is it that my Church is not teaching this?” He further remarked, “The Gospel of John tells me ‘Believe,’ ‘Believe,’ ‘Believe,’ and that is not what my Church has been telling me.” I think he got the central message of the book from his own repeated reading of it. Everyone would do well to do the same.
I spent two hours talking with two different Roman Catholic men today in person, encouraging them to read the Bible for themselves, starting with the Gospel of John. I loaned one of the men a New Testament so he could immediately do so. I did not argue against the Roman Catholic Church. The subject did not even come up. I did promote independent Bible reading and study. I trust that they will soon truly find Christ as their Savior, just as I did on November 7, 1953, by reading the New Testament for themselves.
tradition – interesting that you used tradition to support your view that Revelation 1:10, the Lord’s Day, was Sunday. Of course, you then stated that it was the day of the Lord as in the end, but you did not recognize that that view can not be supported by the context of the time seen in the vision of Revelation 1. The only Biblical supported view of the “Lord’s Day” is the Sabbath which you reject.
Quote:”Romanism believes in consciousness after the death of the body. Those doctrines are all found in the Bible, and very clearly so, and are believed by all who are genuine Bible believing Christians.” Then there are a lot of Christians that are not genuine then as these are not to be found in the Bible. These are pagan in origin. The Bible is so clear as to who ONLY has immortality, and that is God. We do not have innate immortality. 1 Timothy 6:16. And the only way you can get eternal torment is to have God keep people alive in order to torture them. This clearly is a cause of unbelief. It makes God into a Monster much worse than Satan. As to the nature of man, the Bible is again very clear, Genesis 3:19, …for dust you are, and to dust shall you return. We are dust! We are not a body with an external soul stuck into it.
As for Romanism – I have many friends that are Catholic. One has been my business partner approaching 30 years. I think that many, perhaps even most of God’s true people are Catholic. The system is Babylon. The people are living up to the understanding that they have. The scriptures are the ONLY source of truth. If people would read the Bible and take it as it reads, then they can know the truth. For this, I applaud you the words of your statements. I do not agree with your interpretations of scripture. I often see the influence of others. I do not believe for one second that the interpretations you expound you found on Robinson’s island, alone, by yourself.
Dear A. Way,
You conclude your latest and most welcome comment with the observation:
I would be very interested to learn just where, then, you think I got my views about the Bible from.
I already explained in detail (in answer to this very charge you leveled at me a while back) my spiritual history. Did you forget already what I wrote back then?
You also say:
(1) That may be because you lost the map that shows how to reach Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island. If you have been studying the Bible there, you would no doubt by and large agree with me in my interpretations of the Bible.
(2) That may be because you do not know your Bible well enough yet. Keep studying the Bible, not denominational literature about the Bible, and you will increase your knowledge of what the Bible says.
(3) That may be because you base your understanding of the Bible on what you have learned from mistaken denominational resources which have “poisoned the well.”
(4) That may be because I am mistaken; this is a Bible study site devoted to Real Bible Study, and I encourage evidence-based discussion about the Bible, and am most grateful that you have participated extensively in discussions here. I have learned a lot, though I might not always learn what you hoped I would!
Feel free to supply any information you might have that would indicate just who those “others” are. I already have confessed to thoroughly studying the subject of Bible prophecy by reading the three-volume work by George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, several times over, but if you consult my notes based on that source given in my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, you will discover that I disagree with Peters on occasion, in particular his misapplication of the Figure of Speech Hypocatastasis. It is possible, even probable, that I have spent more time studying the subject of the figures of speech in the Bible than Peters did.
Thank you again for your participation.
When you find another verse like Obadiah 16 that should prove problematical for my understanding of Bible doctrine, present the verse and I will be pleased to consider it.
As for Revelation 1:10, I believe we already discussed that verse very thoroughly. The “Lord’s Day” does not refer to the Sabbath Day in that text. It is unlikely that it refers to Sunday, but that is a more valid possibility than the Sabbath. I believe the best option is it has reference to the “Day of the Lord.” That fits the context of what is going on in the chapter, and the action that takes place in the rest of the book of Revelation, which takes place in the future during the Day of the Lord.
Quote:As for Revelation 1:10, I believe we already discussed that verse very thoroughly. The “Lord’s Day” does not refer to the Sabbath Day in that text. It is unlikely that it refers to Sunday, but that is a more valid possibility than the Sabbath. I believe the best option is it has reference to the “Day of the Lord.” That fits the context of what is going on in the chapter, and the action that takes place in the rest of the book of Revelation, which takes place in the future during the Day of the Lord.”
