__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
And the loss is all yours. Dr. Dan Seagraves is an incredible Bible teacher. I had the opportunity to be in a couple of the classes he taught at CLC and those were by far the best classes I had.
And I don't doubt that your opinion of Dan Segraves is correct, in your mind that is. However, in the matter that I attempted to engage him in a dialogue about, that is, whether "soul sleep" is a scripturally sound teaching, he flatly refused, and counselled me instead that I should consult a disreputable source to learn what he believed was the truth of the matter.
It was for this reason, and nothing more, that has caused me to distrust the scriptural merits of whatever else Segraves might assert concerning any of the other teachings of the Bible.
Did Segraves’ act authorize, or give me the right to hang a heavy weight around his neck and forcibly throw him into the sea? Of course not! However, I would not want to “stand in his shoes” when he appears before the Lord on the last day, for it will be then that he MUST answer to Him, who is the Judge of all mankind, for the “offence” which he committed against me, and perhaps countless others as well.
I hope this explanation will suffice.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
Timmy, the English word ”offence” in the KJV Bible derives from the Greek words ”skandalon, and skandakizo,” meaning, ”to entrap, snare, or entice to fall; a stumbling-block” (see Strong’s Concordance #4624 & 4625)
Please note that in Jesus’ statement He did NOT command that the one found guilty of having committed an ”offence(s)” is to be forcibly taken, a heavy obstacle hanged about his neck, and then he be cast into the sea to drown. He simply said that ”It were better for him” that such punishment be inflicted upon the one who is found to be guilty of having “snared, entrapped, or enticed” another to fall; implying that they have committed an act against another which is worthy of such punishment as that which He described (I suspect that drowning in the sea, if it be that it were an option, is preferable than being compelled to experience eternal torment in a lake of fire).
So, regarding your question whether we are to take Jesus’ words “literally”? Of course not! We are not the one who determines the punishment, or fate, of our fellow who may be guilty of having committed an “offence” against us, that is, they’ve done or said something that (might) serve as the “stumbling-block” that cause us to fall and thereby lose out on the wondrous eternal redemption that God has made possible for all mankind.
Concerning my remarks about Dan Segraves which prompted my reference to our Lord’s statement, it came about because I challenged his stand on the matter of “soul sleep,” and rather than enter into a dialogue with me about it, he replied that he did not believe that such was a scripturally sound teaching, and proceeded to counsel me to consult with a man whom I knew had refuted even Segraves’ teachings, calling the UPCI a cult.
That act by Segraves, to me at least, was considered as an “offence,” and served, not as something which might enhance my understanding of the matter, but could, had I accepted both Segraves and the defrocked Baptist minister’s opinions rather than that which the Bible states, served as a “snare” that would prevent me from enjoying an eternal reward which God has made possible for me.
Did Segraves’ act authorize, or give me the right to hang a heavy weight around his neck and forcibly throw him into the sea? Of course not! However, I would not want to “stand in his shoes” when he appears before the Lord on the last day, for it will be then that he MUST answer to Him, who is the Judge of all mankind, for the “offence” which he committed against me, and perhaps countless others as well.
I hope this explanation will suffice.
Yes, thank you.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
This thread has been very enlightening for me! I never realized how critically important the doctrine of soul sleep and the doctrine of tithing were! So important that those who teach it wrong will burn in hell!
Live and learn.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Sir, I do have in my possession, on an official document with the CLC letterhead, Dr Dan Segraves’ signature, bearing witness to the things I have written about this incident.
If you will carefully note, our Lord’s statement of Luke 17:2 explicitly states ”that he should offend one of these little ones.”
Perhaps you understand those words somewhat differently than I, and if so, then that is your right, however, as for me, I interpret it to mean that when one does something, whether by word or deed, that “offends” another, especially ”one of these little ones” (i.e., a “babe in Christ”), then the “offender” is also guilty of having committed an “offence” against the Lord, and will reap the "just" rewards of his deed.
To me, that is an extremely serious “offence,” for it mirrors, in a manner of speaking, the same “offence” which Job was guilty of having committed, to wit, by his own admission, he readily admitted:
”Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore HAVE I UTTERED THAT I UNDERSTOOD NOT; THINGS TOO WONDERFUL FOR ME, WHICH I KNEW NOT” (see Job 42:3, KJV).
Seeing that God allowed physical “chastisement” to befall Job (inferred) for his having stated things to others which he wasn’t knowledgeable about, is it not possible that He (might) do the same to Dr Dan Segraves for his having committed the SAME “offence”?
It is my prayer that He does not, rather that Segraves come to an understanding of the severity of that “offence” which he committed against me, and which I am reasonably confident that he has also committed against others as well.
Whether you concur with anything I have written here, well, I’ll let that be between you and God, for its not within the scope of my God given privileges to render judgment against you for your opinion of my statements about the matter.
Therefore I see no benefit to be gained by me doing, or saying things which might, in any manner whatsoever, be interpreted as ridiculing your understanding of this matter, as you seem to be so inclined to do because you find yourself in disagreement with my expressed views.
Sir, I do have in my possession, on an official document with the CLC letterhead, Dr Dan Segraves’ signature, bearing witness to the things I have written about this incident.
If you will carefully note, our Lord’s statement of Luke 17:2 explicitly states ”that he should offend one of these little ones.”
Perhaps you understand those words somewhat differently than I, and if so, then that is your right, however, as for me, I interpret it to mean that when one does something, whether by word or deed, that “offends” another, especially ”one of these little ones” (i.e., a “babe in Christ”), then the “offender” is also guilty of having committed an “offence” against the Lord, and will reap the "just" rewards of his deed.
To me, that is an extremely serious “offence,” for it mirrors, in a manner of speaking, the same “offence” which Job was guilty of having committed, to wit, by his own admission, he readily admitted:
”Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore HAVE I UTTERED THAT I UNDERSTOOD NOT; THINGS TOO WONDERFUL FOR ME, WHICH I KNEW NOT” (see Job 42:3, KJV).
Seeing that God allowed physical “chastisement” to befall Job (inferred) for his having stated things to others which he wasn’t knowledgeable about, is it not possible that He (might) do the same to Dr Dan Segraves for his having committed the SAME “offence”?
It is my prayer that He does not, rather that Segraves come to an understanding of the severity of that “offence” which he committed against me, and which I am reasonably confident that he has also committed against others as well.
Whether you concur with anything I have written here, well, I’ll let that be between you and God, for its not within the scope of my God given privileges to render judgment against you for your opinion of my statements about the matter.
Therefore I see no benefit to be gained by me doing, or saying things which might, in any manner whatsoever, be interpreted as ridiculing your understanding of this matter, as you seem to be so inclined to do because you find yourself in disagreement with my expressed views.
So Segraves wanted you to consult with this guy on one issue and you're still bitter about it? Wow. This is why people throw letters in the trash.
Linear Mode
