Hell as Chastisement

I wanted to open a new thread to discuss one particular aspect of our conversations on the "Two Salvations" thread. (That thread is all over the place.)

In debating some on both sides of the Millennial Exclusion issue were able to agree somewhat that the blood of Christ does not "save" us from filial chastening. Our disagreement seems to be one of degrees. (I hope that is not over simplifying our differences.)

Millennial Exclusionists believe that the chastening can be severe and can include missing the kingdom. We disagree as to where those excluded will be stashed. Some (Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, AE Wilson, etc) believe it is a place called "outer darkness" that is in heaven but outside the marriage supper. Others (like me) believe that those who miss the kingdom will be placed in the underworld. (Hell-Not the same place as the Lake of Fire-see Rev 20:14)

Here are some of my questions (That got buried in the other thread) for those who disagree.

?????Does the phrase "ye belong to Christ" in Mark 9:41 mean that John was eternally saved?

??????In verse 9:50, who is Jesus addressing?

????In Mark 9:38, John is speaking. When the Lord answers him, who does the "thy" (second person singular) refer to in Mark 9:43?

?????This guy in Luke 12 has two choices:Be wise and faithful or be a drunkard who beats his fellow servants. His behavior is the only issue (Works). His status as the Lord's servant is never questioned. It's the same guy with two paths to follow. What is a "portion with the unbelievers"?

That will do to start.

lacy

 

Thy is never plural.

He was speaking directly to John.

 

But why warn them that if they failed to "cut off" the sinful members of their life, they would go to Hell? If they were unsaved, would that get them saved? If you interpret them to be unbelievers, you're left with a terrible doctrine that says we must cut off and pluck out the sin in our life to get saved.

Why, if he was addressing unbelievers, did he not simply give them the gospel? What possible good could a sermon like "cut off your hand" and "pluck out your eye" do for an unbeliever. He could pluck out both eyes and cut off both hands and still bust Hell wide open.

But if he was getting a reward (ruling with his Lord over his Lord's household) in the first verse (v42) of the parable, doesn't that prove that he is a saved individual? Surely a non-Christian has no rule in the Lord's household. Notice it was the same guy. It didn't change to another guy. Whatever interpretation you apply to the servant in verse 42 must likewise apply to "that same servant" in v.45

The only difference was what he was found doing.

This is exactly correct. But he would still be your nephew. he would just be a disobedient nephew who was subject to exclusion from your job. You might even have him thrown in jail "till he pays the uttermost farthing"

Judas' not being saved is a church tradition that I have always believed too but the Bible is not that clear. I

If he ever believed the gospel, he was saved. We can't know. Only God knows. The only difference between his and Peter's sin was a matter of degrees. . .and that Judas died in his sin having never repented.

 

It is singular in Greek, in Latin, In Hebrew, in Klingon, and in English.
"We" only proves that John said "we". The plural you is "Ye" (Ya'll in the south) . But "thy" proves that Christ was addressing an individual.

But say he was "speaking to the group", you still have the terribly difficult problem of the actual message of the parable which is, "quit sinning or go to hell". Is that what you tell unsaved people when you give them the gospel?

lacy

 

Huh? So if I sin right now and don't repent then I was never saved? Did I lose my salvation? You don't believe that do you Diggin?

What a terrible doctrine. Is suicide the unforgivable sin? Scripture please? What kind of fruit was Peter bearing before the rooster crowed?

Paul? David? Moses? Peter (Had he not missed and only got an ear.)? Murderers everyone.

Me? You?

Mercy for me but none for Judas?

 

Gone to bed. God bless, Diggin (and all). Study well and be blessed.

lacy

 

I really think that he looked John right in the eye and if he was speaking to the group, it was indirectly. It wouldn't matter much since we see that when he does address a certain group (Ye) he says "Ye belong to me, and if you are good, I'll reward you."

"Be good and get a reward" is not the Gospel that you give an unbeliever. It is the Gospel of the Kngdom and it is for the saved who already "belong to him"

The only reason I bring up the "Thees, Thys and Thines" is to dispel the notion that Jesus was somehow preaching this (very very works oriented ) doctrine to some unsaved bystanders.

(Compare the warnings spoken directly to his disciples in Matt 18:1-10)

This is the context. Rank in the Kingdom, not salvation.

In other words, "Hold on a minute! Without some humility, you boys might not even get into ths kingdom!"

So whatever the chastisement for offending a little one was, it was worse than physical death. This is the exact thing we see in Hebrews 10:28, 29

Note the use of "Thy" again. He is addressing the "Ye" and the "Thee's" that make up the "Ye". But here the audience is absolutely and only his disciples.

Lacy

 

Hebrews 10:26-31
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.