That is my point!! If Revelation 1:10 refers to Sunday, that is purely TRADITION, something you reject, and so you should reject this, and basically, you have. The idea that “but that is a more valid possibility than the Sabbath”, is baseless from a Bible and a Bible only point of view.
As for “The Day of our Lord”, that is not what the verse say, for one, and two, it is out of context with chapter 1 of Revelation. What does John see in chapter 1? Seven golden candlesticks. Where is this? That answer should be clear, and it is not the end of the world.
The remaining solution to what “Lord’s Day” means in Revelation 1:10, has to come from the Bible, and can be found here: Luke 6:5; Mark 2:28; Matthew 12:8; Isaiah 58:13; Deuteronomy 5:14; Exodus 31:15; Exodus 20:10; Exodus 16:23; Genesis 2:2-3. In the over all context, this can only mean the Sabbath. Of course, if your preconceived opinion is against the Sabbath, then you have to reject this, even though the Bible points to only one day that is the Lord’s Day, from Genesis to Revelation.
Dear A. Way,
It is not a matter of any preconceived opinion on my part regarding Revelation 1:10’s relation to the Sabbath. After the resurrection of Christ, the New Testament does not record a single instance of Christians meeting for Christian worship–such as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper–on the Sabbath.
So if it were a matter of deciding between Saturday or Sunday as the day referred to in Revelation 1:10, the best New Testament option would be Sunday. It could not be the seventh day Sabbath, for that would violate what John wrote at John 1:17, and would violate what our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to Paul as recorded in Galatians 4:9-11.
Therefore, Paul criticized, actually condemned the Galatians because they turned back to the yoke of bondage of keeping the Sabbath, for he said “Ye observe days,” a most direct reference to keeping the Jewish Sabbath.
I have only reached Luke 10, which I just completed minutes ago, in my project to expand the cross references available for Real Bible Study. So I have not explicitly re-studied anything in the Bible, or New Testament, beyond that point using the process to enhance the references. Nevertheless, I seem to recall that there are particularly good cross references available for Galatians 4:10. What I have so far in my files (which are unfinished for this passage) for that verse is as follows:
Galatians 4:9. ye have. *Ga 5:7. *Jg 2:10. 1 K 8:43. +*1 Ch 28:9. +**Ps 9:10n. 100:3. Pr 2:5. Is 19:21. %Is 45:4. Je 31:34. Hab 2:14. +*Mt 11:27. %Jn 8:19. +*Jn 17:3, %Jn 17:25. %Ac 17:23. Ro 5:11. 1 Cor 15:34. 2 Cor 4:6. Ep 1:17. 1 Th 1:9. 2 P 2:20. 1 J 2:3, 4. 5:20. known God. Ps 91:14. +1 Cor 1:21. +1 J 4:6, 7. or rather. FS69B, +Pr 6:16. are known. FS96A1, +Mt 5:29. Ex 33:17. *Ps 1:6. 31:7. Je 24:5. Ho 13:5. **Na 1:7. %Mt 25:12. %Lk 13:27. Jn 10:14, 27. *Ac 15:8. +*Ro 8:29. +1 Cor 8:3. 13:12. **2 Tim 2:19. how turn ye again. **Ga 1:6. 2:18. **Ga 3:1, 3. **Ps 85:8. +*Ps 101:3. +*Ps 119:176. Ho 8:4. Ro 8:3. *Col 2:20-23. Titus 1:14. *He 7:18. again. or, back. Ep 2:11-13. *He 10:38, 39. weak and beggarly. +Ro 8:3. +*Ro 14:5. He 7:11, 16. 9:10. elements. or, rudiments. ver. +Ga 4:3. *Col 2:8. desire again. FS159, +Ezk 36:23. *Ga 4:21. Lk 5:38. Jn 3:3. to be in bondage. **Ga 2:4. **Ga 5:1. **+Ac 15:10. 2 Cor 11:20.
