[CS-FSLUG] Correction of misinterpretation.

[Fred A. Miller]

Keli of Coxsackie wrote:
> You might think it orthodox but it is not Biblical an certainly not the
> truth..
> 
> Michael
> 
> Fred A. Miller wrote:
>> An Orthodox perspective on the TWO, ONLY TWO, eternal destinies, and the
>> possible price for distortion of the scriptures.
>>
>> Beloved in Christ,
>>
>> Anyone who's going to promote a belief based on the Book of Revelation
>> should heed the warning at Rev 22:18-19, which refers specifically to
>> the Book of Revelation. Distorting anything in the message contained in
>> it or promoting a distortion of it--even through ignorance--puts one's
>> very salvation at risk (see Dt 4:2; 12:32; Gal 1:8-9). Therefore,
>> theological speculation about the interpretation of the Book of
>> Revelation could be hazardous to one's spiritual health: if you don't
>> know what a passage means, leave it alone instead of guessing or
>> concocting theories.
>>
>> Contrary to what was asserted, the Bible teaches that there are only two
>> eternal destinies. One of the principles of biblical interpretation is
>> that, since all of Scripture is inerrant, no passage of Scripture can be
>> interpreted in a way that contradicts another passage of Scripture.
>> Since the rest of the Scriptures clearly teach that there are only two
>> eternal destinies, Rev 22:11 can't be interpreted as teaching that there
>> are three. This is especially true in this case because, only a few
>> verses later (vv 14-15), St John makes a clear distinction between the
>> two destinies: the eternal state of the blessed and that of the damned
>> (see 21:8)--the pure in Christ enter the Kingdom, but the impure are
>> outside ("dogs" refers to the impure--see Dt 23:18-19; Phil 3:2; II Pet
>> 2:22).
>>
>> Since a second principle of biblical interpretation is that more clear
>> passages of Scripture are used to clarify less clear passages, and we
>> have established that there are only two eternal destinies, we can now
>> properly interpret Rev 22:11, relying on a third principle of biblical
>> interpretation: passages of Scripture must be interpreted in context.
>> Through St John, Jesus begins Rev 22:10 with the command not to "seal
>> the words of the prophesy," which is a reversal (see 10:4 and Dan 8:26;
>> 12:4, 9), and then He gives the reason for the reversal in a phrase that
>> is the key to understanding v 11, "for the time is at hand," which means
>> that the message which follows is for the contemporary communities to
>> whom St John's Revelation is addressed. Therefore, the proper
>> interpretation of Rev 22:11 is that, at the time St John is writing to
>> those communities, some of their members are unable to repent--those who
>> still persist in their wickedness (see Is 6:9-10; Ezk 3:27; Dan 12:1-;
>> Mk 4:12)--but St John encourages the others--the "righteous"--to
>> remain steadfast because Divine recompense (Is 40:10; Jer 17:6) will be
>> visited on the earth soon (v 12). Maranatha--"Even so, come, Lord Jesus"
>> (v 20).

If you are happy living with that, then it's your decision. I will
continue to advise otherwise....it is, after all, my obligation to do so.

Fred

-- 
"Politicians and diapers need to be changed
regularly -- and for the same reason."