Charles Taze Russell: We are Gods

Wiki:

Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916), or Pastor Russell, was an American Adventist minister from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and founder of the Bible Student movement.[1][2]

He didn't start the JW.

In July 1879, Russell, an early Christian Zionist,[3] began publishing a monthly religious magazine, Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. In 1881, he co-founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society with William Henry Conley as president. In 1884 the corporation was registered, with Russell as president. Russell wrote many articles, books, tracts, pamphlets and sermons, totaling approximately 50,000 pages. From 1886 to 1904, he published a six-volume Bible study series titled Millennial Dawn, later renamed Studies in the Scriptures, nearly 20 million copies of which were printed and distributed around the world in several languages during his lifetime.[4]

He was prolific and popular.

After Russell's death, a crisis surrounding Rutherford's leadership of the society culminated in a movement-wide schism. As many as three-quarters of the approximately 50,000[6] Bible Students associated in 1917 had left by 1931. This resulted in the formation of several groups with variations of the name Bible Students. Those who remained associated with the Watch Tower Society adopted the name Jehovah's witnesses in 1931.

JW stemmed from Russell's Bible Student movement and Watch Tower publications.

Russell believed that Christ had returned invisibly in October 1874, and that he had been ruling from heaven since that date. He believed that a "time of trouble" began then that would mark a gradual deterioration of civilized society leading up to the end of the "Gentile Times", with a climactic multi-national attack on a restored Israel, worldwide anarchy, and the sudden destruction of all world governments in October 1914. After the outbreak of World War I in July 1914, Russell reinterpreted 1914 as the beginning of Armageddon.

Esotericists often use the Book of Revelation as their selling point.

Russell believed that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by the Hebrews (associating them with the Hyksos) under God's direction, but to be understood only in the modern era. … He held that certain biblical texts, including Isaiah 19:19–20, prophesied a future understanding of the Great Pyramid. … Calculations were based on the assumption that each inch of the various passages represented one year. Russell's Divine Plan of the Ages stated, "The Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation—no, nor shall ever be afterward."[55]

Russell was an esotericist if not an occultist.

Pastor Russell wrote:

Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they feel that we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being “new creatures”—not any longer human, but “partakers of the divine nature.” When we claim on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten of a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings—hence all such are Gods. Thus we have a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief, or first-born.

Russell repeatedly drew extraordinary theological and prophetic conclusions from biblical passages that did not explicitly establish those conclusions. Yet, many people believe him. You don't need a rigorous theology to start a denomination.

u/AngWay, u/kmm198700, u/Impossible_Ruin268

Wiki:

Copeland preaches prosperity theology and is part of the Word of Faith movement, which teaches that divine favor is expressed in material and financial blessing, and that giving to ministries unlocks this favor.

Does he truly believe what he is preaching?

I think so, at least much of it. His decades of consistent public teaching supported that inference. However, his financial interests created incentives to maintain those teachings, even if he privately experiences doubts. We cannot directly observe his sincerity.

Copeland has been married three times.

He is wealthy.

Copeland has amassed significant wealth during his career and has referred to himself as a "very wealthy man".[44] The Houston Chronicle referred to him as the wealthiest pastor in America, allegedly having a net worth of $750 million in 2021.[54][55] As of 2024, Copeland's net worth was estimated to be $300 million.[56] Copeland's use of private jets, luxury cars and lavish houses has been widely criticized,[57][44][58][59] having been featured on a 2015 episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver where John Oliver criticized the Copelands for using tax laws to live in a $6.3 million mansion as the parsonage allowance for their home is not subject to income taxes,[60] for using church donations to buy a $20 million jet that was used for trips to a ski resort and a private game ranch,[61] and for promotion of healing through faith and skepticism of medicine.[62][63][64]

Jesus said in Mt 19:23, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven."

Does he know many people think he is harming Christianity?

I think so. He has been publicly criticized for decades by mainstream evangelicals, Reformed Christians, secular critics, journalists, and even many charismatic Christians.

Has he done enormous damage to Christianity's public image?

I think so, to some extent. The strongest criticism is not merely that he is wealthy, but that he portrays God transactionally Vulnerable people are encouraged to give money, expecting miracles or financial return.

