What's your view on Hell?

[Amanah]

To get back on the topic of hell, dispensationalism takes a literal approach to scripture even when the bible is using symbolic language.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

To get back on the topic of hell, dispensationalism takes a literal approach to scripture even when the bible is using symbolic language.

Based on my memory, which is admittedly a little sketchy, Sean once corrected me for what he considered a dispensationalist view. I didn’t believe it was necessarily a dispensation position, but he did.

On the subject of whether 1God aka Rene is or isn’t Sean, it may be true but I don’t get the sense that it is. They have some similar doctrine but that in itself would certainly not be unusual.

I personally thought Sean added to the value of the forum. But there are others that certainly didn’t think so. As an example of what I mean, Esaias and myself have pretty radically different opinions of the law as it applies to us today, but he certainly adds a lot of depth to the discussion and improves the learning curve on the forum.

When everyone believes exactly the same as I do, it’s probably time for me to move on. That is a sign of a culture that stunts growth and frankly I would find it extremely boring.

[Amanah]

@Tithesmeister

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Doubting Jesus’ literal words about eternal hell and the rich man in it seeking a drop of water to cool his tongue is a salvation issue. Obviously, the dead, rich mans soul was not asleep. We are not given the luxury to second guess what Jesus meant in the passage.

Originally Posted by 1 God

The term Abrahams bosom is metaphoric for where Lazarus and Abraham were.

Typical Sean foot in the mouth.

I guess you are as lost as a potato.

Nowhere in the Bible is Abraham's Bosom described as a holding area for the spirits of the saints that are deceased. We don't hear it mentioned as a place anywhere in the Bible. Nor is it mentioned as a place in Luke where the story is told. Jesus doesn't call it a place, but speaks of the two individuals Abraham, and the untouchable Eliezer/Lazarus. The language which Sean is hung up on is Abraham, his bosom, which is also known as Abraham’s side, or simply with Abraham. Is not a holding area for the spirits of the saints that are deceased. Sean, always tries to wear his opponents out by bringing nothing more than repetitive posts saying the same thing, which causes anyone having to post with him do the same thing. No Rene he didn't cuss us out, he just acted just like you. Not because he was a dispensationalists and may or may not held the same beliefs as other dispensationalists. But "writings" it is writing, posting, that gives people away. While people may post under an alias, if they posted as much as Sean had in the past, there are different tells which appear in their posts. It sets them apart from everyone else. You can't change attitude in writing, that's how writers who are caught plagiarizing other works. Not just because we know those works, but we can see attitude and style. There is also, another way we can tell who you are, which we won't go into, we will just let you keep talking.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Not biblical but that can work. Try “Satans bosom”. Since the lost will be in hell with the devil and his angels.

Just like I said you make the whole thing up as you go along.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Maybe not, but I have definitely proved that you don’t believe the plain words written in the Bible.

You only proved that what you said Abraham's Bosom was isn't the plain wording of the Bible. You said Abraham’s Bosom is a is holding area for the spirits of the saints that are deceased. Which the Bible's plain wording just says it is father Abraham, and Eliezer/Lazarus along side him. That is plain as plain can be. Only two people are together, and one single person is across from these two characters all by himself. Period. If you have another view, then you should learn how to teach it. Because you stink at this.

Originally Posted by 1 God

You seem to think they mean something else.

Well I can't possibly think it means what you are saying it means, because you have no way of proving it. Abraham’s Bosom is a holding area for the spirits of the saints that are deceased? Abraham's bosom is a location on Abraham, the person. Eliezer/Lazarus along side the person, Abraham. For me to believe you, you would have to flesh out what you are teaching by showing me that in other places of the Bible, that there is indeed a holding area for the spirits of the saints that are deceased, specifically called Abraham's Bosom. You just don't have it Sean.

Originally Posted by 1 God

It must have been very mysterious to live around Jesus and the apostles in the first century huh?

I just pity those who have to deal with your Bible teachings.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Abraham was in his own bosom?

Originally Posted by 1 God

Yes

Like I always said Sean, Bible study group with you must be gladiator school.
Here are you teaching, and the people you are teaching are asking questions. If Abraham's Bosom is a place, then is Abraham in his own Bosom? Logically a good question. A question that has merit. Yet, you blow if off with a tired response. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Is Jesus in another holding area? Or is John speaking about the relationship of Christ and the Father as One? John 13:23 the beloved disciple is leaning on Jesus' bosom, what was the writer of John talking about here? The Elizabethan terminology "bosom" means close affection, (as in bosom friend) while in the Greek it means as a position of reclining, next to one another as sharing a meal. Rene, did you go to Stockton Bible college?

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Amanah

To get back on the topic of hell, dispensationalism takes a literal approach to scripture even when the bible is using symbolic language.

Per the discussion of the rich man in hell, Jesus is giving the human race a serious warning. If we dismiss it as untrue(hell), we likely offend Jesus and cross the line which can put us alongside the rich man. I just wonder how much we can actually get away with if we cast doubt on the plain words of the Son of God. Some call it a parable, but nobody there asked what else the discussion of the rich man and Lazarus meant. They knew what it meant. We are the ones that are making it say something else. This is very troubling.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Per the discussion of the rich man in hell, Jesus is giving the human race a serious warning. If we dismiss it as untrue(hell), we likely offend Jesus and cross the line which can put us alongside the rich man. I just wonder how much we can actually get away with if we cast doubt on the plain words of the Son of God. Some call it a parable, but nobody there asked what else the discussion of the rich man and Lazarus meant. They knew what it meant. We are the ones that are making it say something else. This is very troubling.

Teacher please explain to me why the rich man was lost and the poor man was saved?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

To get back on the topic of hell, dispensationalism takes a literal approach to scripture even when the bible is using symbolic language.

That’s not true. I am not a dispensationalist but I used to and I have read books from them about different topics including Biblical interpretation.

They recognize symbolic language, as much as anybody would. They do not use allegorical interpretation or spiritualization of the text, if that is what you meaning with “symbolic”.

Take into account that you will find dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist that have the same hermeneutical training and come with different conclusions.
So what you call “literal approach”, which I am not sure what you mean, does not imply “dispensationalism”.