The Ghastly Eternal Torment Dogma

[FineLinen]

|
This is not chastisement----it is judgment.

Have it how you will. His chastisement as dearest Daddy is change and transformation yielding to the peaceable fruits of righteousness.

His judgments are LIFE

 

[FineLinen]

Ok, so everyone gets transformed automatically....

Nope! Welcome to the Theos Equation.

The many were made sinners >>>The many are made righteous.

 

[nolidad]

Yes. That's good. Maybe I can straighten you out on a few things. You have much to learn grasshopper.

Well yu can try- but make your arguments strong biblically.

I have always said I am willing to change what I believe if someone can give me a better argument from Scripture. I have changed many times over my 45 years of walking with the Lord, but that is bercause of powerful biblical arguments and not rational or philosophical arguments.

 

[Saint Steven]

|
This is not chastisement----it is judgment.

People seem to forget that judgment is not an end in itself. It works toward a verdict. And if a sentence is delivered, rather than mercy, even then it is intended to be corrective, not destructive.

 

[Saint Steven]

yes, you universalists did, the word 'All', remember?

All is defined as everyone and everything, not "unconditionally and unequivocally".
Conditions will definitely apply.

And honestly, you should ask polite questions rather than throwing false accusations.

Saint Steven said: ↑
No.

No one said anything about "unconditionally and unequivocally".

 

[mmksparbud]

People seem to forget that judgment is not an end in itself. It works toward a verdict. And if a sentence is delivered, rather than mercy, even then it is intended to be corrective, not destructive.

There is nothing to correct in the final judgment. Their decisions have been made. It is to end sin, period, not to correct. All sin is done away with which means all sinners who have refused the call of the Lord. It is destructive of sin.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well yu can try- but make your arguments strong biblically.

I have always said I am willing to change what I believe if someone can give me a better argument from Scripture. I have changed many times over my 45 years of walking with the Lord, but that is bercause of powerful biblical arguments and not rational or philosophical arguments.

The Bible is a Damnationist biased text.
It would be like me trying to prove a theory of trigonometry with an algebra book.
Not sure if that analogy works or not.

 

[nolidad]

You need to bear in mind that he is covering all three views of the final judgment in these teachings. He doesn't reveal his position until the very end.
- Damnationism
- Annihilationism
- Restorationism

Well listened to part two!

He makes no position of his belief, but if I were to guess, I would say he is a strong universalist or restorationist.

His defense of restorationism is loaded with logical fallacies, appeal to emotion , and partial text reading.

If a person can be restored in the lake of fire then these two verses are lies:

John 3:36 King James Version (KJV)
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Key words are SHALL NOT see ZOE. As fine linen loves to point out zoe is a quality of life and they shall not see it.

and Abideth is "meno" which means remains on them.

not is "ou" and is a disjunctive participle which means a choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.

That alone should be enough to convince anybody. If they seek to be faithful to the word.

But another:

Hebrews 9:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

As wqe have discussed this we need not again.

And another:

Revelation 14:11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

They are tormented ages upon ages( which is a linguistic way of saying without time)

So far all the arguments Braxey used are appeals to emotion, logical fallacies, partial context readings, or citing th eneed in this life and saying it COULD happen in the next! Or saying we haven't been shown from god.

But another passage.

Luke 16:20-31 Lazarus and the rich man. This is not a parable for many reasons. It also conforms to the thought of Israel (with the exception of the Sadducee) about saved going to paradise and th elost to the place of torment known as hades/sheol.

YOu must remember it wasn't until the time of Kng David that the thought of eternity became known to Israel by God.

 

[nolidad]

Thanks. That doesn't sound like a forced confession to me. Thus proving my point. Right? (whole-heartedly and without reservation)

Saint Steven said: ↑
I gave you the definition from Strong's.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Will certainly sounds like all are required! Can or might are optionals.

All of Damnationism will have to answer for their character assassination of our loving Father. Fortunately for them, it will only mean more time in the hot tub, not the eternal torment they accuse God of.

So you think damnationists are not saved now? WOW!

The Bible is a Damnationist biased text.
It would be like me trying to prove a theory of trigonometry with an algebra book.
Not sure if that analogy works or not.

Did you look at what you just wrote???????????????????????????????????????????????????
GODS INSPIRED WORD IS BIASED TOWARDS ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!!

So God inspired eternal damnation and you have a problem with God doing that! I know I would prefer restorationsim with all my heart. The thought of someone being tormented forever for rejecting Christ is a very scary thought! But I have to let the Word speak without my bias to form doctrine.

 

[nolidad]

I think he was trying to speak on a level that you could understand. - lol

I hope you have a sense of humor.

Huge sense of humour. Don Rickles was a her of mine so I can fling alot of sarcastic humor. Just need to make sure one is kidding so I can laugh and not be aghast that they are trying to promulgate false doctrine.

Not everyone agrees on what the Bible says. Who's right?
You and I don't agree on the three doctrines of the final judgment. You assume you are right and everyone else is wrong. I say there are three views, take your pick.

Saint Steven said: ↑
So, who gets to choose which is right and wrong? And what does that mean for everyone else?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Will it support two opposing views? Like Calvinism and Arminianism? Or grace versus works? Or OSAS versus anti-OSAS?

