What if others will be in heaven?

[Your closest friendnt]

8 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

 

Well that's a very lamentatious post. The defects of the heart.

What do you believe with regard to your own question?

So is their another place in a lower part of Heaven without going through the narrow gate Jesus referred to?

 

The wide gate is being in peace with the world and the narrow gate being in peace with God....

In the old Covenant their Inheritance was a descending one and not an ascending. 

[Kelly2363]

1 minute ago, Your closest friendnt said:

The wide gate is being in peace with the world and the narrow gate being in peace with God....

In the old Covenant their Inheritance was a descending one and not an ascending. 

The reason I asked @Saved.One.by.Grace to answer his own question stems from the Heiser doctrines that do more to uncover hidden things than to express revealed things. There is another gate that is in the lower region of the heavens. It has been accessed and sought for access to enter heaven for millennia. It is a rebellious gate and it really does exist. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

Well that's a very lamentatious post. The defects of the heart.

You lost me here.

17 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

What do you believe with regard to your own question?

I believe there's a narrow gate and that's all that matters to me personally.  As for family, they have ostracized me when I left the Roman Catholic Church.  My sister hasn't spoken to me because she blames me for my mother's death.  I told my mother via a weekly phone call from another state that the "new" pope wasn't my pope.  I take the Bible as literal truth as communicated to the people contemporary to its author.  My mother had a stroke and died a week later.  On my wife's side of the family, many are carnal Christians, so are they Christians at all?

17 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

So is their another place in a lower part of Heaven without going through the narrow gate Jesus referred to?

No.  I don't know how to reconcile Ecclesiastes 3:11 with other Holy Scripture.  Don Richardson wrote a book on this verse which I have but have not read.

[Kelly2363]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I believe there's a narrow gate and that's all that matters to me personally.  As for family, they have ostracized me when I left the Roman Catholic Church.  My sister hasn't spoken to me because she blames me for my mother's death.  I told my mother via a weekly phone call from another state that the "new" pope wasn't my pope.  I take the Bible as literal truth as communicated to the people contemporary to its author.  My mother had a stroke and died a week later.  On my wife's side of the family, many are carnal Christians, so are they Christians at all?

No.  I don't know how to reconcile Ecclesiastes 3:11 with other Holy Scripture.  Don Richardson wrote a book on this verse which I have but have not read.

 

I am sorry for your distress at your mother and her passing out of this realm and more so because it came with an accusation.

The RCC is a very difficult spirit when it is a spirit of contradiction to the revealed  Word of God. When it is expressed in the core Canonical Law of Rome it is at best a semblance of the truth. But I have met numerous Roman Catholics including time spent with a Monsignor from the Vatican. and I have asked many sharp questions in a peaceable spirit and came to the belief that many Roman Catholics have a primitive faith that is held in the simplest meaning as that of having a hope in the name of Christ - believing in His name and in the Credo sense applying a mistaken confidence in the Pope. 

I was one time preaching the Gospel in a public place and a women sat on a bench just a few feet away who was in my sight and discernment alive with the meat of what it means to believe in the name of Christ - when I approached her afterwards and asked her if she were a Christian her flesh immediately rose up and she said "No - I am a Roman Catholic". I knew that her hope was in Christ so I told her that I didn't despise her upbringing or her formalities or her mistaken confidence in the Pope. She found no words to disagree even though she was a proud Catholic. I can see no reason to have a less hope for your mother than I had for that women sitting on the bench. 

Many stern reformers harshly condemn the Catholic by mistakenly speaking to the wrong spirit. In the book of Revelation we read "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. - And that verse is cited by many to speak of Rome as a condemnation - and so it is because it speaks of her judgement and her plagues - But I always check such zeal and remind my brethren that it is the Lord' people that are being called out and not rejected. They are being mercifully preserved for the glory of God. So as I say - I look beyond the necessity to rebuke and cannot refuse mercy when there is a need to recognise the individual that hopes in the name of Christ and holds to the Apostolic Creed.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Kelly2363
Spelling

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

I am sorry for your distress at your mother and her passing out of this realm and more so because it came with an accusation.