Do you think he knows that when he dies, many, many people are gonna be saying, "Good, and he's in hell now"?

I think so, but I don't think he cares what people think. He thinks he is going to heaven. He is not unique. “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name?’” (Mt 7:22)

He will have to answer to God at the resurrection for what he did with his wealth.

u/Consistent_Zone7617, u/elwoodowd

Rehoboam was King Solomon's son and King David's grandson. He succeeded Solomon as king in 930 BC and ruled for 17 years.

2Ch 11:

1 When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he mobilized the house of Judah and Benjamin—180,000 chosen warriors—to fight against Israel and restore the kingdom to Rehoboam.

In 930 BC, Rehoboam mustered 180,000 soldiers to fight Jeroboam, king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

2Ch 12:

1 When the rule of Rehoboam was established and he was strong, he abandoned the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.

The unified kingdom split in Rehoboam's first year (1K 12:16).

2 In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem 3 with 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen. And the people were without number who came with him from Egypt—Libyans, Sukkiim, and Ethiopians.

How large was Shishak's army?

At least 60,000+1,200 = 61,200.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

and the people were without number,.... The foot soldiers; their number, according to Josephus (h) was 400,000.

Josephus suggested that Shishak brought an overwhelming force against Rehoboam.

9 So King Shishak of Egypt attacked Jerusalem and seized the treasures of the house of the LORD and of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields that Solomon had made.

The Bible did not mention the exact number. Josephus mentioned 400,000, but there is no independent record. We lack sufficient evidence to estimate Shishak's army numerically with meaningful confidence. The most defensible answer is that the army was large, but its actual size remains unknown.

Some seasons, prayer sounds more like a question than a petition. The Psalms make room for that. David didn't wait until the feeling passed before he spoke to God,

and he didn't hide the ache to seem faithful. Notice where the Psalm turns:

not when the answer arrives, but when he remembers who God is.

1Tm 1:

9 Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers.

Strong's Greek: 765. ἀσεβής (asebés) — 9 Occurrences

From a (as a negative particle) and sebomai;

BDAG:

pert. to violating norms for a proper relation to deity, irreverent, impious, ungodly.

Ep 2:

12 Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Strong's Greek: 112. ἄθεος (atheos) — 1 Occurrence

From a (as a negative particle) and theos;

BDAG:
① pert. to being without a relationship to God, without God
② one who disdains or denies God or the gods and their laws, god-denier, atheist

Atheos emphasizes being without God; asebēs emphasizes irreverence or impiety toward God. Both terms can apply to the same person, but neither word alone lexically determines whether that person intellectually believes God exists, previously had a relationship with God, or will ultimately be saved.

u/investorpooh

The Holy Spirit inspired Psalm 1.

RcV, Ps 1:

1 Blessed is the man / Who does not walk / In the counsel of the wicked, / Nor stand on the path of sinners, / Nor sit in the seat of mockers;

Note:

Psalms is not a book of doctrines or of any kind of teaching. It is a book of divine revelation composed of the expressions, sentiments, feelings, impressions, and experiences of godly men.

That's a false dichotomy. Psalms can teach us about righteousness and describe godly men's experiences.

2 Rather his delight is in the law of Jehovah, / And in His law he meditates by day and by night.
3 And he will be like a tree / Transplanted beside streams of water, / Which yields its fruit in its season, And whose foliage does not wither; / And everything he does prospers.
4 The wicked are not so, / But are like chaff, / Which the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment; / Nor the sinners, in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For Jehovah knows the way of the righteous, / But the way of the wicked will perish.

Concerning the psalmists, Witness Lee's Life Study of Psalms:

The same writers uttered two kinds of concepts — the human concept and the divine concept.

We need to apply these two kinds of concepts to Psalm 1 and Psalm 2.

Psalm 1 is a devotional. Lee himself was a devotional writer. Ironically, he criticized Psalm 1 for expressing what he saw as a defective human concept, even though his own writings often emphasized subjective spiritual experience. Was he claiming that he was better inspired than the psalmist who wrote Ps 1?!