Galatians 4:10. Ye observe. Le ch 23. Nu ch 28, 29. days. Le 23:2, 3. 25:1, 13. Nu 28:9, 10. 1 Ch 23:30, 31. 2 Ch 2:4. 8:13. 31:3. Ne 10:33. Ezk 45:17. **Ho 2:11. Ro 14:5, 6. **Col 2:16, 17. months. Nu 10:10. 28:11. 1 S 20:5. 1 Ch 23:31. 2 Ch 2:4. Ezr 3:5. Ne 10:33. Ps 81:3. Is 1:13, 14. Ezk 45:17. 46:6. Ho 2:11. **Col 2:16. seasons. 2 Ch 8:13. Zc 7:5, 6. years. Le 25:2-5, 8-17.
11. I am afraid. ver. Ga 4:20. %Ga 5:10. 2 Cor 7:5. *2 Cor 11:2, 3, 28. *2 Cor 12:20, 21. lest. Ga 2:2. *Ga 5:2-4. *Is 49:4. **1 Cor 15:58. Phil 2:16. +*Col 1:23. *1 Th 3:5n. *2 J 1:8. bestowed upon you labour. ver. Ga 4:19. Ro 16:6. 1 Cor 4:15. 2 Cor 12:15. 1 Th 5:12. in vain. Ga 5:2, 4. Le 26:20. Ps 127:1. +Ro 13:4. +*1 Cor 15:2. *2 Cor 6:1. %1 Th 2:1, 19, 20. +**1 Th 3:5n, 8.
You are well aware that another passage closely related to this one is found in Colossians 2:16. But we have discussed that passage thoroughly several times before here.
The point is, under Grace we are no longer in bondage to the Law, not even the Ten Commandments as such. Remember, only nine of the Ten Commandments are distinctly and explicitly repeated to us under grace as obligatory. One of the Ten Commandments was left out. That was the Fourth Commandment regarding the Sabbath, which is NEVER ONCE cited as a commandment anywhere in the New Testament record.
No Christian is under any obligation whatsoever to observe the Jewish Sabbath. And if they do so under the mistaken belief that they are correctly observing the Fourth Commandment, they are in extremely grave danger of having fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4), which means, if not corrected and desisted from, loss of salvation. Now Paul in Romans 14 explains that any believer is permitted to select any day for worship, or every day, even the Sabbath, so long as it is not done out of any sense of obligation or obedience to the Fourth Commandment. But no believer is to urge any other believer to keep the Sabbath as the Sabbath: that is forbidden.
Genuine Bible believing Christians who have been made new creatures in Christ by the Holy Spirit, who have been “born again,” who have experienced regenerative change, now walk in the Spirit altogether apart from the Law of Moses, for they are no longer under the Law–the Ten Commandment Law. Rather, the Holy Spirit continues to produce the fruit of the Spirit in their life as each person continues to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ by means of regularly feeding on God’s Word found written in the Bible–by engaging in Real Bible Study.
Quote:”the New Testament does not record a single instance of Christians meeting for Christian worship–such as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper–on the Sabbath.”
Are you kidding me? There are MANY instances of meeting on the weekly Sabbath. There is NO example of meeting on the first day for worship. None. Zip. One only needs to read the NT.
Colossians 2:16. You continue to show no understanding of the ceremonial system, which was a shadow of things to come. Was the weekly sabbath a shadow of things to come? No. It was a memorial of creation. (Exodus 20) The ceremonial Sabbaths were a shadow of things to come. These were annual Sabbaths. This is not the Sabbath of the 10 commandments. If Colossians 2 was talking about the 10 commandments, which it clearly is not, then the all the commandments were nailed to the cross, not just the 4th, which you will affirms does not make any sense. So, Colossians 2 is not talking about the weekly Sabbath. Example: 1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: The first annual Sabbath was Passover, followed by the the feast of Unleavened Bread. Then the Feast of Weeks, aka Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, The Day of Atonement, then the Feast of Tabernacles. These are shadows. These were all instituted after sin. Not so with the weekly Sabbath.
Quote:”The point is, under Grace we are no longer in bondage to the Law, not even the Ten Commandments as such. Remember, only nine of the Ten Commandments are distinctly and explicitly repeated to us under grace as obligatory. One of the Ten Commandments was left out. That was the Fourth Commandment regarding the Sabbath, which is NEVER ONCE cited as a commandment anywhere in the New Testament record.”
This is an argument from the negative. However, why would Jesus worry about the Sabbath here if the Sabbath had been abolished? Matthew 24:20 AKJV But pray you that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: And Hebrews 4:9? And Revelation 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: What what is in the ark of the testament? The 10C. There is NO scripture that abolishes the weekly Sabbath.