The RCC is a very difficult spirit when it is a spirit of contradiction to the revealed  Word of God. When it is expressed in the core Canonical Law or Rome it is at best a semblance of the truth. But I have met numerous Roman Catholics including time spent with a Monsignor from the Vatican. and I have asked many sharp questions in a peaceable spirit and came to the belief that many Roman Catholics have a primitive faith that is held in the simplest meaning as that of having a hope in the name of Christ - believing in His name and in the Credo sense applying a mistaken confidence in the Pope. 

I was one time preaching the Gospel in a public place and a women sat on a bench just a few feet away who was in my sight and discernment alive with the meat of what it means to believe in the name of Christ - when I approached her afterwards and asked her if she were a Christian her flesh immediately rose up and she said "No - I am a Roman Catholic". I knew that her hope was in Christ so I told her that I didn't despise her upbringing or her formalities or her mistaken confidence in the Pope. She found no words to disagree even though she was a proud Catholic. I can see no reason to have a less hope for your mother than I had for that women sitting on the bench. 

Many stern reformers harshly condemn the Catholic by mistakenly speaking to the wrong spirit. In the book of Revelation we read "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. - And that verse is cited by many to speak of Rome as a condemnation - and so it is because it speaks of her judgement and her plagues - But I always check such zeal and remind my brethren that it is the Lord' people that are being called out and not rejected. They are being mercifully preserved for the glory of God. So as I say - I look beyond the necessity to rebuke and cannot refuse mercy when there is a need to recognise the individual that hopes in the name of Christ and holds to the Apostolic Creed.

With the exception of my uncle, aunt and some of her family, I don't expect to see many of my family.  There's so much more I just don't want to talk about.  When my mother told me she believe in the RCC, I told her I believed in the Jesus Christ.  Those are the last words we spoke.

[Kelly2363]

8 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

You lost me here.

I figured that I should answer that - seeing that I made the comment that produced it.

 

The defects of the heart.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Well that's a very lamentatious post.

The Strict Calvinist way of reconciling Ecclesiastes 3:11  with the rest of Scripture.  

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 -

Lamentation of an apostasy of Israel (The Saints) You are living in that time and you are introspective so Gill appeals to reason but misses prophetic reality in our time because he wrote at the beginning of the corruption of reformed doctrine. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Kelly2363
Addendum

[Kelly2363]

7 hours ago, Josheb said:

?????

Good morning Kelly (and everyone else ),

Total Depravity is not a strictly Calvinist pov and it is not only "strict Calvinists" who hold that view. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley ALL agreed: the effects of sin are total and humanity cannot and does not come to God for salvation unaided. Here is just one of the things Jacobus Arminius wrote concerning the doctrine we now call "total depravity": 

"VII. In this state [the sinful fallen state of sin], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace . For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man." (from "Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers")

Humanity is incapable unless aided. Arminius was a one-point Calvinist . Notice he quoted Augustine; he agreed with Augustine. It is not strictly Calvinists nor strict Calvinists who hold this position. Total depravity has long been the position of most of Christianity and only what we now call "Pelagians" have thought otherwise. There is the evidence. of Arminius' acceptance.  Please do not misrepresent Christians (it's not Calvinists alone that were misrepresented; it is the vast majority of Christendom).

Note those who may claim to be Arminian but believe other than he what he was just quoted to say are not Arminian. They incorrectly think of themselves as Arminian when they are not.  

Or perhaps this is a misunderstanding of exactly what it is the doctrine of Total Depravity asserts because it does not say humanity is only and totally depraved. Total Depravity simply and solely teaches the effects of sin are total in that they prevent humans from coming to God for salvation unaided by God. That's all it claims. Nothing more, nothing less. 

"In the Reformed tradition, total depravity does not mean  utter depravity. We often use the term total as a synonym for utter or for completely, so the notion of total depravity conjures up the idea that every human being is as bad as that person could possibly be................ So the idea of total in total depravity doesn't mean that all human beings are as wicked as they can possibly be. It means that the fall was so serious that it affects the whole person. The fallenness that captures and grips our human nature affects our bodies; that's why we become ill and die. It affects our minds and our thinking; we still have the capacity to think, but the Bible says the mind has become darkened and weakened. The will of man is no longer in its pristine state of moral power. The will, according to the New Testament, is now in bondage. We are enslaved to the evil impulses and desires of our hearts. The body, the mind, the will, the spirit—indeed, the whole person—have been infected by the power of sin................ The Reformed view is that the effects of the fall extend or penetrate to the core of our being...." (