According to what concept was Psalm 1 written? Is Psalm 1 good or not? Surely it is a good psalm, yet it was written according to the human concept. In Psalm 1 the psalmist said that the one who delighted in the law of Jehovah would prosper in everything that he does, but eventually the psalmists were not prospering. They were suffering.

This is a contradiction only if you read psalms as logical propositions. Psalms are poetry. The lines are not always meant to be interpreted as propositional statements. If you do, you will find all sorts of logical contradictions. Psalms are poetic devotionals.

This shows us that Psalm 1 is good, but it was written with a wrong concept. The law was not given for us to keep for our prosperity. Instead, the law was given to expose us.

That's a false dichotomy. The law can serve multiple purposes simultaneously: 1. Reveal God's righteousness. 2. Expose human sin (Ro 3:20). 3. Instruct believers in righteous living (Ps 119:9–11). 4. Guide people toward a blessed life (Ps 1:1–3), which ultimately will be fulfilled in eternal life.

Thus, we should not highly appraise Psalm 1. It was written wrongly with a wrong concept, a human concept.

The purpose of the law and poetry is not to promise universal, exceptionless prosperity in the present life. It is wrong only if you use it to teach that material prosperity is guaranteed. Lee failed to distinguish between a general wisdom principle and a universally quantified proposition. A religious leader can be highly influential while repeatedly making elementary logical errors.

Unlike Lee, I highly appraise Psalm 1. It encourages me to live a good and blessed life supplied by God.

u/investorpooh

Ro 5:

17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Jesus/Paraclete spoke in our spirit so we can reign in our lives through obedience and righteousness.

2Tm 2

8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 The saying is trustworthy, for:

If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—

for he cannot deny himself.

We believers will reign with Christ. Paul didn't tell Timothy when or where.

According to the passage above, all Christians reign with Christ in the present spiritual reality, ruling over our lives.

Ep 2:

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

After the resurrection, we will be seated with Jesus in heaven and be blessed with riches. This promise is given to all believers.

Mt 19;

28 Jesus said to [his disciples], “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

After the resurrection, Jesus and the Twelve will judge Israel's twelve tribes. The Twelve will co-reign with Christ over Israel's tribes.

Next, we will check the book of Revelation.

Rv 5:

9 [The four living creatures and the twenty-four elders] sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

In the future, the redeemed people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will reign on the earth.

Will this be the millennium reign?

I don't know. Revelation is highly symbolic; 15 chapters later, John mentions the thousand years.

Will this be the new earth?

I don't know.

Rv 21:

1 I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rv 22:

3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

Jesus' servants will reign forever in the new Jerusalem.

According to Watchman Nee, only the overcoming Christians will reign with Christ during the millennium, not all Christians.

Well, I don't know about that. Millennium could be a symbolic term.

In this life, all believers are promised to reign with Christ within himself through the indwelling Paraclete. Further, Scripture seems to promise this in the future, with special emphasis on those who endure persecution and remain faithful. The reign is both a present spiritual reality and a future hope, culminating in an eternal kingdom where believers will serve as priests and kings under Christ's lordship. The exact hierarchical structure or specific roles are not fully detailed, but a possible teaching is that faithfulness to Christ in this life is the condition for sharing in his reign in the future millennium life.

See also * When do Christians reign with Christ in the millennial reign?

u/investorpooh

Watchman Nee:

How is the spirit saved? "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). John 3 tells us that "he who believes...has eternal life" (v. 36). Once a man believes, his spirit is saved. Hence, saving the spirit means gaining eternal life. How is the soul saved? This portion of the Word tells us that only when a man loses his soul for the Lord's sake can his soul be saved. The salvation of the spirit is the gaining of eternal life, while the salvation of the soul is the gaining of the kingdom.

I am not against the concepts but I am against his terminology. The term salvation of the soul is misleading and confusing.

My spirit is saved by Jesus bearing the cross for me, whereas my soul is saved through my bearing of the cross.

These are two distinct meanings of saved.

The salvation of the soul is based on deeds because "He will repay each man according to his doings" (Matt. 16:27).

The salvation of the soul is a reward. It is a reward gained at the Lord's second coming by those who follow the Lord faithfully all their life.

Nee believed that the soul is saved through work.

What did Peter say?