Hell and Mr. Fudge – coming to a (computer) screen near you!
http://www.hellandmrfudge.com
Dear A. Way,
You state in part:
By this statement you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation which we have elsewhere on this site discussed in depth as being a dodge or distortion of the truth, which makes it an untruth, which is why it is false doctrine.
Not one of those alleged “MANY instances of meeting on the weekly Sabbath” had anything at all to do with specifically Christian worship, and you know that. Christians in the earliest history of the Christian Church met with Jewish worshippers as an opportunity for Christian witness, not an act of specifically Christian worship on the Sabbath day, and only as long as such opportunity was afforded them in obedience to the command of Christ at Acts 1:8.
Your position, therefore, is totally mistaken (as usual).
Next you state:
It is a good thing you are not officially enrolled in my English class. You have just flunked the final test. Your response demonstrates absolutely that you have failed to learn any of the material taught in the course!
Did you already forget the positive evidence I furnished to the contrary?
Searching on my computer, I have a file from July 8, 2011, which contains a major study I posted here documenting First Day Worship as found in the New Testament, an 18-point Biblical outline.
Searching on this site, I find it is a comment I posted on July 8, 2011, being my Answer, Part 3, which if I can successfully post the proper page link can be found here:
https://realbiblestudy.com/?p=172&cpage=1#comments
Perhaps more specifically, here (I’m new at posting links):
https://realbiblestudy.com/?p=172&cpage=1#comment-4803
Earlier, on that same thread of discussion, I presented evidence for nine of the Ten Commandments being repeated under Grace for our admonition, but noted there is no evidence for the Fourth Commandment:
https://realbiblestudy.com/?p=172&cpage=1#comment-4760
I notice that back then as now you raised the question of Sunday worship being based on TRADITION not Scripture. That objection is fully answered in my post comment of July 8, 2011 above, being comments under the main article titled “Luke 24:27 Christ taught from the Bible” in the Archives for June 2011.
Quote:”Not one of those alleged “MANY instances of meeting on the weekly Sabbath” had anything at all to do with specifically Christian worship, and you know that. Christians in the earliest history of the Christian Church met with Jewish worshippers as an opportunity for Christian witness, not an act of specifically Christian worship on the Sabbath day, and only as long as such opportunity was afforded them in obedience to the command of Christ at Acts 1:8.”
You differentiate “Christian” vs “Jew”. This is an artificial differentiation, and one that early Christians were persecuted for because they were accused of be Jews. In fact, the early Christians were Jews! They were Jews that believed in Jesus. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Who were the Christians? The disciples. Were the disciples Jews? Yep. With the coming of Jesus, His life, death, and resurrection, what changed? All that the ceremonial law pointed to had come true.
Note also, that Gentiles gathered on the Sabbath! Acts 13:42 KJV And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Why not Sunday?
Sunday – – the day of the sun. This is a pagan day, sun worship. Sun worship is in all pagan worship. Just as much of the catholic system is pagan, and they continue to SUNday sacredness. There is NOTHING in the Bible instructing the worship on SUNday. Most Christians do so because of TRADITION, or following the beast system.
The whole EASTER celebration is based on sun worship and fertility cults. The idea that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday denies the Jewish ceremonial system which pointed to the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the lamb of God. Is there any Biblical command to celebrate Easter? Nope. Should Easter be celebrated always on Sunday? Nope. It should be celebrated based on the Jewish Passover. The Catholic church has taken great effort to be sure that Easter never falls on the correct day. It is also interesting that the Sabbath is ignored in Christian Easter celebration. Just as in the creation, God rested from His work on the 7th day, and hallowed it, (Genesis 2:2-3), Christ at His crucifixion completed His work, died, and then rested in the tomb on the Sabbath.
The Sabbath is the seal of the Living God. The 4th commandment is the only one that tells us WHO gave the 10 commandments, and what His territory is than He commands. Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: why the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Isn’t it interesting that the 4th commandment is the only one that you reject?
Dear A. Way,
You comment:
The fact that you wish not to differentiate is another case of equivocation.
Very clearly, at that time and this, it was possible to be a Jew and not be a Christian. When Jews engaged in their worship on the Sabbath Day they were obeying the Law of Moses, which they were under. Even Christian Jews in that day could have attended the synagogue for Jewish worship, but NOT for specifically Christian worship. Jews attending the synagogue on the Sabbath did so for purposes of Jewish worship. Christian Jews who attended the synagogue on the Sabbath did so for Christian witness, as the record in Acts clearly shows they did, in obedience to Acts 1:8.