R. C. Sproul)"

 

Total depravity is a phrase or name that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches about the spiritual condition of fallen man. It is the “T” in the acronym TULIP, which is commonly used to enumerate what are known as the five points of Calvinism or the doctrines of grace. Because the name “total depravity” can cause people to have wrong ideas about what is meant, some people prefer to use terms like “total inability,” “righteous incapability,” “radical corruption” or even “moral inability.” Yet what is important is not the name assigned to the doctrine but how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about the spiritual condition of fallen man. No matter which name you use to refer to “total depravity,” the fact remains that when properly understood it is an accurate description of what the Bible does teach on this important subject.............. There is a common misconception regarding total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that man is as wicked or sinful as he could be, nor does it mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong. Neither does it mean that man does not or cannot do things that seem to be good when viewed from a human perspective or measured against a human standard. It does not even mean that man cannot do things that seem to conform outwardly to the law of God. What the Bible does teach and what total depravity does recognize is that even the “good” things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory of God and out of faith in Him." (Got Questions)

 

"Total Depravity (also called total inability or total corruption) is a biblical doctrine closely linked with the doctrine of original sin as formalized by Augustine and advocated in many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, especially ins Calvinism. The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation. (Theopedia)"

And it precedes even Augustine! In 110 AD, the early Church father, Ignatiius wrote, "They that are carnal,” says he, “cannot do the things that are spiritual, nor they that are spiritual do the things that are carnal, as neither faith the things of unbelief, nor unbelief the things of faith." A half-century later Justin Martyr wrote, "Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; that ‘we are born sinners;’ and that we are entirely flesh, and no good thing dwells in us; he asserts the weakness and disability of men either to understand or perform spiritual things, and denies that man, by the natural sharpness of his wit, can attain to the knowledge of divine things, or by any innate power in him save himself, and procure eternal life."

There's the evidence; four sources (with one Calvinist and one Arminian) all saying the same thing: it is not that humanity is utterly depraved it is simply that the effects of sin totally prevent humans from coming to God salvation in his own might. Calvin never argued what you say those who are "strictly Calvinist" say, and the Calvinist position on this is so well stated in its formal documents there is no excuse for not knowing it and knowing it correctly; it took me all of about three minutes to look up and copy and paste those sources. 

Question your sources because if they are where the notion those who are strictly Calvinists are the ones teaching total depravity it's just false and they have not taught well; they have misrepresented fellow believers from many povs. They have born false witness. They have done so in a manner that is body-dividing and body-dividing specifically in one area where we could and should all come together in agreement. 

Now that the facts are known, don't be that guy. 

 

 

.

 

Well YES but - I managed to resist Tantra and Theosophy by realising that if I hated God then the best thing to do was to side with the Devil openly. So the only real consideration at that time of DEPRAVITY was to fall into TOTAL DEPRAVITY or else to do a deal with the Devil and become a sorcerer instead. He wasn't best pleased because he is never best pleased. 

It is not possible to quantify every semblance of a mans condition otherwise the account of the Fletcher would be hard reckoning.

So the Archer drew his bow and shot his arrow into the West Bough of the tree to his front. And hearing the strike of the arrow he imagined that he had hit his mark. He did this until he had used up all his batch and then went his way haply misguided. The next day his Fletcher arrived with a full batch of arrows - which the Archer immediately recognised as his own. Boastfully he spoke  "what do you say to that then?" And the Fletcher expounded that he was about to ask him why he was always driving his yards into the Eastern Bough. Feeling ever so indignant the Archer retorted "that's DEPRAVED," and the Fletcher replied "respectfully My Lord Archer that is TOTAL DEPRAVITY." . 

Shalom Josh

Edited October 6, 2021 by Kelly2363
Alteration of first paragraph

[Kelly2363]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

No "but"s. 

Just let the "YESY" be yes. The single biggest problem when brothers and sisters discuss soteriology is that of the straw man. On this occasion it was an easily addressed matter, and a mistake I assume was not willful provocation. 

 

There was no mistake on my part and I said nothing I didn't mean. So on that account I was merely being polite and humorous in my response. But I do hold to and believe in Total Depravity. That is the point and not Gill who was a somewhat weaker man in his sensibilities. So the YES is a NO then. 