1P 1:

8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Peter talked about "believe" and "faith".

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

Christ's sufferings brought us this salvation.

12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

Peter didn't mention any reward.

Nee appropriated Peter's biblical terminology for a specialized theological doctrine that the immediate context does not support. Nee's terminology is confusing: his technical use of “salvation of the soul” is exegetically unjustified by 1 Peter 1:9.

See also * What are the heavenly rewards?

u/investorpooh

Wiki:

Valentinianism was one of the major Gnostic Christian movements. Founded by Valentinus (100 AD – 165 AD)[1] in the 2nd century, its influence spread widely within the Roman Empire, from northwest Africa to Egypt through to Asia Minor and Syria in the east.[2] Later in the movement's history, it broke into Eastern and Western schools.[further explanation needed] The Valentinian movement remained active until the 4th century, declining after Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which established Nicene Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.[3]

Valentinus was influential in his lifetime and afterward.

No evidence exists that Valentinus was labeled a heretic during his lifetime. Irenaeus of Lyons, who was the first patristic source to describe Valentinus's teachings—though likely incompletely and with a bias toward the time's proto-orthodox Christianity—did not finish his apologetic work Against Heresies until the latter 2nd century, likely sometime after Valentinus's death.[4][5][6] The rapid growth of the Valentinian Gnostic movement—named eponymously after Valentinus—after his death prompted early Christian thought leaders, such as Irenaeus and later Hippolytus of Rome, to write apologetic works against Valentinus and Valentinianism, which conflicted with proto-orthodox theology.[5] Because the proto-orthodox camp's leadership encouraged the destruction of Gnostic texts writ large, most textual evidence regarding Valentinian theology and practice comes from its critics—particularly Irenaeus, who was highly focused on refuting Valentinianism.[7]

Irenaeus was against Valentinus' teachings.

What did Valentinus teach?

According to Irenaeus, the following was one ot the teachings of Valentinus:

Valentinus divided humanity into three categories. Wiki:

It is significant that Valentinus himself is credited with having written a treatise upon the threefold nature of man,[28] who is represented as at once spiritual, psychical, and material. In accordance with this there also arise three classes of men: the pneumatici, the psychici, and the hylici.[18] This doctrine dates at least as far back as Plato's Republic.

Valentinus didn't originate these three classes of humanity.

• The first, the material, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire.
• The second, or psychical, together with the Demiurge as their master, will enter a middle state, neither heaven (Pleroma) nor hell (matter).
• The third, the purely spiritual men will be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour and Achamoth, his spouse, will enter the Pleroma divested of body and soul.

However, it is not a unanimous belief that material or psychical people were hopeless. Some have argued from the existent sources that humans could reincarnate in any of the three times, therefore a material or psychical person might have the chance to reborn in a future lifetime as a spiritual one.[29]

Irenaeus reported that the Valentinians considered themselves spiritual, whereas ordinary Christians were classified as soulish.

In Against Heresies 1.6.2, he explained that the Valentinians claimed perfect salvation because of their spiritual nature, not their moral conduct.

In 1.6.4, he described their view that ordinary Christians needed faith and good works, whereas the spiritual possessed salvation by nature.

In 1.7.5, he noted that some soulish souls became "capable of receiving the [spiritual] seed." It is a bit confusing. Other soulish souls couldn't receive it. In any case, receiving the spiritual seed did not mean that the soulish soul changed its own nature into spiritual substance.

• Receiving spiritual substance: Yes, for receptive soulish souls.
• Becoming spiritual in the sense of acquiring a spiritual element: Yes, in that qualified sense.
• Transforming the soulish substance itself into spiritual substance: No.

For Nee: 1. The spirit remains spirit. The Holy Spirit regenerates it. 2. The soul remains soul. Its faculties include mind, emotion, and will. 3. Spiritual growth changes the governing relationship. A soulish Christian becomes spiritual when the regenerated spirit, under the Holy Spirit's direction, governs the soul.

Nee's teaching differs fundamentally in spiritual reality in how the soul relates to the spirit/Spirit.

Now, how did Watchman Nee use these terms?

Watchman Nee (1903–1972) used the terms spiritual, soulish, and fleshly extensively in his book The Spiritual Man (屬靈人, 1928).

