Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Sometimes It's Heaven, Sometimes It's Hell


Recommended Posts

  • Members



I will clear up that it is Ezek 28:11ff. I will also clear up that I am not taking scriptures out of context. You have to take every passage together. Not one passage teaches that we are born in sin.

Beyond that I will simply point you to the previous mentioned passages.


The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

What verse of Scripture is this from, "...he died while he was morally and spiritually safe."?

What verses indicate there is a time, or there are certain people, who, if they die, are "morally and spiritually safe" and will be rewarded with heaven without having Christ as their Saviour even though elsewhere in Scripture we are told that no one goes to heaven except through Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What verse of Scripture is this from, "...he died while he was morally and spiritually safe."?

What verses indicate there is a time, or there are certain people, who, if they die, are "morally and spiritually safe" and will be rewarded with heaven without having Christ as their Saviour even though elsewhere in Scripture we are told that no one goes to heaven except through Christ?
That verse can be found in II Opinions 3:7.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Question:
Is it possible that we may be looking at David's statement concerning the dead child all wrong?

People have been looking at it to mean either one of two things:

1. The child was now in heaven
2. The child was now in the grave.

Now, while both of these statements are interesting, they may not be the correct answer. The second can't be correct, for the child had just died... there is no indication that the child had been buried yet.

The first, is plauible, for, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

But, could there be a possible third explanation for David's statement? Maybe.

Could he have meant, 'The child is dead. He cannot walk into this room to see me. I must needs go to the room where his body lies to see him"?

Maybe theologians have been looking at David's statement all wrong.

Had David meant "The child is in heaven, I will go to heaven to be with him,' I would think David would have continued to refuse to eat awaiting the moment that he died so he could be with the child.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Question:
Is it possible that we may be looking at David's statement concerning the dead child all wrong?

People have been looking at it to mean either one of two things:

1. The child was now in heaven
2. The child was now in the grave.

Now, while both of these statements are interesting, they may not be the correct answer. The second can't be correct, for the child had just died... there is no indication that the child had been buried yet.

The first, is plauible, for, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

But, could there be a possible third explanation for David's statement? Maybe.

Could he have meant, 'The child is dead. He cannot walk into this room to see me. I must needs go to the room where his body lies to see him"?

Maybe theologians have been looking at David's statement all wrong.

Had David meant "The child is in heaven, I will go to heaven to be with him,' I would think David would have continued to refuse to eat awaiting the moment that he died so he could be with the child.


Amazing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Question:
Is it possible that we may be looking at David's statement concerning the dead child all wrong?

People have been looking at it to mean either one of two things:

1. The child was now in heaven
2. The child was now in the grave.

Now, while both of these statements are interesting, they may not be the correct answer. The second can't be correct, for the child had just died... there is no indication that the child had been buried yet.

The first, is plauible, for, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

But, could there be a possible third explanation for David's statement? Maybe.

Could he have meant, 'The child is dead. He cannot walk into this room to see me. I must needs go to the room where his body lies to see him"?

Maybe theologians have been looking at David's statement all wrong.

Had David meant "The child is in heaven, I will go to heaven to be with him,' I would think David would have continued to refuse to eat awaiting the moment that he died so he could be with the child.



I would venture that David either meant he would join the child in heaven or that he would join the child in death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would think if he meant either of those choices, he would have continued to refuse to eat and allowed himself to die.


Why would David want to die? He fasted in the hope perhaps his son would be spared and he could raise him in this life. Once he was dead, David was content knowing that one day he would follow his son and there was no more he could do about the matter; so he got on with life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...