People can make the bible say anything it wants. But the Bible only supports on eview! Gods! Do I believe that all I believe is right? Absolutely! Does that make it right because I belive it is? NO! But because it is Scripture. As I said earlier, I am open to change a view, but it has to present a stringer biblical argument.

Braxey, when quoting Darwin showed a real truth. Darwin said that the Bible if read and understood in its plain sense declares eternal torment.

 

[nolidad]

These are not mindless word games flowing from our Abba or some/tis of us. In fact Noli, these are serious declarations of whose head we lean our head upon.

My Father, upon whose breast has been constant love and comfort for 63 years is not, I repeat NOT, tormenting His creation EVER!

You, and those polus who think Abba does, will know shame that is of the charts.

No the word games come from you!

But I tire of you and your pseudo pious way of writing. I can wait to let God show His Word to be true without having to gerrymander the meanings.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is nothing to correct in the final judgment.

If there is nothing to correct in the final judgment, then there is nothing to correct in the first judgment. That seems ridiculous, right? Oh course there is something to correct in the final judgment. All that was not corrected earlier.

 

[Saint Steven]

Braxey, when quoting Darwin showed a real truth. Darwin said that the Bible if read and understood in its plain sense declares eternal torment.

Due to the obvious bias.
The scriptures I quote seem like an anomaly in comparison. But they are still scripture and say what they say.

 

[Saint Steven]

He makes no position of his belief, but if I were to guess, I would say he is a strong universalist or restorationist.

Here's a shocker.
In the Q&A at the end he reveals that he is an Annihilationist. But a very sympathetic Restorationist. (only a matter of time, I would say)

 

[Saint Steven]

Well listened to part two!

He makes no position of his belief, but if I were to guess, I would say he is a strong universalist or restorationist.

His defense of restorationism is loaded with logical fallacies, appeal to emotion , and partial text reading.

If a person can be restored in the lake of fire then these two verses are lies:

John 3:36 King James Version (KJV)
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Key words are SHALL NOT see ZOE. As fine linen loves to point out zoe is a quality of life and they shall not see it.

and Abideth is "meno" which means remains on them.

not is "ou" and is a disjunctive participle which means a choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.

That alone should be enough to convince anybody. If they seek to be faithful to the word.

But another:

Hebrews 9:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

As wqe have discussed this we need not again.

And another:

Revelation 14:11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

They are tormented ages upon ages( which is a linguistic way of saying without time)

So far all the arguments Braxey used are appeals to emotion, logical fallacies, partial context readings, or citing th eneed in this life and saying it COULD happen in the next! Or saying we haven't been shown from god.

But another passage.

Luke 16:20-31 Lazarus and the rich man. This is not a parable for many reasons. It also conforms to the thought of Israel (with the exception of the Sadducee) about saved going to paradise and th elost to the place of torment known as hades/sheol.

YOu must remember it wasn't until the time of Kng David that the thought of eternity became known to Israel by God.

You shared with us that you have changed your views over the years, but then you state your current view as absolute. Why is that?

 

[mmksparbud]

Have it how you will. His chastisement as dearest Daddy is change and transformation yielding to the peaceable fruits of righteousness.

His judgments are LIFE

From the beginning it was known what going against the commands of God meant.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam and Eve were told what God did not want them to do. Obedience what was needed. The listened to the snake who said they would not die. It was a lie then and is a lie still. When we disobey Good, we stand as rebellious against His sovereignty over us. Those who do not believe He has the right to administer His justice as He see fit, then stand in opposition to His supremacy. I don't come on here to debate you---just to present the bible truth. His judgment is final.

 

[Saint Steven]

Will certainly sounds like all are required! Can or might are optionals.

Based on what?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Thanks. That doesn't sound like a forced confession to me. Thus proving my point. Right? (whole-heartedly and without reservation)

Saint Steven said: ↑
I gave you the definition from Strong's.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

 

[Saint Steven]

So you think damnationists are not saved now? WOW!

I didn't say that. Jesus said we will ALL be salted with fire.

Saint Steven said: ↑
All of Damnationism will have to answer for their character assassination of our loving Father. Fortunately for them, it will only mean more time in the hot tub, not the eternal torment they accuse God of.

 

[mmksparbud]

If there is nothing to correct in the final judgment, then there is nothing to correct in the first judgment. That seems ridiculous, right? Oh course there is something to correct in the final judgment. All that was not corrected earlier.

No---Judgment is final for both sides. When Jesus returns, He comes for the saved first. Their judgment is set, they get eternal life with Him. That is the first resurrection. When the lost are resurrectred---the second resurrection, their judgment is set also, they get the 2nd death. Before Jesus comes both are determined and set as final decisions.

Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Again---0there is nothing to correct.

 

[DNB]

Nope! Welcome to the Theos Equation.

The many were made sinners >>>The many are made righteous.

I think that there is a much more profound principle at work in God's wisdom.
Too much death, too much sorrow, ...institution of the Levitical Law, Jesus tortured and crucified for our sins, too many risking their lives and dying for the sake of the Gospel.
I don't think that your Theos Equation computes correctly?