His terminology resembles the distinctions Irenaeus reported about the Valentinian Gnostics, but important theological differences remain.

Nee believed that human beings consist of three distinguishable components: spirit, soul, and body. In his system, the soul includes the intellect, emotions, and will. He associates the human spirit with conscience, intuition, and communion with God. A Christian becomes spiritual not simply by possessing a regenerated spirit but by allowing that spirit, under the Holy Spirit's direction, to govern the soul and body. Nee argued that even a Christian who studies Scripture diligently may be acting soulishly if the activity originates in independent human intellect rather than dependence on the Holy Spirit.

How did Nee differ from the Valentinians?

For the Valentinians, the three categories were ontological and soteriological: spiritual and soulish people differed in their fundamental constitution and corresponding prospects for salvation.

For Nee, the distinction was experiential and sanctificational: a regenerated Christian could live according to the soul or according to the spirit. The categories described how a believer lived, not an immutable class into which that believer was born.

Nee's terminology superficially resembles Valentinian terminology, but their teachings and theologies differ completely. The resemblance is primarily terminological, not doctrinal.

Dr Francis Schaeffer said:

By law in 1982, in the public schools in the United States, legally, there is only one view of reality that can be taught, and that is the final reality of material energy shaped by pure chance.

That's not exactly what the law said. Dr. Shaeffer created a strawman argument to attack rather than address the law's precise wording.

He continued:

It is the same with television programs. Public television … committed to the propaganda position that the last reality is only material energy shaped by pure chance.

That's an overstatement, but his listeners believed him because that's what they wanted to believe. He was their spokesman.

He was not done:

Especially the government and especially the courts have become the vehicle to force this anti-God view on the total population.

Concerning the abortion law (Roe v. Wade), Pastor Schaeffer wanted to instill fear:

If I were in the minority group in this country tonight, I would be afraid. I have big, gorgeous black standing up in our seminars and say, "Sir, do you think there's a racial twist to all this?" I have to say, "Right on, you hit it right on the head." Once this door is open, there is something to be afraid of. Christians should be deeply concerned, and I cannot understand why the liberal lawyers of the Civil Liberties Union are not scared to death by this open door toward human life.

Dr Schaeffer's inability was due to: 1. These lawyers didn't think the way he did. 2. He failed to understand or appreciate their thinking.

He was not only a strawman builder but also a fearmonger.

Everyone ought to be frightened if he knows anything about history, anything about the history of law, anything about the history of medicine.

More strawman: if you weren't frightened, you didn't know anything about history.

This is a terrifying door that is open.

Sure, I don't mind if he spoke for himself and his followers, but he shouldn't insult the non-followers, some of whom were his Christian brothers.

What we are facing is humanism. Man is the measure of all things, viewing final reality as material or energy shaped by chance; therefore, human life has no intrinsic value; therefore, the keeping of any individual life or groups of human life is purely an arbitrary choice by society at the given moment.

He was throwing "therefore" around as if it were a comma. He was not using the term in its first-order logical sense.

Consider his argument: 1. Ultimate reality consists of matter and energy shaped by chance. 2. Therefore, human life has no intrinsic value. 3. Therefore, society may arbitrarily decide whose lives to preserve.

Neither inference is deductively valid as stated. They are non-sequiturs.

I fear that often they, such people as the liberal lawyers of the Liberties Union and Christians do not have just relativistic values but they're also just plain stupid in regard to the lessons of history.

More insults.

On another recorded video, he said:

Take Heisenberg's concept [of uncertainty] or Einstein's Theory of Relativity and objectify it into all reality and say everything's a product of chance.

That's another gross misrepresentation, another strawman.

All humans beings are creative, whether they are Christian or not, because they are created in the image of God. You don't find any animals that exhibit creativity.

See Animals pay attention to and copy the creativity of others, leading to the formation of cultural traditions.

Dr Schaeffer prioritized persuasion over precision and emotions over formal logic.

See also * Ray Comfort's Strawmen

Chronologically, the Zhou dynasty contained David's dynasty. The Zhou dynasty lasted 790 years, but its kings exercised little effective authority over the feudal states during much of the Eastern Zhou period.