[Kelly2363]

8 hours ago, Josheb said:

No "but"s. 

Just let the "YESY" be yes. The single biggest problem when brothers and sisters discuss soteriology is that of the straw man. On this occasion it was an easily addressed matter, and a mistake I assume was not willful provocation. 

So here is my response number two - just to make the point I made to our brother @Saved.One.by.Grace clear when I said to him in response to a form of Gill's words:

 

Well that's a very lamentatious post. The defects of the heart.

 

Which I then explained when he said that this above response was lost [on] him.

 

The defects of the heart.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Well that's a very lamentatious post.

The Strict Calvinist way of reconciling Ecclesiastes 3:11  with the rest of Scripture.  

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 -

Lamentation of an apostasy of Israel (The Saints) You are living in that time and you are introspective so Gill appeals to reason but misses prophetic reality in our time because he wrote at the beginning of the corruption of reformed doctrine. 

 

And this is what Gill himself says to that vexatious point of Jeremiah 17:9 which I explained somewhat simply as a reference to Gill and of course to DEPRAVITY.

 

Depravity

John Gill

    “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9.

This is the source of the idolatry and creature-confidence of the Jews. Sins which were the cause of their ruin; and though what is here  said  is particularly applicable to their hearts, yet is in general true of the heart of every man; which is deceitful and deceiving; and puts a cheat upon the man himself whose it is.

It deceives him with respect to sin; it proposes it to him under the notion of pleasure; it promises him a great deal in it, but does not yield a real pleasure to him; it is all fancy and imagination; a mere illusion and a dream; and what it gives is very short-lived; it is but for a season, and ends in bitterness and death.

Or it proposes it under the notion of promising him rights, by such and such sinful ways it suggests, but, when he has got them he is the loser by them; these deceitful riches choke the Word, cause him to err from the faith, pierce him through with many sorrows, and endanger the loss of his soul.

It promises honour and preferment in the world, but promotes him to shame; it promises him liberty, but brings him into bondage; it promises him impunity, peace, and security when sudden destruction comes.

It deceives him in point of knowledge, it persuades him that he is a very knowing person, when he is blind and ignorant and knows nothing as  he ought to know; and only deceives himself; for there is no true knowledge but of God in Christ, and of a crucified Christ, and salvation by Him. ( I Corinthians 3:18; 8:1-2; Galatians 6:3).

It deceives in the business of religion; it makes a man believe that he is, a very holy and righteous man, and in a fair way for Heaven, when he is far from that, and the character it gives him; in order to this, it suggests to him that concupiscence or lust, or the inward workings of the mind, are not sin; and it is only on this principle that it can be accounted for, that Saul,  before  conversion, or any other man, should be led into such a mistake, as to conclude  that,  touching the righteousness of the law, he was blameless.

It  represents  either sins as more peccadilloes, as little sins, and not to be regarded; and even puts the name of virtue on vices, profuseness and prodigality it calls liberality, and doing public good; and covetousness has the name of frugality and good economy.

It directs men to compare themselves and their outward conversation with others, that are very profane and dissolute; and from thence to form a good character of themselves, as better than others; and as it buoys up with the purity of human nature, so with the power of man’s free will to do that which is good, and particularly to repent at pleasure; and it puts the profane sinner upon trusting to the absolute mercy of God, and hides from him His justice and holiness; and it puts others upon depending upon the outward acts of religion, or upon speculative notions, to the neglect of real godliness (James 1:22, 26).

The man of a deceitful heart, the hypocrite, tries to deceive God himself, but he cannot; he oftentimes deceives men, and always himself; so does the profane sinner, the self-righteous man, and the false teacher; who attempts to deceive the very elect, but cannot; yet, a good man may be deceived-by his own heart, of which Peter is a sad instance. (Matthew 26:33, 35, 70, 72, 74).

The heart is deceitful, to a very great degree, it is superlatively so; above all, above all creatures; the serpent and the fox are noted for their subtlety, and wicked men are compared to them for it; but these comparisons fall short of expressing the wicked subtlety and deceit in men’s hearts; yet, it is more deceitful to a man than the Devil, the great deceiver himself; because it is nearer to a man, and can come at him, and work upon him, when Satan cannot; or about, or concerning all things; it is so in every  thing  in which it is concerned, natural. civil, or religious, and especially the latter.