You refuse to see the difference because you are wedded to the false cult of Seventh-day Adventism.
It is about time that you find your map to Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island and take along a plain text Bible or three and read the Bible itself and learn what it teaches. You cannot learn the truth of the Bible by repeating denominational and false cult arguments which deny the Bible by their false teaching.
And how do I know their teaching is false? The false teaching does not represent the balance of truth and the emphasis found in either the Bible as a whole or the New Testament portion in particular. False cults and false teachings ALWAYS are involved in breaking one or more of the 23 Rules of Interpretation posted in the October 2010 Archives here.
And since the Sabbath day was part of that ceremonial law, it was fulfilled by our Lord Jesus Christ upon His death and resurrection. The Sabbath day is listed over and over again and then some in the Old Testament with the rest of the Jewish celebrations commanded in the Law of Moses (which law obviously includes the Ten Commandments) involving set times for observing them, whether the weekly observation of the Sabbath day, the New Moon or monthly observance, and the rest. I gave the cross references in my posting above for Galatians 4:10 where those references are given throughout the Old Testament. All these celebrations in the New Testament are considered fulfilled in Christ and are no longer observed by those who truly believe in Jesus Christ and His finished work at Calvary.
Obedience to the commands of Christ and His apostles in the New Testament record requires the non-observance of the Seventh-day Jewish Sabbath by Christians because:
(1) Christ fulfilled the Law for us so that we are declared to be no longer under the Law, including the Ten Commandment Law, which is referred to directly in the passage that says so:
Which law is Paul writing about? Clearly, the Ten Commandment Law, for he cites one of the Ten Commandments.
We are “delivered from the law” that “we should serve in newness of spirit.”
That “newness of spirit” is the focus of the Christian who believes in Jesus Christ, not the Ten Commandment Law, for we are as believers “dead to the law.” And if we are dead to that law, we have no obligation to it for it has no claim upon us, the whole point you should have learned on Robinson Crusoe’s Island when you read the first three verses of this very chapter:
But apparently you have denied ever having been to Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, and have no intention of ever going there. In any case, I continue to urge you to take that important trip to that important place, the only place you can reliably learn the truth of the Bible by independently studying what it says for yourself.
(2) The Fourth Commandment is never once repeated as a command to be observed in the New Testament.
You cannot provide chapter and verse to show where reference to the Sabbath commandment is stated as a command for believers in Christ.
This is not an argument from silence. Read Acts 15. The Apostles specifically there state “to whom we gave no such commandment.”
Keeping the Law includes observing the Sabbath.
But if they gave “no such commandment,” then obviously you will never find the Fourth Commandment repeated from the Ten Commandment Law in the New Testament: it was entirely left out on purpose.
(3) Believers are commanded not to fall back into the yoke of bondage.
I gave the text, and the cross references, for Galatians 4:9-11 above. Believers were severely warned for falling back into any of the Jewish observances, including Sabbath observance. To fall back into such disobedience would void their new life in Christ because they moved from Grace to Law. Paul expressed concern that his labor would be in vain if this were true of the Galatians. They would have “fallen from grace,” and would have become ensnared by “another gospel” and would have fallen under Paul’s severe anathema.
If you or anyone else is promoting the keeping of the Seventh day Sabbath among Christian believers as a matter of obedience to the Fourth Commandment, you are promoting another gospel, which is not the gospel, but a lie out of the very pit of hell, the lie of the devil, who is the ultimate source of all “doctrines of demons.”
Quote:”And since the Sabbath day was part of that ceremonial law,”… No, it was not.
“That “newness of spirit” is the focus of the Christian who believes in Jesus Christ, not the Ten Commandment Law, for we are as believers “dead to the law.”
Q: What is sin?
A: Transgression of the Law. 1 John 3:4 AKJV Whoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Q: What are the wages of sin?
A: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
S: If the law is done away with, we can’t sin.
R: 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Paul: Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
What Paul is saying is that we are not to continue to sin. And the only definition of sin in the Bible is transgression of the law. So Jerry, admit it! The only commandment you have an issue with, is the 4th. The 4th which is the only one that contains the “seal”, declaring who it is that is the Law Giver and over what territory He rules.
If the law could have been abolished, then Jesus did not need to die.