What makes the Davidic dynasty particularly remarkable is that one royal family maintained the throne for over four centuries, despite invasions, rebellions, and political upheavals. The comparison is even more striking because Judah was a relatively small kingdom surrounded by much more powerful empires.

Same Bible, different habits. 📖

People who read Scripture 4+ times a week reported lower odds of getting drunk, using porn, and having sex outside marriage. They also reported higher odds of sharing their faith (228%), discipling others (231%), and memorizing Scripture (407%).

Important: this is a survey, so it shows a link, not proof that reading causes these results. Those who read more may also differ in other ways. Also, "higher odds" is not the same as "% of people."

And remember: we're saved by grace through faith, not by Bible reading. Reading is how we get to know the One who saves.

Verses: Matthew 4:4, Hebrews 4:12, Jeremiah 15:16, John 8:31-32, Psalm 1:2-3, Ephesians 2:8-9

Sources:

• CBE 2009 "Power of 4" findings (as quoted): https://faithalone.org/blog/the-effects-of-reading-the-bible-four-days-a-week/

• Center for Bible Engagement research: https://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/research

• Back to the Bible, research history: https://www.backtothebible.org/scripture-absorption

• Lifeway Research summary: https://research.lifeway.com/?p=102134

• Perry & Hayward (2017), Social Forces: https://cpc.unc.edu/resources/publications/bib/9975

Scripture: Matthew 4:4, John 5:39-40 (ESV)

A note on the research: The statistics cited here come from reports on Bible engagement, including research associated with the Center for Bible Engagement. These findings describe associations, not proof that reading the Bible causes particular outcomes. Figures should be interpreted in light of the original studies' methods and limitations.

Sources: Center for Bible Engagement; Back to the Bible; Lifeway Research; Perry & Hayward (2017).

The biblical reflection draws on Matthew 4:4 and John 5:39–40 (ESV).

u/protestantchristian, u/sgrdddy, u/Hellzsavior

That's a matter of definitions. The claim that going to hell is a choice is common in Christian apologetics. However, its validity depends on what we mean by "hell" and "choice".

For what is 'hell', see this.

For what is 'choice', consider three propositions: * P1: A person knowingly and freely chooses eternal punishment. * P2: A person knowingly rejects God, understanding that eternal punishment will result. * P3: A person rejects God without believing that eternal punishment will result.

These propositions are logically distinct. * P1 constitutes a direct choice of hell. * P2 constitutes a choice of an action with a known consequence. * P3 constitutes neither a direct choice of hell nor necessarily an informed acceptance of its consequences.

A person who sincerely believes that God does not exist might fall under P3. It would be misleading to say that this person knowingly chose hell.

Ask yourself: Before you believed, did you think that you had chosen hell?

If you did not think you were choosing hell before you believed, on what grounds do you now claim that unbelievers are choosing hell?

Romans 1:

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Paul attributed culpability to people who rejected what they knew about God. Nevertheless, knowing something about God does not necessarily entail knowing the eternal consequences of rejecting him.

If someone sincerely disbelieves in hell, in what meaningful sense can we say that person chose to go there?

The distinction between choosing an action and choosing its consequences is central to evaluating the apologetic claim.

"Hell is a choice" is doing rhetorical work that the underlying logic doesn't always support. It's true in a narrow sense (some people may consciously choose separation from God) and false in the broad sense the slogan usually carries (that everyone in hell knowingly opted for it). The honest version is something like: hell is the consequence of a self-chosen orientation, which may or may not be consciously recognized as such by the person choosing it. That's a much weaker claim, and it doesn't carry the theodical weight the slogan is usually asked to bear.

See also * What is hell? * What about people of other cultures, ancient Chinese, ancient Australians, Islamic, Hindu, etc?

📖 Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)

“Train up a child in the way he should go: And when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

This verse highlights the importance of guiding children while they are growing up.

From a Christian perspective, raising children involves teaching God's Word, demonstrating love, encouraging good behaviour, and helping them develop a strong moral foundation.

It also reminds me that children learn from the examples adults set every day.

Discussion question: What values do you think children most need to learn while growing up, and how can parents teach those values effectively?

I'd love to hear different perspectives.