The Septuagint version-renders it deep; it is an abyss, a bottomless one; there is no fathoming of it; the, depths of sin are in it. (Psalm 64:6). And, seeing it is so deceitful, it should not be trusted in; a man should neither trust in his own heart, nor in another’s (Pro. 28:26 and 25:19).

And desperately wicked; everything in it is wicked; the thoughts of it are evil; the imaginations of the thoughts are so; even every imagination, and that only, and always (Genesis 6:5).  The affections are inordinate; the mind and conscience are defiled; the understanding darkened, so dark as to call evil good, and good evil; and the will obstinate and perverse. All manner of sin and wickedness is in it; it is the cage   of  every unclean bird, and the hold of every foul spirit; all sin is forged and framed in it; and all manner of evil comes out of it (Rev. 18:1, Matt. 15:19). Yea, it is wickedness itself (Psalm 5:9).

It is so even to desperation; it is incurably wicked, as it may be rendered; it is so without-the grace of God, and blood of Christ; who can know it? Angels do not Satan cannot; only the spirit of man can know the things of a man  within  him; though the natural man does not know the plague of his own heart; the Pharisee and perfectionist do not, or they would not say they were without sin; such rant arises from the ignorance of their own hearts; only a spiritual man knows his own heart, the plague of it, the deceitfulness and wickedness  in it; and he does not know it all; God only knows it fully. (I Cor. 2:11, I Kings 3:38).

 

I have also emboldened the element that had me saying to yourself in the first response: 

 

There was no mistake on my part and I said nothing I didn't mean. So on that account I was merely being polite and humorous in my response. But I do hold to and believe in Total Depravity. That is the point and not Gill who was a somewhat weaker man in his sensibilities.

 

Hence my use of the term TOTAL DEPRAVITY and not DEPRAVITY

What I did not do to yourself or any others was imply that others did not hold to either depravity or total depravity. I made no such claim and so neither do I receive the correction. I am quiet capable of correcting myself and often do with a rod.

 

You said in your kind correction:

Total Depravity is not a strictly Calvinist pov and it is not only "strict Calvinists" who hold that view. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley ALL agreed: the effects of sin are total and humanity cannot and does not come to God for salvation unaided.

 

I have no idea why I must always be found to being corrected when I express my own mind and ground what I am saying in relevant and contextual meanings. You cannot have missed the name John Gill in the comment by @Saved.One.by.Grace to which I made a single one line response - And so neither can you have missed my meaning.

 

But you did end your correction by asserting its claim when you said:

 

Now that the facts are known, don't be that guy. 

 

What facts?

Edited October 6, 2021 by Kelly2363
Last line + added name tag para 1 Line 2

[Arrabon]

On 10/2/2021 at 9:20 AM, Amigo42 said:

The more I learn about the historic and cultural context in which the Bible was written, the more I realize that we really don't know as much as we think.

What if people will be in heaven who we thought would not be like some Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus?  This might seem heretical, but what if people are saved by the blood even if they don't realize it.  There are people who live righteous lives up to the knowledge they have.  Yes, Jesus is the only way.  However, the patriarchs did not know Jesus such as Moses, David, etc. Yet, these people are saved.  This is food for thought.

 

On 10/2/2021 at 9:20 AM, Amigo42 said:

but what if people are saved by the blood even if they don't realize it. 

@Amigo42

For me this is like you said in your post I quoted, HERETICAL thinking. You said it.

Not that your a heretic, but your posted thoughts open the door for some to believe there are other ways to honor God and get to heaven, than God's very "NARROW" thinking, Matthew 7:14, "14But small is the gate and"NARROW" the way that leads to life, and only a few find it."

As far as being saved by His blood, or any other way we choose to believe to be saved, it is certainly by a choice, as are all the other parts of our faith, and none of it happens without us knowing it.

We live in a real world of choices being made by the minute, so I stand against your reasoning, and I stand against the entire post, and wish whole heartedly that you hadn't been capable of thinking like this. I know your a good brother, so I am a bit shocked.

We have our marching orders from God Himself in

Matthew 28:19-20, "19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

I will be praying for you my brother.

Arrabon

Edited October 6, 2021 by Arrabon